Methodology for Determining Simple Probability of Russ Long Heat Map

The heat map (above) was originally generated in July of 2022 as part of the Get Out the Vote (GOTV) efforts prior to the November 2022 General Election efforts. After publication of the research identifying the 121 polls undersupplied ballot paper, by Mr. Jeremy Rogalski at KHOU11 (January 2023), those coordinates were overlaid onto the Republican heat map. The immediate question became “what is the probability this pattern occurred by chance?”

To determine the mathematical probability that 111 polling locations out of 121 were within historic Republican areas, the binomial distribution function was employed. In statistics other methods can be used, but the binomial distribution is among the simplest of probability calculations, typically used for Boolean (binary) problems such as coin toss, yes/no, on/off, etc. In this case, the Republican heat map compared to the 121 undersupplied polls, were either inside the red zone or outside of the red zone. Reduced to a simple binary, those polls are either in or out.

The formula for the binomial distribution function is:

P(X = k) = (n choose k) * p^k * (1-p)^(n-k) where:

P(X = k) is the probability of getting exactly k successes n is the total number of trials p is the probability of success in a single trial

(n choose k) is the binomial coefficient, which gives the number of ways to choose k items out of a total of n items

In this case, we have n = 121 undersupplied polls, p = 1/2 (or a 50%/50%) for a fair in/out likelihood, and we want to find the probability of getting k = 111 inside the red Republican area:

P(X = 111) = (121 choose 111) * (1/2)^111 * (1/2)^(121-111)

Therefore, after these calculations are performed, we find:

P(X = 111) ≈ 0.0000021

So, in conclusion, the probability of getting 111 under supplied polls inside Republican areas, out of the identified total of 121 “in/out” possibilities, in a fair distribution is very low, about 0.00021%. Two ten-thousands is far, far less than 1%.

Mr. Long’s background:

Marine Project Manager/Heavy Marine Construction Risk Manager

• Total of 25 years ($3.5 Billion capex) of international construction and Project/Risk management experience.

• 4 Years ($3.2 Billion capex) as Atwood Oceanics Newbuilds Risk Manager on 7 rigs –in- three (3) Asian shipyards,

• Risk Manager for four (4) large scale ($2.5 Billion capex) heavy construction projects in Asian shipyards.

• Risk Manager for three (3) medium scale ($570 Million capex) heavy construction projects in Asian shipyards.

• 10.5 Years ($187.5 Million capex) as Project Manager at Atwood Oceanics, on four (4) major shipyard projects.

• 8 Years ($72 Million USD) as General Manager of DrilPro-Houston, managed 144 heavy construction projects.

Mr. Long has been a precinct chair since October of 2019, and a presiding judge since the primary election of 2020.

William Ely (live)

20715 Orange Poppy Dr

Cypress, Texas 77433 wisely118@gmail.com

(832) 919-4999

Mr. Ely has been an election judge, election clerk, and a precinct chair for the past six (6) years in Harris County. He is also a current member of the HCRP Ballot Security Committee. He is an account executive for a large software company. Using his experience and expertise with Excel, Mr. Ely took the data from an export from the Provisional Ballot Analysis tables and converted them into pivot tables for further analysis. He has knowledge of that information, process, findings and conclusions from that analysis. He is a non-retained expert on these subjects.

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Summary of Non-Retained Expert Opinions:

Based upon our review and analysis of the Provisional Ballot Affidavits, the following facts, observations, and conclusions are hereby made in support of Contestant Erin Lunceford’s election contest and request for a new election:

1. Harris County has produced a grand total of 6,355 Provisional Ballot Affidavits (“PBAs”) to us. These documents contain redactions. Our review and observations stated herein are made without the benefit of the information which was redacted, and we reserve the right to revise and amend these disclosures should such redacted information be disclosed.

2. Out of the grand total of 6,355 PBAs produced, 45 PBAs are either marked as “void,” were duplicates, or do not reflect any action being taken by the Early Voting Ballot Board, or both, meaning these specific PBAs were neither “accepted” nor “rejected,” and, presumably, none of these provisional ballots (“PBs”) contained inside the PBA envelopes are included in the final canvass totals reported by Harris County. Thus, instead of the total universe of PBAs which were either accepted or rejected equaling 6,355, which is the total number of PBAs produced by Harris County, it appears that the actual count of PBAs (at least to the extent of what Harris County has produced to us, and further assuming all PBAs in existence have been produced to us) is 6,310. Accordingly, our analysis below extends to this revised grand total of 6,310 PBAs rather than 6,355 PBAs.

3. There is some doubt as to whether 6,310 is an accurate count of the global universe of PBAs that were either accepted or rejected by the Early Voting Ballot Board in this election. Based upon our review of the actual PBAs which were produced, that number appears to be correct, once you deduct the 45 PBAs referenced above. But that number does not tie to any of the numbers issued by Harris County. For example, according to the postelection report by the Harris County EA’s Office, the total amount of PBs accepted and rejected is supposedly 6,302. But this count is not the same as the count from the actual PBA production sent by Harris County to us, even though these counts should be the same. Because one PB is supposed to be inside of one PBA envelope, a one-to-one correlation should exist between PBAs and PBs either accepted or rejected.

4. To make the numbers even more confusing, Harris County also reports the total number of PBs accepted as 4,538 and the total number of PBAs rejected as 1,764. The summation of these two numbers is 6,302, which does not match the totals reflected by the PBAs produced to us by Harris County.

5. Of the 4,538 PBs which were accepted, Harris County reports that 205 of these PBAs did not have an actual PB inside the PBA envelope. This fact should not impact how many PBAs were accepted, but it does affect how many accepted PBs are actually in the canvassed totals for PBs. Thus, the revised count of PBs actually accepted and counted should be 4,538 minus 205, for a reduced total of 4,333 PBs, which is what Harris County has reported in is post-election report. However, the 205 missing PBs raise a concern as to whether those PB votes are mistakenly included in the canvassed totals as regular ballots or not. This could be explained in at least two ways. First, if an election official at a polling site on either Early Voting or Election Day Voting provided a provisional voter with a regular ballot by mistake, then that regular ballot is capable of being scanned at the specific polling location and, if scanned, is electronically captured, and recorded on a V-Drive. In that situation, a PB vote is not recorded as a PB vote, but is added to the total of the regular ballot count. Provisional Ballots are given a unique ballot code, which is distinct from the ballot code provided on a regular ballot. If the correct ballot code is given, then the scanner will not accept the PB and it will not be electronically captured and recorded on a VDrive. Conversely, if the incorrect ballot code is given, then the scanner will accept the PB as if it were a regular ballot, and that ballot will be electronically captured and recorded on a V-Drive. Second, the same is true for the Emergency Chute. If a PB is placed in the Emergency Chute with the correct ballot code, then any scanning attempt at Central Count would be rejected, but if a PB is placed in the Emergency Chute with the incorrect ballot code, then such PB would be interpreted as a regular ballot and is capable of being scanned and electronically captured and recorded on a VDrive.

6. According to Harris County, out of 4,538 PBAs accepted, 4,333 are actually in the PB vote totals, due to the fact that they are missing 205 PBs from PBAs noted above. There is no feasible way to determine what happened to the missing PBs. The fact that there are 205 missing PBs is a cause for concern, and makes it difficult to ascertain the impact of either the Contestant or the Contestee. It is unknown at this time whether Harris County is able to specify which PBA accepted for counting had no PB inside of that specific PBA envelope. Although this discrepancy will not impact our team’s analysis of PBs that must be rejected but were not (because obviously none of the 205 missing PBs are included in the number of PBs rejected, because those PBA envelopes would never have been opened but for a prior determination that those specific PBAs should be accepted for counting), those missing 205 PBs could have impacted the overall final canvassing numbers as described above.

7. As will be explained below, and as will be shown in even more significant detail by the attached spreadsheet and summary observations, Contestant’s review team identified whether each specific PBA produced by Harris County raised a potential instance of a PB being counted which legally was not entitled to be counted. The attached excel spreadsheet reflects the review teams’ analysis of each specific PBA. The summary chart on the left side of the page reflects our teams’ findings and, because one PBA may suffer from more than one noted deficiency, the totals in the chart on the left side of the summary page denote the summation of all deficiencies, rather than the actual count of PBs accepted that should have been rejected.

8. The summary chart in the middle of the same page eliminates duplications listed in the summary chart on the left side of the same page. This summary chart demonstrates the total number of PBAs that were accepted for counting that should have been rejected instead. The grand total for all categories in this analysis is 3,423. This number represents our team’s evaluation of the total number of accepted PBAs that have been included in the final canvass numbers, but which, according to our analysis, should have been rejected and are not entitled to remain in the count of accepted PBs. This analysis, however, is not yet tied to how Contestant Lunceford’s race is impacted.

9. In order to particularize the above-refenced PBA analysis to Contestant Lunceford’s race, the next phase of the PBA analysis requires a breakdown of PBs cast after 7pm due to court order from all other PBAs cast for other reasons. Our team did so by counting the total number of PBAs which checked box 5, which is the box for extended voting by court order. But, in our review of the actual PBAs, oftentimes Box 5 was not checked, and Box 8, which is a catch-all “other” or “miscellaneous” category, would often state that the PB vote was being cast as a result of extended voting by court order. It is unclear whether Harris County added these two categories together in their segregated PB canvass report for PBs cast after 7pm due to court order. But, in any event, our team summed up those two categories. Thus, in order to segregate PBs cast after 7pm due to court order from all other PBs, our team subtracted 2,213 from the grand total of 3,423, which leaves a difference of 1,210 This means that there are 1,210 PBs in the final canvass results which were accepted for voting that should have been rejected, based upon our analysis. If the Court agrees, then Contestant Lunceford’s purported deficit would be reduced by 1,210 votes.

10. The final phase of our PBA analysis requires a determination of how many PBs were cast and counted after 7pm due to court order in the specific race for the 189th Civil District Court of Harris County, Texas. According to the final canvass, a grand total of such PBs in this specific race was 2,073. This number makes no sense, as it does not equal the totals calculated by our team (which was 2,213), nor does it equal the totals calculated by Harris County in their post-election report (which was 1,999, calculated by subtracting 205 missing PBs from 2,204, which is the total listed in that report), which means that the total number of PBs reported in the final canvass as having been cast and counted in Contestant Lunceford’s race is less than the total number of PBs cast and counted in general This discrepancy is a concern, as these two numbers should be the same, with the only difference being the number of undervotes in that specific race. Thus, it is unclear whether 2,073 is a reliable number. In addition, the segregated final canvass report issued by Harris County specifically refers to Box number 5, but, as explained before, there are many PBAs that did not check Box number 5, but checked Box 8 instead. It is unclear whether the 2,073 reported PB accepted ballots includes those Box 8 PBAs. In any event, of 2,073 reportedly cast, 104 PB voters did not vote in Contestant Lunceford’s specific race, meaning that the adjusted grand total of PBs accepted and counted is 1,969. According to that same canvass, of the 1,969 total, 822 PBs were cast and counted for Contestant Lunceford and 1,147 PBs were cast and counted for Contestee Craft. If you compare how those specific PB votes were cast, Contestant Lunceford received 325 fewer votes than did Contestee Craft from this one specific category of PB votes.

11. Ordinarily, there is no technological basis to determine which candidate in a specific race received a vote from a PB voter whose vote was cast and counted. The reason for this is that, once the Early Voting Ballot Board has accepted a PB ballot, all such accepted PBAs are then transferred to the Harris County EA’s office for actual counting. EA Staff then open the accepted PBA envelopes, remove the PB, and then scan those ballots so that they are electronically recorded into the V-Drive. Once scanned, the PB votes become part of the vote totals, but there is no tracking system to be able to connect which candidate received a vote from which specific PB voter. Thus, it is not feasible for the Court to declare the outcome of these PB votes.

12. In this election, there is one notable exception to what is described above. The Texas Supreme Court issued a stay on November 8, 2022, and ordered that Harris County segregate all PBs cast and counted after 7pm by court order from the rest of the PBs. This resulted in Harris County reporting in the final canvass results the actual breakdown, by candidate, of how PB voters voted, if such voters cast PBs after 7pm by court order. Thus, although ordinarily it would not be possible to do so, in this election, we have been told by Harris County in the final canvass totals that Contestant Lunceford received 822 PBs cast after 7pm by court order, while Contestee Craft received 1,147. As our analysis assumes, and which is explained below, all of the PBs cast after 7pm by court order should have been rejected, irrespective of whether a cast PB was for Contestant or Contestee. After doing so, Contestant Lunceford’s purported margin of defeat is reduced by 325 votes.

13. These reasons for why all PBs cast after 7pm by court order should be removed from the count include the fact that the evidence before the Trial Court on Election Day was legally and factually insufficient to empower that Judge to enter an order permitting after hours voting. For example, the declarations attached to the emergency lawsuit in support of a request for an emergency temporary restraining order lacked information required to be disclosed, such as dates of birth and addresses for the declarant, in order to satisfy the statutory requirements for a declaration to be valid under Section 132.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In addition, the Trial Judge recognized these fatal deficiencies, and asked the plaintiffs if they could bring any witnesses to the emergency hearing to testify. Next, the Trial Court improperly heard and accepted oral testimony, which is not allowed in a temporary restraining order situation, as the decision whether to grant or deny such relief is confined to the actual paperwork on file and before the Court. Moreover, it was established at the emergency hearing that if the polls are to kept open after 7:00 pm, the law requires that 100% of the polling locations are required to extend their hours, rather than just a subset of polling locations. And, given the fact that at least twenty (20) polling locations had run out of paper, then, by definition, extending voting for an additional hour past 7pm would not apply to 100% of the polling locations, and would only serve to exacerbate, rather than mitigate, the problems associated with not having ballot paper on hand to permit voters to vote after 7pm. Further, the Texas Supreme Court issued a stay on Election Day, and also issued an additional order mandating how this subset of PBs should be segregated and reported separately in the final canvass report.

14. Beyond the problem of PBs cast after 7pm due to court order, our analysis demonstrates that a total of 1,210 PBs that were cast and counted but should have been rejected instead. Unlike the anomaly of being able to tie PBs to a specific candidate by virtue of the aforementioned Texas Supreme Court’s issuance of a stay and their subsequent order regarding how the canvassing results should be reported, none of these PBs can be connected to either Contestant or Contestee. Thus, it is not possible to ascertain the impact of these 1,210 on the purported vote totals for the Contestant or Contestee. The number of PBs in each distinct category is reflected in our spreadsheet, and is likewise reflected in our summary observations as well.

Steve Carlin (live)

21130 Park Brook Dr

Katy, Texas 77450 steve.carlin@comcast.net

(713) 492-3419

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Summary of Non-Retained Expert Opinions:

Mr. Carlin is responsible for the overall management of the volunteer project of analyzing and cataloguing all of the metadata for both the Provisional Ballot Affidavits and the Statements of Residence. He also took that data and then augmented that data with the National Change of Address database for the United States Postal Service. All of his work product and background materials and analysis have been produced contemporaneously herein. Mr. Carlin used Microsoft SharePoint, which is an off-the-shelf software platform for Microsoft Teams. He created a PDF file for each document, and then created a document library for all of the Provisional Ballot Affidavits and Statements of Residence. Then he created various fields embodied in a data entry form, so that the various volunteers could input the data. Once all of the metadata was entered, Mr. Carlin created the equivalent of an Excel pivot table by using Microsoft Power BI (Business Intelligence). Thereafter, Mr. Carlin also compared the Harris County Official Voter Roster for the November 8, 2022 General Election to the National Change of Address databank for the United States Post Office, the latter of which designates a residence into three categories, namely, “active,” “historical,” and “current.” The results of all of this analysis are described in great detail in the documents produced today. He is a non-retained expert on these subjects. He is a non-retained expert on the subject of modern business platforms, business process automation and business intelligence reporting.” Mr. Carlin used the Microsoft 365 Business Platform exclusively to support the needs of this project to demonstrate his expertise.

Mr. Carlin has 30 years of experience with a wide range of information technologies in technical, technical sales, and consulting for small, medium, and large enterprises. This includes helping companies design, evaluate vendor solutions, and oversee the implementation of business and management information reporting (aka Business Intelligence or BI) systems. Mr. Carlin works extensively with the Microsoft 365 Business platform where he has helped companies implement Microsoft Teams, SharePoint, and Power Apps, Power Automate and Power BI platforms. Mr. Carlin created the Teams environment to support a county-wide Voter Roll Canvassing effort where volunteers needed to upload and distribute documents to many volunteers and update Excel files that track project progress. Mr. Carlin also created the SharePoint-based document cataloging system that has supported the Lunceford v Craft case and the Power BI based reporting system. Mr. Carlin is documenting how this system can be readily re-produced (without the need for advanced technical skills) and used by groups of citizens committed to volunteering their time to support election integrity efforts. He is a non-retained expert on these subjects. Mr. Carlin sent an updated report of his findings on May 31, 2023, and was deposed by Contestee on June 9, 2023, all of which is incorporated herein by this reference.

Votes by voters who have cancelled voter registrations.

Harris County’s official voter roster (which lists all of the voters who cast a ballot in the election and for whom their vote was counted and included in the official canvass) lists 2,970 votes that are included in the canvassed totals for the November 8, 2022 General Election.

The Court in this election contest will be able to take judicial notice of these facts. To assist the Court, Steve Carlin will explain that there is a link to a December 8, 2022 posting of the Harris County Official Voter Roster for November 8, 2022 election is found: https://appfiles.harrisvotes.com/harrisvotes/prd/Reports/1122%20Official%20Vote r%20Rosters.zip

Once you have opened this link, there's a box in the middle of that screen. You can scroll inside the box to the 2nd entry which is December 8, 2022 post of the November 8, 2022 voter roster.

There you will find the status of voters who voted in the November 8, 2022 General Election, which includes a list of voters who have cancelled voter registrations.

This list shows the following:

For Vote Type=PEAZ there were 2,813 “Cancelled” voter records. For Vote Type=M there were 157 “Cancelled” voter records.

This witness will testify that the combined total is 2,970 total “Cancelled” records, which means that there are 2,970 votes included in the canvassed totals that should not have been counted, assuming that each of these voters who voted had their voter registration status cancelled at or before the time they actually cast their ballot. In order to confirm the timing of the cancellation, Contestant Lunceford issued a third-party subpoena to HCEA on June 9, 2023. Unless HCEA produces evidence that one or more of these 2,970 voters did not have cancelled voter registrations at the time they cast their ballots, Contestant Lunceford will continue to contest all of these votes.

Harris County’s Confirmation Codes were previously produced on April 24, 2023.

The actual list of these specific voters was previously disclosed and sent via email to the Court and opposing counsel in an excel spreadsheet on April 24, 2023.

Votes by voters who were on the Suspense list.

In addition, this same excel spreadsheet lists 2,038 voters who voted have a SUSPENSE notation next to their names. This witness will testify that the records demonstrate these specific voters must have an SOR and, if they do not, these votes may not remain in the count. We are currently analyzing whether all of some of the 2,038 SUSPENSE voters failed to submit a SOR. Every one of these voters were legally obligated to submit a SOR BEFORE they were allowed to vote. Any "S" voter from the voter roster from whom we did not have an SOR would be an illegal vote. Unless we find evidence to the contrary, Contestant Lunceford will contest all of these votes.

Voters Who Voted Twice

Steve Carlin will be able to demonstrate that the Official Voter Roster indicates that approximately 13 voters voted twice in the November 8, 2022 election.

Additional Spreadsheets produced on April 24 and May 31, 2023.

1. The votes we intend to challenge on the Official Voter Roster for ineligibility scenarios established by NCOA data o File name: CHALLENGED VOTER ROSTER FOR NCOA - APRIL 24 DEMAND o The votes that we challenge are identified by column A inputIDNUMBER which comes directly from the IDNUMBER field in the Official Voter Roster identification that contains the voter's CERT. o Each ineligibility scenario (that had a non-zero count) that we identified in the document provided last week is put into a separate worksheet within the spreadsheet. o The total # of challenged votes from this source is 29,559 This number has decreased to 27,103, as explained in the report and summary dated May 31, 2023. o File name: CHALLENGED SORs - APRIL 24 DEMAND o The SORs that we challenge are identified by column N named inputFileName which contains the Bates Number of the document. o Each ineligibility scenario (that had a non-zero count) that we identified in the document provided last week is put into a separate worksheet within the spreadsheet. o The total # of challenged votes from this source is 3,333. That number has decreased to 2,351, as set forth in the May 31, 2023 analysis.

2. The SORs we want to challenge from the SORs we cataloged.

3. We flagged 43 PBAs that will be challenged as well, as explained in the May 31, 2023 analysis.

Victoria Louise Williams (live and perhaps by deposition)

21715 Meadowhill Dr. Spring, Texas 77388

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Ms. Williams served as a Presiding Judge at Spring First Church on November 8, 2022. She has been deposed in this case and has also signed a Declaration. Ms. Williams will be asked to testify about what she observed and what occurred on Election Day with respect to shortages of ballot paper and 190 voters who were turned away as a result of there not being enough ballot paper for them to cast their votes. Contestant will ask her about all of the statements in her Declaration and will cover all of the topics that were covered in her deposition, including, but not limited to, how voting is conducted at a polling center, how the voting machines and scanners operate, problems with the scanner, how to spoil a ballot, how to place a ballot in the emergency chute, and how to avoid voting more than once. She will also talk about the problems associated with scanning ballots, how such problems might involve spoiling a ballot and/or placing a ballot in the emergency chute, and how issuing an additional ballot would inevitably lead to voters voting twice.

She will also testify about how to qualify and accept a voter to vote, the need for photo identification and/or the need for a reasonable impediment declaration (“RID”), what to do if information is missing on a RID, when a statement of residence (“SOR”) is required, how to handle missing information on a SOR, how to handle provisional balloting, how much paper was allocated to her polling center, her realization that she was going to run out of paper, her efforts to contact HCEA and get paper, the HCEA’s failure to timely supply paper, how the voters reacted to the fact that they could not cast a ballot at this voting center, and how she felt it would violate her oath and be illegal for her to attempt to identify and interview those voters who were turned away. In addition, based upon her knowledge, training, experience, and expertise, Ms. Williams will testify that she has reviewed approximately 532 RIDs that are, in her opinion, on its face, the RID was not sufficient to have permitted those specific voters to be eligible to cast a regular ballot or the documents present significant doubt as to the acceptability of the voter, and, had those voters presented themselves to her polling center, she would have required the completion, correction of the RID or corrective action prior to the voter voting or permitted them to cast a provisional ballot. The RIDs referenced herein were produced to the Court and opposing counsel on June 12, 2023, along with an updated spreadsheet and 532 specific RIDs that Contestant is challenging. This witness will testify that they are not valid because they are not signed and/or failed to identify what type of identification and/or the reason for the impediment, and therefore each of these votes that were cast and counted are ineligible to be counted.

Christina Worrell Adkins (live and perhaps by deposition) Texas Secretary of State’s Office Legal Director Elections Division

1100 Congress

State Capital Building, Room 1E.8

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 463-9859

Ms. Adkins is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. She earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Texas at Austin, and her law degree is from SMU. She has served as the Acting Elections Director since March of 2023, and she was previously the legal director for the elections division and has worked with the agency since 2012. She is a recognized leader in the election community for her legal and technological expertise in certifying voting systems and ensuring county officials are trained to comply with the Texas Election Code. By reason of her experience, training, knowledge, and training, she has the legal ability to render an opinion on a mixed question of fact and law. For example, Contestant will present fact patterns to this witness as to the status of a PBA, SOR, BBM, RID, as well as other documents, and will also present fact patterns about how the HCEA administered the election and the subsequent counting of the ballots. In response, this witness is expected to express an opinion on whether any fact pattern violated the Texas Election Code and whether a particular ballot that was cast and counted should not have been counted, as well as whether a particular ballot was cast but not counted and should have been counted. Finally, this witness will be asked whether any of the elections officials involved in the election prevented eligible voters from voting, failed to count legal votes, or engaged in other fraud or illegal conduct or made a mistake.

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Not Supplying Paper to Polling Places.

From the evidence provided by the Harris County Election Administrator’s Office, the vast majority of the polling locations received the same amount of ballot paper, enough for 600 voters. Under Section 51.005 of the Texas Election Code,

“The authority responsible for procuring the election supplies for an election shall provide for each election precinct a number of ballots equal to at least the percentage of voters who voted in that precinct in the most recent corresponding election plus 25 percent of that number, except that the number of ballots provided may not exceed the total number of registered voters in the precinct.”

In other words, the authority providing supplies should account for 125% of the voters from the last-like election who voted in that precinct or in the case of combined or county-wide polls, the polling location. It is anticipated that this witness will testify that Section 51.005 applied to the November 8, 2022 General Election conducted in Harris County, notwithstanding the change in voting whereby countywide voting was available. Based upon the facts presented, it is also anticipated that this witness will testify that the actual allocation of ballot paper violated this statute.

EA Tatum has not provided any such analysis for the determination of the quantity of ballot paper to be provided to the polls.

Records indicate that some polls were told to go to nearby polling locations to get ballot paper if they were running low on ballot paper. Some polls were told that they should not go to nearby polls to receive ballot paper.

According to the Texas Election Code § 51.009, the sheriff is required to deliver the election supplies that a county clerk is responsible for distributing, on request of the clerk, to each presiding judge who has not obtained them from the clerk.

Agreeing To A Court Order To Permit Voting For An Extra Hour On Election Day.

Under Texas Election Code § 43.007, if a court orders any countywide polling place to remain open after 7 p.m., all countywide polling places located in that county shall remain open the for the length of the time required in the court order.

The EA was required to keep all polling locations open which includes an adequate supply of ballot paper. It is anticipated that this witness will testify that the extra hour of voting violated Section 43.007 because not all polling centers had paper and therefore could not remain open and accept and count votes by voters cast after hours.

Mail-in Ballots Were Not Handled Properly

It is anticipated that this witness will testify that the Signature Verification Committee and the Early Voting Ballot Board are required to fulfill the requirements of TEC 87.041, including determining that the voter’s signature on the mail ballot application and mail ballot envelope have not been executed by a person other than the voter. Additionally, there needs to be a determination that the ID number identifies the voter by their voter registration application, not their mail ballot application. Based upon the facts presented by Kay Tyner, this witness will testify that the procedure followed for the first 700 BBMs was improper and violated the TEC.

Provisional Ballots During Early Voting and Election Day During Non-extended Hours.

This witness will provide SOS procedure for allowing Election Judges to sign provisional ballot affidavits after the fact. It is anticipated that she will say that a signature by the appropriate election worker can only be added prior to the time the EVBB has accepted the ballot, and not afterwards.

Illegal Votes Were Cast And Counted Without An SOR

It is anticipated that this witness will explain that if a voter’s residence is outside of the county, the voter is not eligible to vote in the county under TEC 63.0011. Additionally, if the voter has moved, the voter is required to execute a statement of residence, including all of the information that is required for a voter registration application and dated. Failure to submit a statement of residence with all of the requested information will render that voter’s vote ineligible to be counted.

Illegal Votes Were Cast And Counted Without An Appropriate Registration Address.

It is anticipated that this witness will explain the definition of residence under the Texas Election Code §1.015. She will also explain that residence does not include a post office box, a vacant lot or commercial property. She will explain that under Section 15.051, the registrar is required to confirm an address that is a known commercial post office box or similar location that does not correspond to a residence.

Mail ballots cannot be accepted for counting if: (i) post-marked after November 8;

(ii) post-marked on November 8 for a non-military and non-overseas voter who postmarked their ballot on Election Day in a city like San Antonio or Fredericksburg; and (iii) not signed by the voter.

It is anticipated that this witness will testify that any BBMs accepted and counted that fall into these two categories should not have been counted. RIDs.

It is anticipated that this witness will testify that 532 RIDs produced by Harris County are not, in her opinion, sufficient to have permitted those specific voters to be eligible to cast a regular ballot. The RIDs referenced herein have been produced to the Court and opposing counsel, along with an updated spreadsheet and 532 specific RIDs that Contestant is challenging. It is further anticipated that this witness will testify that they are not valid because they are not signed and/or failed to identify what type of identification and/or the reason for the impediment, and therefore each of these votes that were cast and counted are ineligible to be counted.

This witness may authenticate training materials and advisories provided by the Secretary of State’s Office that are provided for the benefit of those conducting elections.

Contestant does not intend to call as live witnesses the volunteers who signed Exhibit A to the Court’s Confidentiality Order and helped to review PBAs, SORs, and BBMs. However, in the unlikely event one or more of these volunteers are needed to authenticate or otherwise render admissible work that they performed, Contestant hereby lists each of them in an abundance of caution.

Chris Abel 772precinctchair@gmail.com

Javier Adame j9adameHCRP@gmail.com

Laura Aguilar bravocompany312@gmail.com

Anna Lee Aitken alf1918@aol.com

Patricia Barrett pattieslp@yahoo.com

Rick Barrett rickwb@yahoo.com

Dave Bennett Dave@bennettpa.com

Robert Bernardini rabernardini@gmail.com

Martha Bernardini

Roxann Bilger roxann.bilger@gmail.com

Robert Born robertborn73@gmail.com

Wayne Brent Wbrent@reagan.com

Robert Byers journeyintime@protonmail.com

Drake Cameron dracam@aol.com

Steve Carlin steve.carlin@comcast.net

Sharan Chang sharanchang2004@yahoo.com

Donna Cox coxest81@gmail.com

Sarah Ann DeHaas dehaaszoef@sbcglobal.net

Kirk Delaune kirk.delaune@outlook.com

Clark Denson Clark.Denson@gmail.com

Barbara Denson barbarabdenson@gmail.com

Allison Denson ahdenson@usa.net

Mark Domke ekmod5@gmail.com

Jodie Dornak jdornak@swbell.net

William Ely wisely118@gmail.com

Robert Flanary Gopchairdist800@hotmail.com

Susan Flores light234year-world@yahoo.com

Margaret Forristall Margaret.forristall@gmail.com

Bill Frazer Bill@BFrazer.com

Matthew Goitia Matthew.goitia@gmail.com

Charles Grindon cgrindon258@outlook.com

Susan Grindon sgrindon@outlook.com

Lawrence Hogan lph0gan@att.net

David Hokanson DAHokanson@gmail.com

Micheline Hutson michelinehutson@gmail.com

Elizabeth

(Beth) Kasper bakasper1@gmail.com

Janice Kuhn jkuhn0506@gmail.com

Vicki Kunetka Vicki.Kunetka@gmail.com

Amy Leibman Amy@aspenpipeline.com

Ana Flor Lopez Millan anaflorlopez@gmail.com

Wayne Matus wlmatus@swbell.net

Donna McGuire dmcguire77077@yahoo.com

Colin McHattie colin.mchattie@hotmail.com

Anne Meng annelmeng@gmail.com

Ben Midgette benmjr25@icloud.com

John Moore jkmoore777@gmail.com

Lisa Musick lisa@lisamusick.com

Tom Nobis tom_nobis2@yahoo.com

Linda Nuttall klnuttall2@sbcglobal.net

Brenda Piatiak b_funkie@me.com

Anthony Pickett picktony@yahoo.com

Anne Pietramale anne.pietramale@gmail.com

Lisa Rand lisa@signad.com

John Randall johnrandall@pdq.net

Beverly Roberts bjuhlmer47@gmail.com

Sandra Salstrom Salsandi@icloud.com

Mary Shea twink.shea@sbcglobal.net

DeAnna Snyder DeAnna.Lynn.snyder@gmail.com

Janet Southern jan.southern@att.net

Kay Tyner katydoo@gmail.com

Alan Vera alanv@tqba.com

Colleen Vera colleenmvera@yahoo.com

Timothy Walden walden.t@sbcglobal.net

David Ward dward48@comcast.net

Jude Wiggins heyjude25@comcast.net

Linda Zachary lmzachary@hotmail.com

Zachary Mouton zachary@mmouton.com

Vanessa Ingrassia Vanessa.ingrassia@gmail.com

Sam Somogye somogyesam@gmail.com

Colten Marshall coltenmarshall@Hotmail.com

Brittany Blackburn bmblackburn23@gmail.com

Maureen Moore mmm410@gmail.com

Ronnye Cowell ronnyecowell@gmail.com

Brenda Estis cajnchef@gmail.com

Erin Lunceford (live and by deposition if needed) c/o

Andy Taylor

Andy Taylor & Associates, P.C. 2628 Highway 36 South, #288 Brenham, Texas 77833

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Contestant will testify as to her candidacy and the vote totals she and her opponent received. She will also testify about the matters raised in her live pleading and her discovery disclosures and responses.

Cynthia (“Cindy”) Siegel (live and by deposition if needed)

4615 Huisache St

Bellaire, Texas 77401

832-865-5765 chair@harriscountygop.com

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

As the Republican County Republican Chair, Cindy Siegel has the responsibility under the Election Code to serve as the Primary Director for the Republican Party. She also serves in her capacity as Party Chairman on the Harris County Elections Commission. In that capacity, she and the Harris County GOP staff were involved with the November 2022 election starting in August with weekly zoom calls with the Harris County EA’s office to discuss the upcoming election, polling locations and placement of Republican election judges and clerks. Cindy Siegel has knowledge of the oral and written communications between her office and the Harris County EA’s office. Siegel also has knowledge of the selection of election judges, polling locations, and process and procedures of the November 8, 2022 that the Harris County Election Administration Office shared with the parties prior to the election. Mrs. Siegel has knowledge on how the Harris County Republican Party supported Republican judges, clerks, poll watchers, Signature Verification Committee, Early Voting Ballot Board and Central Count during early voting and on Election Day. Mrs. Siegel has knowledge of comments and issues raised by Republicans participating in the election. Mrs. Siegel has knowledge regarding her visit to the Election Technology Center on Election Day to determine the availability of ballot paper.

Due to the difficulties of all the preceding elections in 2022 including the primary, Chair Siegel had experienced prior election judges, lawyers, and staff available at party headquarters on November 8th to respond to questions and concerns of Republican election workers, poll watchers, candidates, and voters from 6 am to after 9 pm. (All Republican election judges had been instructed to first call the EA’s help desk prior to calling HCRP.) Chair Siegel was also present at headquarters and along with the HCRP Executive Director and Alan Vera, former Chairman of the GOP Ballot Security Committee (and now deceased), took critical calls for help from election workers (such as lack of ballot paper). They were responsible for trying to get resolution of the election issues expedited with the Harris County Elections Administration. To that extent Chair Siegel is knowledgeable of all the problems from lack of ballot paper to machine issues that the Republican election workers were experiencing and managed how the Harris County Republican Party responded to those real-time issues.

Cindy Siegel also has knowledge of the matters covered during her deposition, as well as the documents which were produced by Contestant Lunceford in this election contest.

Each of the forty-nine (49) Declarants, listed below:

Lamar Strickland 12226 Burgoyne Dr. Houston, TX 77077

Betty Edwards 9126 Kapri Ln Houston, TX 77025

Charles Grindon 10818 Lasso Ln. Houston, TX 77079

Christopher Russo 315 Pebblebrook Dr. El Lago, TX 77586

Cindy Adamek 25503 Holly Springs Place Spring, TX 77373

Connie Dellafave 1117 Wildwood Dr. Deer Park, TX 77536-8009

DeAnna Snyder 6523 Pine Reserve Drive Spring, TX 77389

Dorothy Nall 5342 Schumacher Ln Houston, TX 77056

Edward Moers 29344 Castle Rd Waller, TX 77484

Elizabeth Kocurek 2815 Autumn Springs Lane Spring, TX 77373

Patricia Phillips 1423 Althea Dr. Houston, TX 77018

Paul Stalnaker 7523 Weatherhill Lane Houston, TX 77041

Pearline Burton 12731 Old Pine Ln Houston, TX 77015

Phyllis Tacquard 12442 Rutgers Park Ct. Houston, TX 77058-1149

Richard Hawley 2809 Elysian St Houston, TX 77009

Richard Self 22326 Acorn Grove Dr. Spring, TX 77389

Robert Kenney 7706 Glenalta St Houston, TX 77061

San Juanita Branham 18906 Hikers Trail Humble, TX 77346

Steven Cody McCubbin 13715 Gainesway Dr. Cypress, TX 77425

Susan Clasen 19507 Whispering Breeze Lane Houston, TX 77094

Terry Wheeler

Timothy Sockwell 20103 Emily Anne Ct Cypress, TX 77433

Van

Victoria

Robert

John Moore 18111 Billabong Crescent Court Cypress, TX 77429

Catherine B. Beversdorf 1857 El Mar Lane Seabrook TX 77586

Kay Tyner 17302 Celeste River Ct. Houston, TX 77095

Lauren Aniess 5333 Memorial Drive, Apt. 1003, Houston, TX 77007

Damian Derby 1201 Britimore Rd., Houston, TX 77079

Thomas J. Nobis 16507 Wax Mallow Dr., Houston, TX 77005

Ana Flor Lopez Millian 2221 Bissonnet St., Houston, TX 77005

Telephone numbers have been provided separately and privately to the Court and to opposing counsel for each of the above-referenced Declarants. In order to protect the privacy of these witnesses, opposing counsel has agreed not to make their phone numbers public. Since this witness list is going to be publicly filed and available, Contestant will not publish these phone numbers here.

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Each of the forty-nine (49) declarants may be called to testify live at trial. The testimony which will be adduced by Contestant of this group of witnesses may be found in the Declarations that have been produced during discovery. Some, but not all, of these declarants have also provided sworn answers in response to deposition upon written questions propounded by Contestant and cross-questions propounded by Contestee. Contestant will likely not call those specific declarants as live witnesses at trial if they have given sworn testimony and the Court overrules the Contestee’s objections and admits their testimony for all purposes.

Three of these declarants have already given oral depositions, namely, Kelly Hubenak-Flannery, Victoria Williams, and Elizabeth Kocurek, and their deposition testimony provides a detailed summary of what Contestant would elicit at trial from those three witnesses. (Victoria Williams will cover additional topics as set forth in this witness list).

Clifford Tatum

Harris County Elections Administrator

Harris County Elections Administrator’s Office

1001 Preston St., Houston, Texas 77002

713-755-6965 or c/o:

Harris County Attorney

Christian D. Menefee

Legal Department

1019 Congress, 15th Floor Houston, Texas 77002

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Mr. Tatum in an adverse witness who may be called to testify by cross-examination by Contestant Lunceford in her case-in-chief and/or during Contestee’s case-inchief. Contestant may also use his video and deposition transcript as well.

Contestant intends to cover all of the topics covered in the May 3, 2023 deposition of Mr. Tatum, as well as Exhibits 1-9 that were discussed in that deposition. In addition, Contestant intends to ask Mr. Tatum about all HCEA documents, the purpose of which is to: (1) authenticate all documents with bates labels starting with LUNCEFORDHC as business records and/or true and correct copies of the originals they purport to represent, understanding, of course, that HCEA redacted certain information at its insistence and over the objection of Contestant, as permitted by the Court’s Confidentiality Order; (2) authenticate all documents which are publicly available on the Harris County website, including, but not limited to, the Voter Roster, the Voter Roll, the Official Canvass, both with and without the provisional balloting which occurred for those voters who got in line after 7:00 p.m., pursuant to court order; (3) authenticate all documents produced by Contestant Lunceford that are Harris County documents, such as training manuals and other documents; (4) to determine by bates number which PBAs, SORs, and BBMs relate to a vote that was accepted and counted and which do not.

Contestant also intends to ask questions pertaining to all of the categories included in her live pleading and/or her discovery disclosures and responses relating to votes that were cast and counted but should not have counted, votes that were cast but not counted but should have been counted, votes which were not cast due to equipment or ballot paper issues, and all of the HCEA’s violations of the Texas Election Code, as spelled out in Contestant’s live pleading and in her discovery disclosures and responses. Finally, Contestant intends to ask questions about the various texts and emails passing between Cindy Siegel and/or HCRP, on the one hand, and Mr. Tatum and/or HCEA, on the other hand, during the fall election cycle.

Jennifer Colvin

Director of BBM Division

Harris County Elections Administrator’s Office

1001 Preston St., Houston, Texas 77002

713-755-6965 or c/o:

Harris County Attorney

Christian D. Menefee

Legal Department

1019 Congress, 15th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Ms. Colvin is an adverse witness who may be called to testify by crossexamination by Contestant Lunceford in her case-in-chief and/or during Contestee’s case-in-chief.

Contestant intends to cover all of the topics covered in the summary provided in this Witness List of what Kay Tyner said about Ms. Colvin, as well as all of the topics that were asked out in the May 3, 2023 deposition of Mr. Tatum, as well as Exhibits 1-9 that were discussed in that deposition. In addition, Contestant intends to ask Ms. Colvin about all HCEA documents, the purpose of which is to: (1) authenticate all documents with bates labels starting with LUNCEFORDHC as business records and/or true and correct copies of the originals they purport to represent, understanding, of course, that HCEA redacted certain information at its insistence and over the objection of Contestant, as permitted by the Court’s Confidentiality Order; (2) authenticate all documents which are publicly available on the Harris County website, including, but not limited to, the Voter Roster, the Voter Roll, the Official Canvass, both with and without the provisional balloting which occurred for those voters who got in line after 7:00 p.m., pursuant to court order; (3) authenticate all documents produced by Contestant Lunceford that are Harris County documents, such as training manuals and other documents; (4) to determine by bates number which PBAs, SORs, and BBMs relate to a vote that was accepted and counted and which do not.

Contestant also intends to ask questions pertaining to all of the categories included in her live pleading and/or her discovery disclosures and responses relating to votes that were cast and counted but should not have counted, votes that were cast but not counted but should have been counted, votes which were not cast due to equipment or ballot paper issues, the HCEA’s violation of the Texas Election Code as spelled out in Contestant’s live pleading and in her discovery disclosures and responses, as well as the 9,307 BBM discrepancy in the final official reconciliation report.

Rachelle Obakozuwa Director of Logistics

Harris County Elections Administrator’s Office

1001 Preston St., Houston, Texas 77002

713-755-6965 or c/o:

Harris County Attorney

Christian D. Menefee

Legal Department

1019 Congress, 15th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Ms. Obakozuwa is an adverse witness who may be called to testify by crossexamination by Contestant Lunceford in her case-in-chief and/or during Contestee’s case-in-chief. Contestant may also use his video and deposition transcript as well.

Contestant intends to cover all of the topics covered in the May 3, 2023 deposition of Mr. Tatum, as well as Exhibits 1-9 that were discussed in that deposition. In addition, Contestant intends to ask Ms. Obakozuwa about all HCEA documents, the purpose of which is to: (1) authenticate all documents with bates labels starting with LUNCEFORDHC as business records and/or true and correct copies of the originals they purport to represent, understanding, of course, that HCEA redacted certain information at its insistence and over the objection of Contestant, as permitted by the Court’s Confidentiality Order; (2) authenticate all documents which are publicly available on the Harris County website, including, but not limited to, the Voter Roster, the Voter Roll, the Official Canvass, both with and without the provisional balloting which occurred for those voters who got in line after 7:00 p.m., pursuant to court order; (3) authenticate all documents produced by Contestant Lunceford that are Harris County documents, such as training manuals and other documents; (4) to determine by bates number which PBAs, SORs, and BBMs relate to a vote that was accepted and counted and which do not.

Contestant also intends to ask questions pertaining to all of the categories included in her live pleading and/or her discovery disclosures and responses relating to votes that were cast and counted but should not have counted, votes that were cast but not counted but should have been counted, votes which were not cast due to equipment or ballot paper issues, and all of the HCEA’s violations of the Texas Election Code, as spelled out in Contestant’s live pleading and in her discovery disclosures and responses. Finally, Contestant intends to ask questions about the various texts and emails passing between Cindy Siegel and/or HCRP, on the one hand, and Mr. Tatum and/or HCEA, on the other hand, during the fall election cycle.

Brian Schouten Director of Election Technology Center

Benjamin

Bannon Manager of Training

Lee Tankersley

IT Director

Jason Bruce-Central Count

Lauren Smith-Director

of Operations

Chelsea Willett-Election Supply

Manager

Harris County Elections Administrator’s Office

1001 Preston St., Houston, Texas 77002

713-755-6965 or c/o:

Harris County Attorney

Christian D. Menefee

Legal Department

1019 Congress, 15th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

These HCEA witnesses are listed in the HCEA’s post-election report. Contestant intends to ask these witnesses about that report.

Custodian of records for HCEA or other HCEA witness(es):

Harris County Elections Administrator’s Office

1001 Preston St., Houston, Texas 77002

713-755-6965 or c/o:

Harris County Attorney

Christian D. Menefee

Legal Department

1019 Congress, 15th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

Contestant intends to ask questions regarding the production of all HCEA documents, the purpose of which is to: (1) authenticate all documents with bates labels starting with LUNCEFORDHC as business records and/or true and correct copies of the originals they purport to represent, understanding, of course, that HCEA redacted certain information at its insistence and over the objection of Contestant, as permitted by the Court’s Confidentiality Order; (2) authenticate all documents which are publicly available on the Harris County website, including, but not limited to, the Voter Roster, the Voter Roll, the Official Canvass, both with and without the provisional balloting which occurred for those voters who got in line after 7:00 p.m., pursuant to court order; (3) authenticate all documents produced by Contestant Lunceford that are Harris County documents, such as training manuals and other documents; (4) to determine by bates number which PBAs, SORs, and BBMs relate to a vote that was accepted and counted and which do not.

Kay Tyner

17302 Celeste River Ct. Houston, TX 77095

Summary of Anticipated Testimony:

In addition to the matters covered by her Declaration, which are incorporated herein by this reference, Ms. Tyner will also talk about how the EVBB operates, and how Jennifer Colvin instructed the EVBB to deviate from established procedure on the first day that they processed BBMs, and how she and others objected to going forward on that basis. She will testify as to what Clifford Tatum said, as well as the fact that HCEA changed back to the previous standard procedure after consulting with the Texas Secretary of State’s Office. Ms. Tyner will explain her methodology of how she determined approximately 700 BBMs were processed improperly by multiple teams over a period of time. Ms. Tyner will also explain how transmittal sheets are sent from the HCEA to the Signature Verification Committee (“SVC”) and how the EEVB sent transmittal sheets to the HCEA for counting accepted ballots. She will also explain that she retained a copy of those sheets and that the HCEA asked her for a copy of those sheets, and how she and Colleen Vera determined the universe of such transmittal sheets.

Kay Tyner, the Vice Chair of the Signature Verification Committee, states that when the Signature Verification Committee began its process in the November 8, 2022 Election, one of the Election Administrator’s staff members instructed the Signature Verification Committee that they were only supposed to compare the identification information provided on the mail ballot carrier envelope to the information that was included on the mail ballot application. Additionally, the EA staff member declared that it was not necessary to review the signatures. Members of the Signature Verification Committee protested and requested that the process be reviewed. The proposed process was in direct contradiction of the Texas Election Code. “The signature verification committee shall compare the signature on each carrier envelope . . .” Tex. Elec. Code § 87.027 (i). “The early voting ballot board shall . . . determine whether to accept the voter’s ballot.” Tex. Elec. Code § 87.041(a). Ballots may only be accepted if the carrier envelope certificate is properly executed; neither the voter’s signature on the ballot application nor the signature on the carrier envelope certificate is determined to have been executed by a person other than the voter, unless signed by a witness; the information required under 86.002 (g) provided by the voter identifies the same voter identified on the voter’s application for voter registration. Tex. Elec. Code § 87.041(b). In short, the Signature Verification Committee is required to compare the signatures and they are required to compare the identification information from the mail ballot carrier envelope to the voter registration information, not the mail ballot application as directed by the EA staff member.

Kay Tyner states that after this improper process was brought to the attention of the EA staff member, the process was fixed, but approximately 700 mail ballots that were processed during that time were not re-reviewed. These mail ballots should have been reviewed properly in order to determine if they were acceptable. Not knowing which mail ballot envelopes were incorrectly reviewed, and not knowing how many of these 700 mail ballots were accepted and how many were rejected, it is not possible to ascertain the impact of these improperly processed mail in ballots on either Contestant or Contestee.