Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 13

John L. Fellows (4212)

RuthAnne Frost (13214)
Christine R. Gilbert (13840)
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH AND GENERAL COUNSEL
W210 State Capitol Complex
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Telephone: (801) 538-1032
Facsimile: (801) 538-1712
Email: jfellows@le.utah.gov
rfrost@le.utah.gov
cgilbert@le.utah.gov
Attorneys for Non-Party Senator Curtis S. Bramble

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

CENTRAL DIVISION

UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY,

Plaintiff,

SENATOR CURTIS S. BRAMBLES

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

CONSTITUTION PARTY OF UTAH, a

registered political party of Utah,
Plaintiff and Intervenor,

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00876-DN

vs.
GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacity
as Governor of Utah, and SPENCER J. COX,
in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor
of Utah,

Chief Judge David Nuffer

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendants.
Pursuant to Rules 7 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and DUCivR 7-1, Senator
Curtis S. Bramble (Senator Bramble), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby moves the
Court for an order quashing the two subpoenas duces tecum issued by Plaintiff Utah Republican Party

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 13

(Plaintiff) to Senator Bramble to testify and produce documents. The first subpoena requires
Senator Brambles attendance at a hearing on April 10, 2015, attached hereto as Exhibit A (the
hearing subpoena). The second subpoena requires Senator Bramble to testify and produce
documents at a deposition on April 16, 2015, attached hereto as Exhibit B (the deposition
subpoena).
I.

SUMMARY
Senator Bramble is the legislative sponsor of S.B. 54, Elections Amendments, which passed

during the 2014 General Session of the Legislature. On April 3, 2015, Plaintiff served two subpoenas
(collectively, the subpoenas) on Senator Bramble, one commanding him to testify at a hearing on
April 10, 2015, and one commanding him to testify at a deposition on April 16, 2015. Both subpoenas
also require Senator Bramble to produce documents, electronically stored information, and objects.
Through the subpoenas, Plaintiff seeks to elicit information regarding Senator Brambles actions and
motivations relating to S.B. 54.
Plaintiffs efforts are misguided. First, under federal common law and under the Utah
Constitution, legislative privilege is an absolute bar to compelling a legislator to testify or produce
documents relating to legitimate legislative acts or acts performed in the sphere of legislative activity,
including preparing and negotiating proposed legislation. Second, Senator Brambles testimony and
documents are not relevant to the constitutionality of S.B. 54. In determining a laws constitutionality,
the court looks to the laws plain language, never to the intent or motivations of a single legislator.
Third, even if the hearing subpoena were valid, which it is not, the subpoenas are procedurally
deficient because Plaintiff did not give Defendants notice of the subpoenas and did not allow Senator
Bramble sufficient time to respond to the hearing subpoena. Finally, Senator Bramble cannot attend
the hearing on April 10, 2015 because he will be out of town. As more thoroughly set forth below,
the court should quash the subpoenas.

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 13

III.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.

In the above-captioned matter, Plaintiff asserts that, as applied, S.B. 54 violates its

First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. (Docket, no. 2, 9, 110,
115.)
2.

Senator Bramble is a member of the Utah Senate and has served as a state senator

continuously since January 2001. (Bramble Decl., 1, attached hereto as Exhibit C.)
3.

Senator Bramble was the legislative sponsor of S.B. 54, Election Amendments, which

passed during the 2014 General Session of the Legislature. (Bramble Decl., 2.)
4.

On April 3, 2015, Plaintiff served the hearing subpoena and the deposition subpoena

on Senator Bramble. John Fellows, Legislative General Counsel, accepted service on Senator
Brambles behalf. (Email from John Fellows to Marcus Mumford (April 7, 2015), attached hereto as
Exhibit D.)
5.

The hearing subpoena and the deposition subpoena are dated April 2, 2015. (Exhibits

A & B.)
6.

The hearing subpoena commands Senator Bramble to appear and testify at the United

States district court on April 10, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. (Exhibit A.)
7.

The deposition subpoena commands Senator Bramble to appear and testify at a

deposition at the office of Mumford PC on April 16, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. (Exhibit B.)
8.

Both the hearing subpoena and the deposition subpoena also require that, at the time

of compliance, Senator Bramble produce the following documents, electronically stored information,
or objects:
1. All communications between January 1, 2013, and the present, with persons
associated or affiliated with the Count My Vote initiative, including but not limited
to communications related to the withdrawal of that initiative by organizers in
approximately March 2014.

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 13

2. All communications between January 1, 2013, and the present, related to what
became known as the compromise that led to SB54, enacted in the 2014 Session
[o]f [t]he Utah Legislature.
(Exhibits A & B.)
9.

All of Senator Brambles knowledge that relates to the Count My Vote initiative or to

the compromise that led to SB 54 was acquired in his capacity as a legislator while performing
legislative functions, including preparing, negotiating, and evaluating proposed legislation. (Bramble
Decl., 5, 7-8.)
10.

All of the communications, documents, electronically stored information, and objects

in Senator Brambles possession or control that are responsive to the subpoenas were created or
obtained in his capacity as a legislator while performing legislative functions, including preparing,
negotiating, and evaluating proposed legislation. (Bramble Decl., 6-8.)
11.

It is not possible for Senator Bramble to attend the hearing on April 10, 2015 because

he will be out of town on a previously scheduled trip. (Bramble Decl., 10.)

IV.

ARGUMENT
A.

Legislative Privilege is an Absolute Bar to Compelling the Testimony and

Documents that Plaintiff Seeks in the Subpoenas.

The court should quash the subpoenas because the testimony and the documents that
Plaintiff seeks in the subpoenas are subject to legislative privilege and protected from compelled
disclosure. All of Senator Brambles knowledge and documents relating to the Count My Vote
initiative and S.B. 54 were obtained in the course of fulfilling his duties as a state senator.
Legislative privilege applies to an individual who, at the time in question, is a legislator
and is performing a legitimate legislative function or acting in the sphere of legislative activity.
See Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376 (1951). As it applies to state legislators, legislative
privilege stems from two distinct, but substantively similar sources: (1) federal common law; and
(2) Article VI, Section 8 of the Utah Constitution. Both sources protect the testimony and

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 13

documents that Plaintiff seeks in the subpoenas. Moreover, the policy considerations underpinning
the privilege from both sources support quashing the subpoenas.
1.

The Testimony and Documents Sought in the Subpoenas are Privileged Under
Federal Common Law.

Under federal common law, legislative privilege is an evidentiary and testimonial privilege
that is derivative of the more familiar doctrine of legislative immunity, which is deeply rooted in
history. The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say
in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries. Tenney, 341 U.S. at 372. During the early formation of this country,
[f]reedom of speech and action in the legislature was . . . deemed so essential for representatives
of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution.
Id. At the time it was adopted, the provision in the United States Constitution was a reflection of
political principles already firmly established in the States.1 Id.
Legislative immunity enables legislators to be free, not only from the consequences of
litigations results, but also from the burden of defending themselves. 2BD Assocs. Ltd. Pship
v. County Commrs, 896 F.Supp. 528, 531 (D. Md. 1995) (quoting Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387
U.S. 82, 85 (1967)). Thus, the effect of the doctrine of legislative immunity is twofold; it protects
legislators from civil liability, and it also functions as an evidentiary and testimonial privilege.
Id. (citing Schlitz v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 854 F.2d 43, 46 (4th Cir. 1988); Marylanders For
Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 144 F.R.D. 292, 297 (D. Md. 1992)).

The federal Speech or Debate Clause, Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution,
provides in relevant part that senators and representatives shall in all cases, except treason,
felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of
their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or
debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 6 of 13

Like legislative immunity, legislative privilege has two critical features. First, it applies
broadly to evidence or testimony about all acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative
process. In re Grand Jury, 821 F.2d 946, 953 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Brewster,
408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972)). This includes protection from inquiry into the motivation for those
acts and any showing of how [the] legislator acted, voted, or decided. United States v. Helstoski,
442 U.S. 477, 489 (1979) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (interpreting the federal Speech
or Debate Clause).2 Second, it is absolute; hence, it cannot be overcome by any countervailing
interest no matter how strong. In re Grand Jury, 821 F.2d at 953 (citing Eastland v. United States
Servicemens Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 509-10 n.16 (1975)). Accordingly, a state legislator engaging
in legitimate legislative activity may not be made to testify about those activities, including the
motivation for his or her decision. The Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Commn v. Fields, 75 P.3d 1088,
1095 (Ariz. App. 2003) (citations omitted).
In Greenburg v. Collier, 482 F.Supp. 200 (E.D. Va. 1979), the plaintiffs challenged the
constitutionality of an amendment to the states bingo law.3 Id. at 201. The plaintiffs
subpoenaed a non-party legislator, seeking to establish the legislators perception of the bills
purpose and his motivation in supporting or opposing the bill. Id. at 201-03. The court denied
the plaintiffs any discovery on the legislators legislative motive, stating the protection of a
legislators motivation in discharging his public responsibility is at the very core of the
[legislative privilege]. Id. at 203.
2

Cases interpreting the federal Speech or Debate Clause are instructive in analyzing legislative
privilege derived from federal common law because the common law privilege has been applied
in essentially the same fashion as [the federal Speech or Debate Clause]. Yeldell v. Copper
Green Hosp., Inc., 956 F.2d 1056, 1061 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Supreme Court of Va. v.
Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 733 (1980)).
3
The amendment provided that a person may not use a building for bingo games more than two
days per month, unless the bingo games are held by a charitable organization in a building that
the charitable organization owns. Greenburg, 482 F.Supp. at 201. The plaintiffs met the
exception to the two-day restriction except that they rented, rather than owned, the bingo
facilities. Id.
6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 7 of 13

In this case, Plaintiff similarly attempts to uncover Senator Brambles motivations in

discharging his public responsibilities as a state senator.4 Plaintiffs document request, attached
to both subpoenas, makes this clear. Plaintiff seeks, All communications between January 1,
2013, and the present, with persons associated or affiliated with the Count My Vote initiative,
including but not limited to communications related to the withdrawal of that initiative by
organizers in approximately March 2014. Exhibits A & B. Plaintiff further requests, All
communications between January 1, 2013, and the present, related to what became known as the
compromise that led to SB54, enacted in the 2014 Session [o]f [t]he Utah Legislature. Id.
Any knowledge, documents, electronically stored information, or objects that Senator
Bramble has that relate to the Count My Vote initiative or to S.B. 54 were obtained in his
capacity as a sitting legislator, while preparing, negotiating, and evaluating proposed legislation.
Bramble Decl., 5-7. Under federal common law, legislative privilege is an absolute bar to
compelling the testimony and documents that Plaintiff seeks in the subpoenas. Therefore, the
court should quash the hearing subpoena and the deposition subpoena.
2.

The Speech or Debate Clause of the Utah Constitution Confers a Legislative

Privilege Identical to Federal Common Law.

The information that Plaintiff seeks in the subpoenas is also privileged under Utahs
Speech or Debate Clause, Article VI, Section 8 of the Utah Constitution, which provides that
for words used in any speech or debate in either house, [members of the Legislature] shall not
be questioned in any other place.5 Like the federal government and forty-three other states,
Utah has adopted the common law legislative immunity and legislative privilege doctrines into
its constitution through a Speech or Debate Clause. William M. Howard, Construction and

Senator Bramble is a current member of the Utah Senate, and has served as a state senator
continuously since January 2001. Bramble Decl., 1.
5
Utahs Speech or Debate Clause is nearly identical to the federal Speech or Debate Clause.
7

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 8 of 13

Application of Federal and State Constitutional and Statutory Speech or Debate Provisions, 24
A.L.R. 6th 255 (2013).
While there is little case law interpreting Utahs Speech of Debate Clause, Riddle v. Perry,
2002 UT 10, 40 P.3d 1128, suggests that Utah courts would look to federal case law in interpreting
the clause. In Riddle, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether legislative privilege extends to
a witness in a legislative proceeding and ultimately held that it did. Id. at 7-8. In making its
ruling, the Utah Supreme Court relied extensively upon United States Supreme Court cases
interpreting the common law legislative principle of legislative privilege. See e.g., Id. at 8
(repeatedly quoting and citing Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951)). Therefore, if presented
with the issue, a Utah state court would almost certainly conclude that legislative privilege under
Utahs Speech or Debate Clause is equally as comprehensive as legislative privilege under federal
common law or the federal Speech or Debate Clause.6
Accordingly, the Utah Speech or Debate Clause is also an absolute bar to compelling the testimony
and documents that Plaintiff seeks in the subpoenas.
3.

Quashing the Subpoenas is Consistent with the Underlying Purpose of

Legislative Privilege.

Legislative privilege serves two critical purposes, both of which support the overarching
policy of protecting the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of
individual legislators. See Eastland, 421 U.S. at 502. First, legislative privilege protects the
rights of the people, by enabling their representatives to execute the functions of their office
without fear of prosecutions . . . . or the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom

Additionally, Utah courts routinely rely on federal precedent when interpreting a state
constitutional provision that is substantially similar to its federal counterpart. See e.g., Wood v.
Univ. of Utah Med. Ctr., 2002 UT 134, 29, 67 P.3d 436 (applying federal law to interpret the
Utah Due Process Clause); State v. Daniels, 2002 UT 2, 42, 40 P.3d 611 (applying federal law
to interpret Utahs ex post facto clause); State v. Anderson, 910 P.2d 1229, 1238 (Utah 1996)
(applying federal law to interpret Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution).
8

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 9 of 13

the exercise of [the representatives liberty of speech] may occasion offence. Tenney, 341 U.S.
at 373-74 (quoting James Wilson, II Works of James Wilson 38 (Andrew ed. 1896)). Second,
legislative privilege preserves separation of powers by preventing intimidation of legislators by
the Executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary. Eastland, 421 U.S. at 502.
Compelling Senator Bramble to provide testimony and documents relating to his work on
the creation and passage of S.B. 54 will severely undermine his independence as a legislator and
chill his ability to effectively represent the rights and interests of his constituents. It will also
compromise the principles of separation of powers because Senator Bramble would be called to
testify and produce documents relating to his legitimate legislative activities before the judiciary.
To preserve the integrity and independence of the legislative process, the court should quash the
subpoenas.
B.

The Information that Plaintiff Seeks in its Subpoenas is Improper Because it is

Not Relevant to the Claims in this Case.

The court should also quash the hearing subpoena and the deposition subpoena because
Plaintiffs inquiry into Senator Brambles purpose and intent in sponsoring S.B. 54 is improper and
unnecessary. Plaintiff asserts that, as applied, S.B. 54 violates its First Amendment rights to
freedom of speech and freedom of association. See e.g., Compl. 9, 110, 115. Senator Brambles
individual motivation and understanding is not relevant to this question for two reasons: (1)
principles of statutory construction dictate that the court should only consider the plain language
of an unambiguous statute when determining its constitutionality; and (2) even if legislative history
were relevant, Senator Brambles motivations do not represent the collective intent of the
Legislature.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the law as passed is the will of the majority of
both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself. . . . Aldridge v.
Williams, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 9, 24 (1845) (emphasis added). Statements by legislators do not have
the force of law, for the Constitution is quite explicit about the procedure that Congress must
9

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 10 of 13

follow in legislating. American Hosp. Assn v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606, 615 (1991). For that reason,
[i]n analyzing a statute, [the Court] begin[s] by examining the text . . . not by psychoanalyzing
those who enacted it . . . . Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 271 (2000).
Senator Brambles motivations have no bearing on whether the law is constitutional. It is
only appropriate to look to the plain language of the law to determine its constitutionality. 7 Any
negotiations that led to the passage of S.B. 54 are not law and are not subject to judicial
consideration. Moreover, even if the court determines that it is appropriate to consider legislative
history in this case, Senator Brambles individual thoughts and motivations do not constitute
legislative history. The Utah Legislature consists of 104 individual members and no single
member can speak to the intent of the whole. The actual legislative history, to the extent it is
relevant, is publically available.8
The court should quash the hearing subpoena and the deposition subpoena because the
testimony and documents that they seek are not relevant to Plaintiffs claims.
C.

Plaintiff Failed to Follow the Procedural Requirements of Rule 45 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

The hearing subpoena and the deposition subpoena are procedurally deficient for two reasons.
First, Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that [i]f the subpoena commands the
production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things . . . before trial, then
before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must

[The federal court] interpret[s] state laws according to state rules of statutory
construction Ward v. Utah, 398 F.3d 1239, 1248 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted)
(interpreting a Utah statute). A Utah federal court would therefore interpret [a Utah] statute
based on its plain language. Id. (quoting O'Keefe v. Utah State Retirement Bd., 956 P.2d 279,
281 (Utah 1998)). When the language of the statute is plain, other interpretive tools are not
needed. However, if the language is ambiguous, the court may look beyond the statute to
legislative history and public policy to ascertain the statute's intent. Martinez v. MediaPaymaster Plus/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2007 UT 42, 47, 164 P.3d 384
(citations omitted).
8
See http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/SB0054.html (last visited April 8, 2015).
7

10

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 11 of 13

be served on each party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4). Rules 45 also provides that a person shall have
14 days to respond to a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2).
Plaintiff has run afoul of both provisions. Counsel for Defendants confirmed that they did
not receive notice or a copy of either subpoena before the subpoenas were served on Senator
Bramble. Additionally, Plaintiff served the hearing subpoena on Senator Bramble seven days
before the date of compliance rather than the requisite 14 days.
Even setting aside the issues of privilege and relevance, which oblige the court to quash
the subpoenas, with such short notice, it is impossible for Senator Bramble to appear at the hearing
on April 10th. He will be out of town on a previously scheduled trip.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Senator Bramble respectfully requests the court quash the hearing

subpoena and the deposition subpoena.

Dated this 9th day of April, 2015.

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESERCH
AND GENERAL COUNSEL

/s/ Christine R. Gilbert

John L. Fellows
RuthAnne Frost
Christine R. Gilbert
Attorneys for Non-Party Senator Curtis S.
Bramble

11

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 12 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on April 9th, 2015, the foregoing SENATOR CURTIS S. BRAMBLES
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT was
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent
notification to:
Marcus R. Mumford
Michelle Mumford
Mumford PC
405 South Main Street, Suite 975
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 428-2000
Email: mrm@mumfordpc.com
michlkmumford@gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Utah Republican Party
Collin R. Simonsen
Gregory M. Simonsen
Fetzer Simonsen Booth & Jenkins PC
50 West Broadway, Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Telephone: (801) 328-0266
Email: collin@mountainwestlaw.com
greg@mountainwestlaw.com
Attorneys for Intervenor Plaintiff Constitution Party of Utah
Parker Douglas
Utah Federal Solicitor
David N. Wolf
Thomas D. Roberts
Kyle J. Kaiser
Assistant Utah Attorneys General
Office of the Utah Attorney General
350 North State Street, Suite 230
P.O. Box 142320
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2320
Telephone: (801) 538-9600
Email: pdouglas@utah.gov

12

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97 Filed 04/09/15 Page 13 of 13

dnwolf@utah.gov
thomroberts@utah.gov
kkaiser@utah.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

/s/ Christine R. Gilbert

13

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 6 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-2 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-2 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-2 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-2 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-2 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-2 Filed 04/09/15 Page 6 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-3 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 4

Exhibit C

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-3 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 4

John L. Fellows (4212)

RuthAnne Frost (13214)
Christine R. Gilbert (13840)
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH AND GENERAL COUNSEL
W210 State Capitol Complex
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Telephone: (801) 538-1032
Facsimile: (801) 538-1712
Email: jfellows@le.utah.gov
rfrost@le.utah.gov
cgilbert@le.utah.gov
Attorneys for Non-Party Senator Curtis S. Bramble

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

CENTRAL DIVISION

UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY,

Plaintiff,

DECLARATION OF SENATOR CURTIS S.

BRAMBLE

CONSTITUTION PARTY OF UTAH, a

registered political party of Utah,
Case No.: 2:14-cv-00876-DN
Plaintiff and Intervenor,
vs.

Chief Judge David Nuffer

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacity

as Governor of Utah, and SPENCER J. COX,
in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor
of Utah,
Defendants.

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-3 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 4

I Curtis S. Bramble, declare and state as follows:

1. I am over 18 years of age and competent to testify to the following matters.
2. I am a member of the Utah Senate, having first been elected as a state senator in 2000. I have
served as a state senator continuously since January 2001, representing District 16, covering
part of Utah County and part of Wasatch County.
3. I was the legislative sponsor of S.B. 54, Elections Amendments, passed during the 2014
General Session of the Legislature. I understand that this bill and communications related to
this bill are the subject of the present subpoenas.
4. On April 3, 2015, I was served with a subpoena via John Fellows, General Counsel to the Utah
Legislature. The subpoena was issued by attorneys for the plaintiff in this case. The subpoena
commands me to provide certain documents relating to S.B. 54 and to appear to testify at a
deposition on April 16, 2015, in Salt Lake City.
5. Also on April 3, 2015, I was served with a subpoena via John Fellows, General Counsel to the
Utah Legislature, by attorneys for the plaintiff in this case, commanding me to provide certain
documents and appear at a hearing in federal district court in Salt Lake City on April 10, 2015.
6. All the knowledge I presently have that is responsive to the subpoenas is knowledge I acquired
in my capacity as a legislator while performing legislative functions, including preparing,
negotiating, and evaluating proposed legislation.
7. All the documents I presently have that are responsive to the subpoenas were produced or
acquired exclusively in my capacity as a legislator while performing legislative functions,
including preparing, negotiating, and evaluating proposed legislation.

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-3 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 4

8. If called to testify concerning S.B. 54, my testimony would convey information acquired
exclusively in my capacity as a legislator and as the legislative sponsor of the bill.
9. If called to testify concerning any communication I had with any individual associated or
affiliated with the Count My Vote Initiative regarding that initiative, my testimony would
convey information acquired exclusively in my capacity as a legislator familiarizing myself
with an issue in preparation to sponsor or vote on legislation.
10. It is my understanding that minutes of public meetings, tape recordings, and video recordings
relating to S.B. 54 are available online at le.utah.gov, and that they are public documents.
11. I am unavailable to attend the hearing on April 10, 2015, as I am leaving town the day before.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
this 9th day of April, 2015.
/s/ Curtis S. Bramble
Curtis S. Bramble

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-4 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN-DBP Document 97-4 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 2