1. True the Vote, Inc.

Catherine Engelbrecht founded True the Vote, Inc. in 2010. Tr. 827:21–25. Engelbrecht serves as TTV’s current president and testified both in an individual capacity and as a representative for the organization at trial.14 Tr. 827:21–23. Plaintiffs called TTV/Engelbrecht to testify in their case-in-chief as an adverse witness for purposes of cross examination. Defendants subsequently recalled TTV/Engelbrecht in their case for direct examination and Plaintiffs briefly cross examined her.

Engelbrecht founded True the Vote in Texas to recruit and facilitate volunteer workers for elections. Tr 1752:13–1753:16. In short, TTV’s mission is “[s]upport of voters’ rights and empowering citizens to serve.” Tr. 1754:16–19; see also Tr. 1760:12–14 (“[E]mpowering citizens to have a voice” is “an important mission of True the Vote[.]”). Since its founding, TTV has conducted trainings to encourage volunteers and citizen service beyond voting, specifically encouraging people to “go and work on behalf of the party or the county or the candidate of their choice.” Tr. 1757:18–20. It has hosted voter registration drives, reviewed absentee ballots, and trained volunteers on signature verification. Tr. 1757:21–1758:8. It also has encouraged voters to look at voter rolls and educate themselves on election procedures. Tr. 1758:9–13. While election integrity was not a prevalent issue at the time Engelbrecht founded TTV, over the years it has become of greater consequence to the organization because it is “fundamental to the [election] process.” Tr. 1762:4–5.

TTV initiated a campaign following the 2020 presidential election called Validate the Vote. Tr. 830:15–31:4. The proposal drafted for the Validate the Vote initiative indicated that the “problem” to be address was “illegal ballots being cast and counted in the 2020 general election.”15 PX 1; Tr. 851:15–852:6. The actions specified in this initiative include building public momentum through publicity (Tr. 864:9–865:1, 865:20–866:3), targeting key areas (including Georgia as a “key state”) (Tr. 866:9–20), coordinating with GOP political leadership (Tr. 881:25–883:14), and filing federal lawsuits16 (Tr. 890:2–13). See also generally PX 1.

TTV’s efforts, as outlined in the Validate the Vote proposal for example, arose from changes to the electoral system following the national health crisis posed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Tr. 1765:23–1766:10. Examples of changes include a “massive push to mail-in ballots,” changes to signature verification standards and the use of drop boxes and chain of custody issues. Tr. 1767:4–18, 1768:13–1769:6. TTV perceived this environment to present a unique “responsibility” for the organization to ensure greater election integrity. Tr. 1770:21–25. This responsibility was felt specifically in Georgia given the close election results and the political importance of the runoff elections. Tr. 1774:22–1775:15. Plaintiffs elicited testimony that TTV took many actions in Georgia around the 2020 elections, specifically relating to the Validate the Vote campaign.17 See, e.g., Tr. 866:9–20, 881:5–883:14, 889:13–890:13.

As a result, TTV engaged in an effort in Georgia to facilitate challenges to potentially ineligible voters pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230. Tr. 906:3–908:12. TTV worked with the organization OpSec Group, LLC18 to compile the list of potentially ineligible voters to be challenged. Tr. 913:24-914:2. This list was based on NCOA data—that is, data obtained from requests for changes in address with the United States Postal Service. Tr. 917:11–18. Engelbrecht maintains that there was “comprehensive quality effort” and “absolute quality control” over the master list of potentially ineligible voters. Tr. 916:14-917:18. She also acknowledged that “[h]umans are complicated” and that there could be a variety of reasons someone might make a change of address request without having permanently moved for purposes of their voting residency. Tr. 968:13–16; see also Tr. 969:10–970:21 (discussing members of the military and college students as examples of people who would submit a NCOA request without having altered their residency), 1813:8–1815:9 (discussing international addresses, military addresses, and college addresses).

On December 18, 2020, TTV announced its intent to challenge 364,541 Georgia voters before the Senate runoff election. PX 42; Tr. 914:14–915:8. TTV indicated that it was working with co-Defendants Derek Somerville, Mark Davis, Mark Williams, Ron Johnson, and James Cooper, and that “[e]veryone pitched in.” PX 42. This announcement indicated that these elector challenges were “the best way to ensure only eligible voters are voting in the upcoming runoff elections” and that the challenges did “not remove voter names from the registry [but that] [v]oters who have been challenged will have the opportunity . . . to prove eligibility and still have their vote counted in the upcoming runoff election.” PX 42.

These challenges were an effort to ensure the Georgia voter roll was accurate. Tr. 912:9–913:3. To make the Section 230 challenges, TTV had to recruit potential challengers in the counties where the challenges would be made. Tr. 918:14–25; see also PX 42 (indicating that James Cooper and Ron Johnson “led the charge in recruiting hundreds of volunteer challengers across the state”). Once a challenge was made, then it was up to the counties to determine what to do with the information. Cf. O.C.G.A. 21-2-230(b) (2019); see also 1783:9–12 (affirming the Board of Elections conducted further review of Section 230 challenges). If a county credited the challenge, then the county might have required the challenged voter to show further evidence of residency in the county to prove eligibility to vote. Tr. 907:23–908:5.

Before facilitating any Section 230 challenges, TTV (through Engelbrecht) met with legal counsel, the Secretary of State’s office, 19 and others with specialized knowledge of the process to discuss making Section 230 challenges the way TTV intended. Tr. 974:2–7, 1777:3–20, 1793:2–1795:8. TTV also observed the developments in another federal lawsuit involving Section 230 challenges. Tr. 1788:4–1789:16. It was TTV’s impression that the counties could (and ultimately would) handle the Section 230 challenges made. Tr. 933:3–934:9, 1782:18–1784:13.

TTV also announced a partnership with Georgia Republican leaders. PX 35; Tr. 880:10–21. Engelbrecht testified that TTV reached out to Georgia’s leaders in the Democratic Party weeks later and did not receive any response. Tr. 885:19–23, 1843:19–22. TTV, however, disclaims having given any preference to either political party. Tr. 1843:14–17.

In addition to the challenges, Plaintiffs submitted evidence that TTV created a whistleblower fund—a “bounty”—for individuals who reported fraudulent election activities. PX 28; PX 52. At trial, Engelbrecht explained the fund and her use of the term “bounty” specifically. Tr. 869:9–22. Engelbrecht testified that she carelessly called the fund a “bounty” because a donor had used the term previously. Tr. 870:1–7. She emphasized that the fund was to protect people who were coming forward with “legitimate concerns” and ensure that those who reported voting fraud would have compensation. Tr. 870:14–871:8.

When it comes to the whistleblower fund, the Court finds TTV made available a fund to compensate people who reported election and voter fraud. The Court certainly accepts Engelbrecht’s testimony that an occasional use of the term “bounty” does not fully capture TTV’s intent with the fund. However, whatever one calls it, the Court finds the evidence to show that this fund was part of the TTV effort to ensure election integrity and had been utilized in Georgia (i.e., through at least one whistleblower being offered $50,000).

Plaintiffs also submit evidence that TTV recruited military veterans, specifically Navy SEALS, to intimidate voters at polls. PX 51. TTV testified that this initiative was not to intimidate any voters, but rather to encourage veterans to serve as poll workers because they have shown a prior commitment to service and are “good at following process and upholding the law.” Tr. 1837:15–1839:5. The Court credits TTV’s explanation of any public communications involving Navy SEALs. Thereby, the Court finds that TTV’s and Engelbrecht’s statements about Navy SEALs were made to facilitate election workers, not to intimidate voters. Tr. 1838:22–1839:5 (disclaiming any intent to intimidate, threaten, or coerce a voter in the recruitment of Navy SEALs).

Engelbrecht disclaimed ever having made any effort on behalf of True the Vote that resulted in speaking with, communicating to, or making a social media post about any specific challenged voter or Plaintiff in this case. Tr. 1830:22–1833:15. The Plaintiffs and voters who testified further affirmed that they were not contacted and did not have any direct communications with TTV or any of its representatives. Tr. 104:6–105:22; Tr. 582:24–583:4; Tr. 464:5–465:24; Tr. 235:3–236:10.

Since its 2020 election initiatives, TTV has created a platform called “IV3” which enables web users to search a database for potentially ineligible voters in order to facilitate voter eligibility challenges in the states that allow such challenges. Tr. 1035:10-1036:22, 1912:13–25.

Besides the factual determinations contained herein, the Court incorporates its overall credibility finding of Engelbrecht’s testimony in weighing its consideration of the evidence.