NC Voting Law Ruling

8/18/2019 NC Voting Law Ruling

1/484

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE MI DDLE DI STRI CT OF NORTH CAROLI NA

NORTH CAROLI NA STATE CONFERENCE )OF THE NAACP; EMMANUEL BAPTI ST )

CHURCH; COVENANT PRESBYTERI AN )CHURCH; BARBEE’ S CHAPEL MI SSI ONARY )BAPTI ST CHURCH, I NC. ; ROSANELL )EATON; ARMENTA EATON; CAROLYN )COLEMAN; J OCELYN FERGUSON- KELLY; )FAI TH J ACKSON; MARY PERRY; and )MARI A TERESA UNGER PALMER, )

)Pl ai nt i f f s, )

)v. ) 1: 13CV658

)PATRI CK LLOYD MCCRORY, i n hi s )of f i ci al capaci t y as Gover nor of )Nor t h Carol i na; KI M WESTBROOK )STRACH, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y )as Execut i ve Di r ect or of t he )Nor t h Car ol i na St at e Boar d of )El ect i ons; RHONDA K. AMOROSO, )i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as )Secr et ar y of t he Nor t h Car ol i na )St at e Boar d of El ect i ons; J OSHUA )D. MALCOLM, i n hi s of f i ci al )

capaci t y as a member of t he Nor t h )Car ol i na St at e Boar d of El ect i ons; ) J AMES BAKER, i n hi s of f i ci al )capaci t y as a member of t he Nor t h )Car ol i na St at e Boar d of El ect i ons; )and MAJ A KRI CKER, i n her of f i ci al )capaci t y as a member of t he Nor t h )Car ol i na St at e Boar d of El ect i ons, )

)Def endant s. )

__________________________________ )

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH )CAROLI NA; A. PHI LI P RANDOLPH )I NSTI TUTE; UNI FOUR ONESTOP )COLLABOARATI VE; COMMON CAUSE NORTH )CAROLI NA; GOLDI E WELLS; KAY )BRANDON; OCTAVI A RAI NEY; SARA )STOHLER; and HUGH STOHLER, )

Case 1:13-cv-00658-TDS-JEP Document 439 Filed 04/25/16 Pa e 1 of 485


2/484


3/484

i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as )Execut i ve Di r ect or of t he Nor t h )Car ol i na St at e Boar d of El ect i ons, )

)Def endant s. )

__________________________________ )



4/484

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. FINDINGS OF FACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. North Carolina Voting Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.

Voter ID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Early Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.

SDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5. Pre-registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

B. Post-2011 Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.

Introduction of HB 589. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. Revision of HB 589. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3. Enactment of HB 836. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

C. Procedural History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

D. Evidence of Voter Experience Under Current Law. . . . . . 50

1. Voter ID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

a. Voter Education about the Voter-ID

Requirement Prior to the Reasonable

Impediment Exception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

b. Voter Education After Enactment of the

Reasonable Impediment Exception. . . . . . . . . . . 56

c. Voters’ Experience in Acquiring Qualifying

ID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

d. Evidence of North Carolina Voters Without ID

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

e. Availability of the Reasonable Impediment

Exception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

2. Change in the Early-Voting Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . 125

3. Elimination of SDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152



5/484

4. Elimination of OOP Provisional Voting. . . . . . . . . 176

5. Elimination of Pre-Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

6. Other Challenged Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

7.

2014 Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

E. Testimony of Other Experts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

A. Section 2 of the VRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

1. The Law of Vote Denial and Abridgement Claims. 197

2. The Totality of the Circumstances & Gingles. . . 219

a.

The Success of the Prior Practices inFostering Minority Political Participation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

b. History of Official Discrimination. . . . . . . 227

c. Racially-Polarized Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

d. Enhancing the Opportunity for Discrimination

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

e. Candidate Slating Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

f. Continuing Effects of Discrimination

Hindering Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

g. Racial Appeals in Campaigning. . . . . . . . . . . . 257

h. Minority Electoral Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

i. Responsiveness of Elected Officials. . . . . . 261

j.

Tenuousness of the State’s Justifications 263

i. Voter ID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

ii. Early Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

iii.

SDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

iv. OOP Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

i i



6/484

v. Pre-Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

3. Equality of Opportunity and Social and Historical

Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

a. Voter ID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

b. Early Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

c. SDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

d. OOP Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

e. Pre-registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366

f. Cumulative Effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

4.

Discriminatory Result: Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

5. Discriminatory Intent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377

6. Additional Problems with the § 2 Results Claim 412

B. “Traditional” Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment

Claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426

C. Anderson-Burdick Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426

1. Voter ID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

2. Early Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435

3. SDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

4. OOP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

5.

Pre-registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

6. CBOE Discretion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452

7. Poll Observers and Challengers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

8.

Cumulative Effect of Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454

D. Twenty-Sixth Amendment Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456

E. Remedy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

III. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467

i i i



7/484

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, Di st r i ct J udge.

I n t hese r el at ed cases, Pl ai nt i f f s seek to per manent l y enj oi n

Def endant s f r om i mpl ement i ng var i ous pr ovi si ons of Nor t h Car ol i na

Sessi on Law 2013- 381 ( “SL 2013- 381”) , an omni bus el ect i on- r ef orm

l aw, as amended by Sessi on Law 2015- 103 ( “SL 2015- 103”) . 1

Pl ai nt i f f s ar e t he Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca ( t he “Uni t ed

St at es”) i n case 1: 13CV861, t he Nort h Car ol i na St at e Conf er ence of

t he NAACP and sever al or gani zat i ons and i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i f f s ( t he

“NAACP Pl ai nt i f f s” ) i n case 1: 13CV658, and t he League of Women

Vot er s of Nor t h Car ol i na al ong wi t h sever al or gani zat i ons and

i ndi vi dual s ( t he “League Pl ai nt i f f s”) i n case 1: 13CV660.

Addi t i onal l y, t he cour t al l owed a gr oup of “young vot er s” and

ot her s ( t he “I nt er venor Pl ai nt i f f s”) t o i nt er vene i n case

1: 13CV660. ( Doc. 62 i n case 1: 13CV660. ) Consi der ed t oget her ,

Pl ai nt i f f s r ai se cl ai ms under t he Four t eent h, Fi f t eent h, and

Twenty- Si xt h Amendments t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on as wel l

as § 2 of t he Vot i ng Ri ght s Act of 1965 ( “VRA”) , 52 U. S. C. § 10301

( f ormer l y 42 U. S. C. § 1973) . ( Doc. 365 i n case 1: 13CV861; Doc.

384 i n case 1: 13CV658; Docs. 1 & 63 i n case 1: 13CV660. ) The Uni t ed

1 The par t i es somet i mes ref er t o t he chal l enged l aw as “House Bi l l 589, ”i t s or i gi nal desi gnat i on by t he Nor t h Car ol i na Gener al Assembl y. Thef i nal pr oduct , as a dul y- enacted l aw passed by both chambers of t heGeneral Assembl y and si gned by t he gover nor, wi l l be ref er r ed to asSessi on Law 2013- 381. Pr i or t o passage, t he bi l l wi l l be r ef er r ed t oas HB 589.



8/484

St at es al so moves f or t he appoi nt ment of f eder al observer s t o

moni t or f ut ur e el ect i ons i n Nor t h Car ol i na pur suant t o § 3( a) of

t he VRA, 52 U. S. C. § 10302( a) ( f ormer l y 42 U. S. C. § 1973a( a) ) .

( Doc. 365 at 33. ) 2 Def endant s ar e t he St at e of Nor t h Car ol i na,

Gover nor Pat r i ck L. McCr or y, t he St at e Boar d of El ect i ons ( “SBOE”) ,

and sever al St at e of f i ci al s act i ng i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es.

The r ecor d i s ext ensi ve. The cour t hel d a f our - day

evi dent i ary hear i ng and argument begi nni ng J ul y 7, 2014, on

Pl ai nt i f f s’ mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, whi ch evi dence i s

now par t of t he t r i al r ecor d. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 65( a) ( 2) . Fi f t een

days of t r i al on t he mer i t s wer e conduct ed f r om J ul y 13 t hr ough

31, 2015. An addi t i onal si x days of t r i al on t he vot er phot o

i dent i f i cat i on ( “I D”) pr ovi si ons of t he l aw wer e conduct ed f r om

J anuar y 25 t hrough February 1, 2016. The cour t has consi dered

t est i mony of t went y- one exper t wi t nesses and 112 f act wi t nesses.

The r ecor d consi st s of mor e t han 11, 000 pages f r omt he prel i mi nary

i nj unct i on phase, i n excess of 12, 000 pages f r om t he J ul y t r i al ,

and over 2, 500 addi t i onal pages f r om t he J anuar y t r i al . 3 As can

2 Because of t he dupl i cat i ve nat ur e of t he f i l i ngs i n t hese t hr ee cases,t he cour t wi l l r ef er onl y to the record i n case 1: 13CV861 except where

necessar y t o di st i ngui sh t he cases. Wher e t he cour t has ci t ed t o docketent r i es, ( e. g. , Doc. 346 ( Pl ai nt i f f s’ pr oposed concl usi ons of l aw andf i ndi ngs of f act ) ) , pi npoi nt ci t es ar e t o t he CM/ ECF pagi nat i on. Wher et he cour t ci t es t o exhi bi t s by t he par t i es, pi npoi nt ci t es ar e t o t heexhi bi t ’ s i nt er nal pagi nat i on wher e possi bl e. Thi s i ncl udes exhi bi t scont ai ni ng deposi t i on desi gnat i ons.

3 Thi s i ncl udes al l exper t r epor t s, t o whi ch t he par t i es wai ved hear say

2



9/484

be seen f r om t he l engt h of t hi s memor andum opi ni on, mer el y t r yi ng

t o conci sel y st at e the cour t ’ s f i ndi ngs has present ed a monument al

chal l enge.

Thi s case present s i mpor t ant quest i ons as i t t est s Nor t h

Car ol i na’ s newl y- enact ed vot er phot o- I D r equi r ement and t he

St at e’ s modi f i cat i on or el i mi nat i on of cer t ai n vot i ng pr ocedur es

not cont empl ated by t he St ate a l i t t l e more t han a decade ago:

sevent een days of i n- per son ear l y vot i ng bef ore El ect i on Day, same-

day r egi st r at i on, vot i ng pr ovi si onal l y on El ect i on Day i n an

unassi gned pr eci nct , and pr e- r egi st er i ng t o vot e as ear l y as age

si xteen. Under bot h t he El ect i ons Cl ause of , and t he Tent h

Amendment t o, t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on, such deci si ons ar e

t r adi t i onal l y r eser ved t o t he St at es, but t hey ar e subj ect t o ot her

const i t ut i onal and congr essi onal l i mi t at i ons. The pr i nci pal

quest i on i n t hese cases i s whet her t he Nor t h Car ol i na Gener al

Assembl y i mposed a vot er - I D r equi r ement and al t ered t hese

r el at i vel y recent l y- devel oped vot i ng pr ocedur es – deemed

“conveni ences” and “f ai l - saf es” by some of Pl ai nt i f f s’ own exper t s

– based on r ace or , even i f not , i n a manner t hat pr esent s an

unl awf ul di scr i mi nat or y bur den on vot er s.

Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on of t he compl et e recor d and

pur suant t o Rul e 52( a) of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e,

obj ect i ons, but does not i ncl ude t he t r i al t r anscr i pt or Pl ai nt i f f s’Exhi bi t 646, whi ch i s a database wi t h 39, 912 pages.

3



10/484

t he cour t ent er s t he f ol l owi ng f i ndi ngs of f act - based upon an

eval uat i on of t he evi dence, i ncl udi ng t he credi bi l i t y of

wi t nesses, and t he i nf er ences t hat t he cour t has f ound r easonabl e

t o be dr awn t her ef r om - and concl usi ons of l aw. To t he extent any

f act ual st at ement i s cont ai ned i n t he concl usi ons of l aw, i t i s

deemed a f i ndi ng of f act as wel l .

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. North Carolina Voting Laws

The provi si ons of Nor t h Car ol i na SL 2013- 381 at i ssue

est abl i sh a vot er - I D r equi r ement and r epeal cer t ai n vot i ng and

r egi st r at i on mechani sms enacted si nce 1999. An under st andi ng of

t he pur poses and ef f ect of t he cur r ent r egi me r equi r es an

under st andi ng of t he pr evi ous l aws, i ncl udi ng t hei r or i gi n and

hi st ory. See League of Women Voter s of N. C. v. Nort h Carol i na,

769 F. 3d 224, 242 ( 4t h Ci r . 2014) ( “League”) ( not i ng t hat “Nor t h

Car ol i na’ s pr evi ous vot i ng pr act i ces ar e cent r al l y r el evant ”) .

Each modi f i ed or r emoved vot i ng and regi st r at i on mechani sm was

enact ed whi l e Democr at s cont r ol l ed bot h houses of Nor t h Car ol i na’ s

Gener al Assembl y and i t s gover nor shi p, whi ch t hey hel d unt i l 2011.

Because Nor t h Car ol i na was a cover ed j ur i sdi ct i on under § 5 of t he

VRA, each change r equi r ed appr oval by t he Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment

of J ust i ce ( “DOJ ”) .

1. Voter ID

Pr i or t o 2016, Nor t h Car ol i na r el i ed on a syst em of si gnat ur e

4



11/484

at t est at i on t o pr event vot er f r aud. Under t hi s syst em, pol l

wor ker s — as t he pr i mar y gat ekeeper s t o vot er f r aud — woul d ask

t he name and addr ess of vot ers pr esent i ng t o vot e i n per son. ( Doc.

407 at 43. ) I f t he pol l wor ker was abl e t o l ocat e a r egi st r at i on

f or t he name and addr ess pr ovi ded, t he vot er was r equi r ed t o si gn

an aut hor i zat i on t o vot e ( “ATV”) f or m at t est i ng t hat he was t he

per son under whose regi st r at i on he sought t o vote and that he

cur r ent l y r esi ded at t he addr ess of r egi st r at i on. ( Doc. 410 at

83; Pl ai nt i f f s’ Exhi bi t ( “Pl . Ex. ”) 1056. ) The ATV f or m war ned

vot er s t hat “f r audul ent l y or f al sel y compl et i ng t hi s f or m i s a

Cl ass I Fel ony. ” ( Pl . Ex. 1056. ) Al t hough t he SBOE mai nt ai ned

vot er s’ si gnat ur es as a r esul t of r egi st r at i on f or ms, ( Pl . Ex.

212A) , pol l wor ker s di d not have access t o the si gnat ur es, ei t her

dur i ng ear l y vot i ng or on El ect i on Day, ( Doc. 414 at 123) .

Accor di ngl y, si gnat ur es wer e not ver i f i ed at t he pol l i ng pl ace

and, unl ess t he pol l wor ker knew t he vot er , t he pol l wor ker had

ver y l i mi t ed means of det ermi ni ng whet her t he voter was t he same

per son as t he r egi st r ant . ( See i d. )

2. Early Voting

Pr i or t o 1973, Nor t h Car ol i na r equi r ed al l vot er s t o cast

t hei r bal l ot on El ect i on Day or t o appl y f or an absent ee bal l ot .

See N. C. Gen. St at . § 163- 227 ( 1972) . I n 1973, t he Gener al

Assembl y passed l egi sl at i on t hat per mi t t ed vot er s t o par t i ci pat e

5



12/484

i n “one- st op” “ear l y vot i ng”4 f or a per i od of si xt y days bef or e

El ect i on Day, but onl y i f t hey pr ovi ded a st at ut or i l y- accept abl e

excuse ( e. g. , absence f r om t he count y, si ckness, or di sabi l i t y)

and obt ai ned t hei r bal l ot f r om t he count y boar d of el ect i on

( “CBOE”) . 5 1973 N. C. Sess. Law 536, § 1.

I n 1979, t he General Assembl y r educed t he one- st op ear l y-

vot i ng per i od f r om si xt y days to t hi r t y days. 1979 N. C. Sess. Law

799, § 1. But see N. C. Gen. St at . § 163- 227. 3 ( pr ovi di ng t hat ,

unl ess ot her wi se aut hor i zed, a CBOE shal l pr ovi de absent ee bal l ot s

f or vot i ng by mai l “60 days pr i or t o t he st at ewi de gener al el ect i on

i n even- numbered years”) . Then, as now, a vot er had t o be

r egi st er ed at l east t went y- f i ve days bef or e t he el ect i on f or whi ch

t he absent ee bal l ot was bei ng of f er ed. See N. C. Gen. St at . § 163-

82. 6( c) ; N. C. Gen. St at . § 163- 67 ( 1979) ( maki ng t he r egi st r at i on

cut - of f t went y- one days bef or e El ect i on Day, excl udi ng Sat ur days

4 “One- st op” r ef er s t o t he pr ocedur e al l owi ng vot er s t o request and castan absent ee bal l ot at t he same t i me. “Ear l y vot i ng” descr i bes i n- per sonabsent ee vot i ng at desi gnated l ocat i ons bef or e El ect i on Day. Absent eemai l - i n vot i ng, l i ke ear l y i n- per son vot i ng, i s a f or m of “absent eevot i ng. ” Even when a vot er shows up i n person, he i s si mpl y appl yi ngf or and compl et i ng an absent ee vot i ng appl i cat i on and bal l ot at t he samet i me. Mai l - i n vot i ng br eaks t hi s i nt o t wo st eps: t he vot er appl i es f or

a no- excuse absent ee bal l ot , and, af t er t he l ocal CBOE mai l s i t t o t hevot er, t he vot er r etur ns t he compl et ed absent ee bal l ot t o t he CBOE,ei t her by mai l or i n per son.

5 Unl i ke t he f or m of absent ee vot i ng t hat exi st ed pr i or t o 1973, al lact i ons necessary f or t he one- st op ear l y- vot i ng bal l ot had t o “beper f or med i n t he of f i ce of t he boar d of el ect i ons. ” 1973 N. C. Sess. Law536, § 1.

6



13/484

and Sundays) . Thi s l aw pr ovi ded t hat a bal l ot execut ed at a CBOE

be compl et ed i n a vot i ng boot h or pr i vat e r oom. 1979 N. C. Sess.

Law 799, § 2.

I n 1999 ( ef f ect i ve J anuar y 1, 2000) , on a vot e al most ent i r el y

al ong par t y l i nes, 6 t he General Assembl y r emoved t he excuse

r equi r ement f or “one- st op” vot i ng i n Nor t h Car ol i na’ s even- year

gener al el ect i ons, t hus est abl i shi ng “no- excuse” ear l y vot i ng.

1999 N. C. Sess. Law 455, §§ 1, 6; ( Pl . Ex. 46 at 25 ( chr oni cl i ng

part i san vot i ng) ) . I t al so per mi t t ed a CBOE, upon unani mous CBOE

vot e and t he appr oval of t he SBOE, t o open addi t i onal ear l y- vot i ng

si t es beyond t he one si t e at t he CBOE. 1999 N. C. Sess. Law 455,

§ 6. Thus, a r egi st er ed vot er coul d pr esent her sel f at t he CBOE

or anot her desi gnat ed si t e i n her count y of r esi dence “[ n] ot

ear l i er t han t he f i r st busi ness day af t er t he t went y- f i f t h day

bef or e an el ect i on . . . and not l at er t han 5: 00 p. m. on t he Fr i day

pr i or t o t hat el ect i on” t o cast her bal l ot . I d. Because t he l aw

per mi t t ed onl y weekday oper at i ons, see i d. ( amendi ng N. C. Gen.

6 The vot e i n the Senate was 36- 10, wi t h f our Republ i cans vot i ng wi t ht he maj or i t y, and 60- 53 i n t he House wi t h al l Republ i cans j oi ned by oneDemocr at i n opposi t i on. ( Pl . Ex. 46 at 25. ) The cour t may t ake j udi ci al

not i ce of t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of t he l aws at i ssue. See Fed. R.Evi d. 201; see e. g. , Hal l v. Loui si ana, No. 12- 00657, 2015 WL 1383532,at *3 ( M. D. La. Mar . 23, 2015) ( ci t i ng Ter r i t or y of Al aska v. Am. CanCo. , 358 U. S. 224, 226–27 ( 1959) ) ( t aki ng j udi ci al not i ce of t hel egi s l at i ve hi story of a bi l l i n a vot i ng r i ght s case) . Pl ai nt i f f si gnor e t hi s hi st or y of Nor t h Car ol i na’ s ear l y vot i ng, especi al l y t hepar t i san opposi t i on t o changi ng ear l y vot i ng t o “no- excuse. ” ( Cf . Doc.346 at 22 (not i ng si mpl y t hat l at er amendment s t o ear l y vot i ng recei ved“subst ant i al bi par t i san suppor t ”) ) .

7



14/484

St at . § 163- 227. 2( f ) ) , t hi s of f er ed r egi st er ed vot er s f i f t een days

of ear l y vot i ng, i d.

I n 2000, t he General Assembl y enact ed SL 2000- 136, whi ch

al l owed CBOEs t o pet i t i on t he SBOE f or appr oval when t hey are

unabl e t o reach unani mous agr eement as t o the l ocat i on of

addi t i onal ear l y- vot i ng si t es. 2000 N. C. Sess. Law 136, § 2. The

l aw empowered t he SBOE, on a si mpl e maj or i t y vot e, t o approve

addi t i onal si t es based on t he consi der at i on of t he “par t i san

i nt er est s of t hat count y, ” among ot her f act or s. I d. ( not r equi r i ng

SBOE unani mi t y) . Because t he governor cont r ol s appoi nt ment s t o

t he SBOE, whi ch i n turn appoi nt s t he member s of t he CBOEs, bot h

boar ds ar e ef f ect i vel y cont r ol l ed by t he same pol i t i cal par t y as

t he gover nor . See N. C. Gen. St at . § 163- 19 ( gi vi ng t he gover nor

power t o appoi nt SBOE member s but r equi r i ng t hat “[ n]ot mor e t han

t hree member s of t he [ f i ve- member ] Boar d shal l be member s of t he

same pol i t i cal par t y”) ; N. C. Gen. St at . § 163- 30 ( pr ovi di ng

appoi nt ment power of CBOE member s t o t he SBOE and r equi r i ng t hat

“[ n]ot mor e t han t wo member s of t he [ t hree- member CBOE] shal l

bel ong t o t he same pol i t i cal par t y”) . 7 Thus, t hi s change i nj ect ed

par t i san consi der at i ons i nt o t he l ocat i on of addi t i onal ear l y-

7 As det ai l ed i nf r a, t he t r i al evi dence demonst r at ed t hat t hi s r esul t edi n ear l y- vot i ng si t es bei ng si t uat ed i n ar eas mor e f avor abl e to per sonswho t ended t o vot e f or Democr at i c candi dat es. ( See, e. g. , Def endant s’Exhi bi t ( “Def . Ex. ”) 212A at 14–16, 19 ( f i ndi ng t hat t he pl acement ofand hour s of f er ed f or ear l y- vot i ng si t es f avor Democr at s overRepubl i cans) . )

8



15/484

vot i ng si t es.

I n 2001, t he General Assembl y expanded no- excuse ear l y vot i ng

t o al l el ect i ons and absent ee bal l ot s. 2001 N. C. Sess. Law 337,

§ 1. Wi t h vot es spl i t l ar gel y al ong par t y l i nes i n t he Nor t h

Car ol i na House of Repr esent at i ves, but wi t h bi - par t i san suppor t i n

t he Senat e, 8 t he General Assembl y al so amended t he ear l y- vot i ng

per i od so t hat vot er s coul d appear at t he CBOE of f i ce t o vot e

“[ n] ot ear l i er t han t he t hi r d Thur sday bef or e an el ect i on . . .

and not l at er t han 1: 00 P. M. on t he l ast Sat ur day bef or e t hat

el ect i on. ” 2001 N. C. Sess. Law 319, § 5( a) . Under t hi s r evi si on,

CBOEs wer e gr ant ed di scr et i on t o ext end t he cl osi ng t i me on t hat

f i nal Sat ur day t o 5: 00 p. m. and, upon unani mous agr eement ( or i n

i t s absence, upon appr oval of t he SBOE) , t o mai nt ai n ear l y- vot i ng

hour s dur i ng t he eveni ng or on weekends t hr oughout t he ear l y-

vot i ng per i od. 9 I d. § 5( b) .

I n sum, t hese 2001 changes, ef f ect i ve J anuary 1, 2002, moved

t he st ar t of ear l y vot i ng t hr ee days cl oser t o El ect i on Day,

r educed t he number of r equi r ed days of ear l y vot i ng to t wel ve and

one- hal f days, but per mi t t ed an expansi on up t o sevent een days

upon unani mous CBOE agr eement . No one cr i t i ci zed or chal l enged

8 The f i nal House vote was 60- 54, wi t h si x Democrats not vot i ng but f ourRepubl i cans j oi ni ng t he Democrat i c maj or i t y. ( Pl . Ex. 47 at 16. ) TheSenat e’ s f i nal vot e was 46- 2. ( I d. )

9 CBOEs r emai ned f r ee t o open addi t i onal ear l y- vot i ng si t es ot her t hant he CBOE of f i ce by unani mous vot e or , i n i t s absence, upon appr oval oft he SBOE upon pet i t i on. N. C. Gen. St at . § 163- 227. 2( g) ( 2001) .

9



16/484

t he reduced mi ni mum or ot her changes.

3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting

The next vot i ng change, chr onol ogi cal l y, was t he advent of

out - of - pr eci nct ( “OOP”) pr ovi si onal vot i ng, whose or i gi ns i n Nor t h

Carol i na can be t r aced t o Congr ess’ passage i n 2002 of t he Hel p

Amer i ca Vot e Act ( “HAVA”) , 52 U. S. C. §§ 20901–21145 ( f ormer l y 42

U. S. C. §§ 15301- 15545) , whi ch i n t ur n was passed i n t he wake of

evi dence of i r r egul ar i t i es i n t he 2000 pr esi dent i al el ect i on.

HAVA, i n par t , r equi r ed St at es t o of f er pr ovi si onal bal l ot s t o

i ndi vi dual s on El ect i on Day who seek t o vot e and cl ai m t o be

r egi st er ed and el i gi bl e t o vot e f or f eder al of f i ce, but who do

“not appear on t he of f i ci al l i st of el i gi bl e vot er s f or t he pol l i ng

pl ace or an el ecti on of f i ci al asser t s t hat t he i ndi vi dual i s not

el i gi bl e t o vot e. ” See 52 U. S. C. § 21082( a) . However , HAVA onl y

r equi r es such pr ovi si onal bal l ot s t o be count ed “i n accor dance

wi t h St at e l aw. ” I d. § 21082( a) ( 4) . Thus, a pr ovi si onal bal l ot

must be count ed onl y i f St at e l aw aut hor i zes i t .

I n 2003, a bi l l was i nt r oduced i n t he Gener al Assembl y t i t l ed,

“Hel p Amer i ca Vot e Act Compl i ance. ” H. B. 842, 2003 Gen. Assemb. ,

Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2003) . I t s st at ed pur pose was “t o ensur e t hat

t he St at e of Nor t h Car ol i na has a syst em f or al l Nor t h Car ol i na

el ect i ons t hat compl i es wi t h t he r equi r ement s f or f eder al

el ect i ons set f or t h i n” HAVA. See 2003 N. C. Sess. Law 226, § 1.

I t was appr oved unani mousl y. As t o pr ovi si onal bal l ot s

10



17/484

speci f i cal l y, t he l aw pr ovi ded t hat t he CBOE shal l count a

pr ovi si onal bal l ot “f or al l bal l ot i t ems on whi ch i t det er mi nes

t hat t he i ndi vi dual was el i gi bl e under St at e or f eder al l aw t o

vot e. ” I d. § 15( 5) .

Soon af t er , t he SBOE cl ai med aut hor i t y t o count pr ovi si onal

bal l ot s cast out si de t he vot er ’ s cor r ect pr eci nct , and sever al

af f ect ed Republ i can candi dat es rai sed a l egal chal l enge. See I n

r e El ect i on Pr ot est of Fl et cher , 175 N. C. App. 755, 756, 625 S. E. 2d

564, 565 ( 2006) ( not i ng t he chal l enger ’ s par t y af f i l i at i on) . The

Nort h Carol i na Supr eme Cour t unani mousl y hel d that t he count i ng of

such bal l ot s vi ol at ed St at e l aw and SBOE r egul at i ons, whi ch

r equi r ed vot er s t o cast bal l ot s i n t hei r assi gned pr eci nct . J ames

v. Bar t l et t , 359 N. C. 260, 267- 70, 607 S. E. 2d 638, 642- 44 ( 2005)

( “The pl ai n meani ng of [ N. C. Gen. St at . § 163–55 ( 2003) ] 10 i s that

vot er s must cast bal l ot s on el ect i on day i n t hei r pr eci nct s of

r esi dence. ”) . I n r eachi ng i t s deci si on, t he Nor t h Car ol i na Supr eme

Cour t r ecogni zed sever al “advant ages” of t he pr eci nct syst em and

10 N. C. Gen. St at . § 163- 55 pr ovi ded ( emphasi s added) :

Ever y person born i n t he Uni t ed St ates, and ever y person who

has been natur al i zed, and who shal l have resi ded i n t he St at eof Nor t h Car ol i na and i n t he pr eci nct i n whi ch he of f er s t or egi st er and vot e f or 30 days next pr ecedi ng t he ensui ngel ecti on, shal l , i f ot her wi se qual i f i ed as pr escr i bed i n t hi sChapt er , be qual i f i ed t o r egi st er and vot e i n t he pr eci nct i nwhi ch he r esi des: Provi ded, t hat r emoval f r omone pr eci nct t oanot her i n t hi s St at e shal l not oper at e t o depr i ve any per sonof t he r i ght t o vot e i n t he pr eci nct f r omwhi ch he has removedunt i l 30 days af t er hi s r emoval .

11



18/484

i n- pr eci nct vot i ng, whi ch i t observed wer e “woven t hr oughout t he

f abr i c of [ t he St at e’ s] el ect i on l aws, ” i d. at 267, 607 S. E. 2d at

642 ( ci t i ng st at ut es) , i ncl udi ng t hat

i t caps t he number of vot er s at t empt i ng t o vot e i n t hesame pl ace on el ect i on day; i t al l ows each pr eci nctbal l ot t o l i st al l of t he vot es a ci t i zen may cast f oral l per t i nent f eder al , state, and l ocal el ect i ons,r ef er enda, i ni t i at i ves, and l evi es; i t al l ows eachpr eci nct bal l ot t o l i st onl y those vot es a ci t i zen maycast , maki ng bal l ot s l ess conf usi ng; i t makes i t easi erf or el ect i on of f i ci al s t o moni t or vot es and pr eventel ect i on f r aud; and i t gener al l y put s pol l i ng pl aces i ncl oser pr oxi mi t y t o vot er r esi dences.

I d. at 271, 607 S. E. 2d at 644–45 ( quot i ng Sandusky Ct y. Democrat i c

Par t y v. Bl ackwel l , 387 F. 3d 565, 569 ( 6t h Ci r . 2004) ( per

cur i am) ) . The cour t al so not ed:

I f vot er s coul d si mpl y appear at any pr eci nct t o castt hei r bal l ot , t her e woul d be no way under t he pr esentsyst emt o conduct el ect i ons wi t hout over whel mi ng del ays,mass conf usi on, and t he pot ent i al f or f r aud t hat r obst he val i di t y and i nt egr i t y of our el ect i ons pr ocess.

I d. at 270, 607 S. E. 2d at 644. The Nort h Carol i na Supr eme Cour t

f ound t hat “i t i s but a per f unct or y r equi r ement t hat vot er s

i dent i f y thei r pr oper pr eci nct and appear wi t hi n t hat pr eci nct on

el ect i on day t o cast t hei r bal l ot s. ” I d. at 271, 607 S. E. 2d at

645.

I n r esponse t o J ames, t he Gener al Assembl y — on a pur el y

par t i san di vi si on — i mmedi at el y passed SL 2005- 2, 11 amendi ng N. C.

11 The f i nal vot es were 29- 21 i n t he Senate and 61- 54 i n t he House. ( Def .Ex. 168. )

12



19/484

Gen. St at . § 163- 55 t o r emove t he requi r ement t hat vot er s appear

i n t he pr oper preci nct on El ect i on Day i n or der t o vot e. 2005

N. C. Sess. Law 2, § 2. The Gener al Assembl y went f ur t her , however ,

t o r equi r e t hat t he l aw appl y r et r oact i vel y t o t he 2004 el ect i on,

t hus ensur i ng el ect or al vi ct or y f or t he Democr at i c candi dat es i n

t he el ect i ons chal l enged i n J ames. I d. §§ 1- 14. And as “ext r a

i nsur ance” agai nst j udi ci al i nt er vent i on, t he Democrat i c maj or i t y

put i n pl ace a pr ocedur e mandat i ng t hat t he l egi sl at ur e - and not

t he cour t s - woul d deci de cont est ed el ect i ons f or St at e- wi de

of f i ces. ( Pl . Ex. 46 at 30. ) The Gener al Assembl y al so pl aced i n

t he l aw a f i ndi ng t hat i t had “t ake[ n] not e” t hat Af r i can Amer i cans

di sproport i onatel y used OOP vot i ng on El ect i on Day i n November

2004. 2005 N. C. Sess. Law. 2, § 1.

4. SDR

The Nat i onal Vot er Regi st r at i on Act ( “NVRA”) , 52 U. S. C.

§ 20507( a) ( 1) ( f or mer l y 42 U. S. C. § 1973gg- 6( a) ( 1) ) , per mi t s a

St at e t o set a r egi st r at i on cut - of f of t hi r t y days bef or e an

el ect i on. Nor t h Car ol i na ext ends t hat deadl i ne by f i ve days such

t hat a per son i s r equi r ed t o have r egi st er ed t o vot e at l east

t went y- f i ve days bef or e an el ect i on i n or der t o cast a bal l ot .

N. C. Gen. St at . § 163- 82. 6( c) .

I n J ul y 2007, t he Gener al Assembl y — spl i t al most ent i r el y

al ong par t y l i nes — passed l egi sl at i on per mi t t i ng vot er s t o

r egi st er and vot e at ear l y- vot i ng si t es, whi ch Gover nor Mi chael

13



20/484

Easl ey si gned i nt o l aw. 12 The l aw pr ovi ded t hat “an i ndi vi dual who

i s qual i f i ed t o regi st er t o vot e may regi st er i n per son and t hen

vot e at [ an ear l y- vot i ng] si t e i n t he per son’ s count y of r esi dence

dur i ng t he per i od f or [ ear l y] vot i ng pr ovi ded under [ §] 163- 227. 2. ”

2007 N. C. Sess. Law 253, § 1. The l aw r equi r ed a pr ospect i ve vot er

t o compl et e a vot er r egi st r at i on f ormand pr oduce document ary pr oof

of her cur r ent name and addr ess, ei t her t hr ough a Nort h Carol i na

dr i ver ’ s l i cense, a phot o I D f r om a gover nment agency, or a HAVA

document . 13 I d. I f she el ect ed t o vot e i mmedi at el y, t he vot er

coul d “vot e a r et r i evabl e absent ee bal l ot as pr ovi ded i n [ §] 163-

227. 2 i mmedi at el y af t er r egi st er i ng. ” I d. Wi t hi n t wo busi ness

days, t he CBOE was r equi r ed, i n conj unct i on wi t h t he SBOE, t o

ver i f y t he vot er ’ s dr i ver ’ s l i cense or soci al secur i t y number

( “SSN”) , updat e t he vot i ng dat abase, pr oceed t o ver i f y t he vot er ’ s

pr oper addr ess, and count t he vot e unl ess t he CBOE det ermi ned t hat

t he appl i cant was not qual i f i ed t o vot e i n accor dance wi t h t he

pr ovi si ons of t hat chapt er . I d. As wi l l be seen, t hi s meant t hat ,

as a pr act i cal mat t er vot es wer e count ed even t hough t he voter

r egi st ered and vot ed at t he CBOE t oo cl ose t o El ect i on Day t o

12 The f i nal vot es wer e 69- 47 i n t he House, wi t h t hr ee Republ i cans j oi ni ngt he Democr at i c maj or i t y, ( Def . Ex. 169) , and 34- 15 i n the Senat e, wi t hf our Republ i cans j oi ni ng t he Democr at i c maj or i t y, ( Def . Ex. 170) .

13 The f ol l owi ng const i t ut e a val i d “HAVA document ”: “a cur r ent ut i l i t ybi l l , bank st atement , government check, paycheck, or other governmentdocument ” showi ng t he vot er ’ s “name and address. ” N. C. Gen. St at . § 163-166. 12( a) .

14



21/484

per mi t t he CBOE to compl y wi t h Nor t h Car ol i na’ s preexi st i ng mai l

ver i f i cat i on syst em f or vot er r egi st r at i on. See N. C. Gen. St at .

§ 163- 82. 7.

5. Pre-registration

Ever si nce t he r at i f i cat i on of t he Twent y- Si xth Amendment i n

1971, a person who woul d be ei ght een years- ol d on t he next El ect i on

Day coul d r egi st er t o vot e i n Nor t h Car ol i na, whi ch i ncl uded t he

pr i mar y f or t hat el ect i on even i f he woul d not be ei ght een on t he

dat e of t he pr i mar y. N. C. Gen. St at . §§ 163- 55( a) ( 1) , 163- 59. I n

1993, a bi l l t o per mi t si xt een- and sevent een- year - ol ds t o “pr e-

r egi st er ” was i nt r oduced but f ai l ed t o gai n passage. ( Pl . Ex. 46

at 23. )

I n 2009, a bi par t i san General Assembl y passed SL 2009- 541,

whi ch al l owed f or “pr e- r egi st r at i on” of si xt een- and sevent een-

year - ol ds who woul d not be ei ght een bef ore t he next gener al

el ecti on. 14 2009 N. C. Sess. Law 541, § 7( a) . Wi t h pr e-

r egi st r at i on, “[ a] per son who i s at l east 16 year s of age but wi l l

not be 18 years of age by t he date of t he next el ect i on and who i s

ot her wi se qual i f i ed t o r egi st er may pr er egi st er t o vot e and shal l

be aut omat i cal l y r egi st er ed upon r eachi ng t he age of el i gi bi l i t y

f ol l owi ng ver i f i cat i on of t he per son’ s qual i f i cat i ons and addr ess

i n accor dance wi t h [ §] 163- 82. 7. ” I d. Sessi on Law 2009- 541 al so

14 The f i nal vot es were 32- 3 i n t he Senat e and 107- 6 i n t he House. ( Pl .Ex. 46 at 33. )

15



22/484

mandat ed t hat CBOEs conduct pr e- r egi st r at i on dr i ves. I d. § 16( a) .

B. Post-2011 Legislation

I n 2011, Republ i cans gai ned maj or i t i es i n bot h houses of t he

Gener al Assembl y, yet t he Democrats cont i nued t o cont r ol t he

gover nor shi p. Wi t h t hat shi f t , however , ef f or t s t o al t er sever al

of t he r ecent l y- enact ed el ect i on l aws began. Those i ncl uded bi l l s

t o r educe ear l y vot i ng and end SDR and pr e- r egi st r at i on. See e. g. ,

H. B. 658, 2011 Gen. Assemb. , Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2011) ( r educi ng ear l y

vot i ng by a week) ; 15 S. B. 714, 2011 Gen. Assemb. , Reg. Sess. ( N. C.

2011) ( r equi r i ng al l sat el l i t e ear l y- vot i ng si t es t o r emai n open

at l east t he same number of days per week and t he same number of

hour s per day as t he CBOE si t e) ; S. B. 657, 2011 Gen. Assemb. , Reg.

Sess. ( N. C. 2011) ( el i mi nat i ng a week of ear l y vot i ng and any

Sunday vot i ng) ; S. B. 47, 2011 Gen. Assemb. , Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2011)

( el i mi nat i ng a week of ear l y vot i ng, SDR, and st r ai ght - t i cket

vot i ng) ; S. B. 657, 2011 Gen. Assemb. , Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2011)

( el i mi nat i ng a week of ear l y vot i ng, Sunday vot i ng, SDR, and pr e-

r egi st r at i on) . Most pr omi nent among t hose pr oposal s was H. B. 351,

2011 Gen. Assemb. , Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2011) , ent i t l ed “Rest or e

Conf i dence i n Government , ” whi ch i nt r oduced a phot o- I D

r equi r ement . HB 351 was debat ed i n and passed Nor t h Carol i na’ s

15 S. B. 658 f ai l ed when Democrat i c SBOE Execut i ve Di r ect or Gar y Bart l et ti ssued a memor andum on t he day of t he thi r d r eadi ng of t he bi l l , st at i ngt hat he bel i eved t hat r educi ng ear l y vot i ng woul d act ual l y cost mor e.( Pl . Ex. 46 at 35. )

16



23/484

House and Senat e, but was vetoed by Governor Bever l y Per due. ( Pl .

Ex. 46 at 35. ) Accor di ng t o a Pl ai nt i f f s’ exper t i n t hi s case,

“Al l of t he vot es wer e al most pur e par t i san spl i t s. ” ( I d. )

I n 2012, Republ i cans gai ned cont r ol of t he gover nor shi p and,

i n 2013, cont r ol of bot h houses. Af t er more t han a cent ur y si nce

cont r ol l i ng al l of f i ces, t hey renewed at t empt s t o change Nor t h

Car ol i na’ s el ect i on admi ni st r at i on. I n 2013, sever al bi l l s wer e

i nt r oduced t o reduce t he ear l y- vot i ng per i od, el i mi nat e SDR, and

al t er ot her procedur es. See, e. g. , H. B. 913, 2013 Gen. Assemb. ,

Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2013) ( el i mi nat i ng SDR and enhanci ng observer

r i ght s) ; S. B. 428, 2013 Gen. Assemb. , Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2013)

( el i mi nat i ng a week of ear l y vot i ng and SDR) ; S. B. 666, 2013 Gen.

Assemb. , Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2013) ( el i mi nat i ng a week of ear l y

vot i ng, weekend vot i ng hour s, and SDR) ; S. B. 721, 2013 Gen.

Assemb. , Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2013) ( i mpl ement i ng voter I D and r educi ng

ear l y vot i ng t o si x days) ; H. B. 451, 2013 Gen. Assemb. , Reg. Sess.

( N. C. 2013) ( el i mi nat i ng a week of ear l y vot i ng, Sunday vot i ng,

SDR, and st r ai ght - t i cket vot i ng) .

1. Introduction of HB 589

On March 12, 2013, t he l egi sl at i ve pr ocess f or SL 2013- 381

began, wi t h the Nort h Carol i na House Commi t t ee on El ect i ons,

chai r ed by Republ i can Repr esent at i ve Davi d R. Lewi s, hol di ng

publ i c hear i ngs on vot er I D. ( See Pl . Ex. 127. ) Over sevent y-

f i ve ci t i zens f r om a wi de var i et y of or gani zat i ons spoke bef or e

17



24/484

t he commi t t ee. ( I d. at 2–5. ) The next day, t he commi t t ee met and

consi der ed t he t est i mony of f i ve i ndi vi dual s r epr esent i ng a wi de

var i et y of or gani zat i ons, i ncl udi ng t he Br ennan Cent er f or J ust i ce

and t he Her i t age Foundat i on. ( See Pl . Ex. 128. ) One of t he

speaker s was Al l i son Ri ggs, counsel of r ecor d f or t he League

Pl ai nt i f f s i n case 1: 13CV660, who appear ed on behal f of t he

Sout her n Coal i t i on f or Soci al J ust i ce. ( I d. at 4. ) On Apr i l 3,

t he commi t t ee hear d f r om I on Sancho, t he Super vi sor of El ect i ons

f or Leon Count y, Fl or i da, who t est i f i ed about Fl or i da’ s exper i ence

when i t r educed ear l y- vot i ng days i n advance of t he 2012 gener al

el ect i on. ( Pl . Ex. 129 at 61–62, 69–70, 78–79. ) Those publ i c

hear i ngs wer e not r equi r ed by the Nor t h Carol i na House’ s i nt er nal

r ul es. ( Def endant s’ Exhi bi t ( Def . Ex. ) 217 at 3) ; see H. R. 54,

2013 Gen. Assemb. , Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2013) ,

ht t p: / / www. ncl eg. net / Sessi ons/ 2013/ Bi l l s/ House/ PDF/ H54v3. pdf

( l ast vi si t ed Apr i l 6, 2015) ( her ei naf t er “H. R. 54”) . 16

On Apr i l 4, HB 589 was i nt r oduced i n t he House. ( Pl . Ex.

105. ) The bi l l deal t most l y wi t h t he i mpl ement at i on of a vot er -

I D r equi r ement begi nni ng i n 2016 i n por t i ons t i t l ed t he “Vot er

I nf or mat i on Ver i f i cat i on Act . ” ( I d. at 1–6, 11–12. ) The r emai nder

of t he bi l l deal t wi t h t he pr ocedur e f or obt ai ni ng and vot i ng mai l -

i n absent ee bal l ot s. ( I d. at 6–11. )

16 Fed. R. Evi d. 201.

18



25/484

Under House r ul es, l egi sl at i on must pass t hr ee r eadi ngs. 17 On

Apr i l 8, t he bi l l passed “f i r st r eadi ng” and was r ef er r ed t o t he

House Commi t t ee on El ect i ons. ( Pl . Ex. 121. ) The commi t t ee

subsequent l y hel d anot her publ i c hear i ng on Apr i l 10, dur i ng whi ch

over sevent y- f i ve ci t i zens f r om across t he pol i t i cal spect r um had

t he oppor t uni t y t o speak. ( Pl . Ex. 130. ) That same day, t he

commi t t ee hel d another hear i ng dur i ng whi ch t he bi l l was di scussed

and addi t i onal publ i c comment s wer e r ecei ved. ( Pl . Ex. 545. ) The

commi t t ee f ur t her debat ed t he bi l l and added amendment s at a

meet i ng hel d on Apr i l 17. ( Pl . Ex. 546. ) The bi l l was r ef er r ed

t o t he House Commi t t ees on Fi nance. ( Pl . Ex. 121. )

HB 589 advanced, as amended, f r omt he var i ous House commi t t ees

and was debat ed on t he House f l oor on Apr i l 24. ( I d. ; Pl . Exs.

547, 548. ) Thr ee amendment s were adopt ed, si x ot her s were

r ej ect ed, and t he bi l l passed “second r eadi ng” on a r ol l - cal l vot e

of 80- 36. 18 ( Pl . Ex. 121; Pl . Ex. 548 at 177. ) The bi l l

subsequent l y passed “t hi r d r eadi ng, ” on a vot e of 81- 36, and was

passed by t he House. ( Pl . Ex. 548 at 178. ) Fi ve House Democrat s

j oi ned al l present Republ i cans i n vot i ng f or t he vot er - I D bi l l ,

17 House Rul e 41( a) st at es, “Ever y bi l l shal l r ecei ve t hr ee r eadi ngs i nt he House pr i or t o i t s passage. The f i r st r eadi ng and r ef er ence t ost andi ng commi t t ee of a House bi l l shal l occur on t he next l egi sl at i veday f ol l owi ng i t s i nt r oduct i on. ” H. R. 54; Fed. R. Evi d. 201.

18 House Rul e 41( b) st at es: “No bi l l shal l be read more t han once on thesame day wi t hout t he concur r ence of t wo- t hi r ds of t he member s presentand vot i ng . . . . ” H. R. 54.

19



26/484

( Pl . Ex. 122 ( not i ng r ol l cal l vot e on Apr i l 24 t hi r d r eadi ng) ;

Pl . Ex. 138 at 67–68, 77, 88) , but none of t he Af r i can Amer i can

member s of t he House suppor t ed i t , ( Pl . Exs. 122, 154) .

Repr esent at i ve Ri ck Gl azi er , who st r ongl y opposed t he bi l l ,

never t hel ess acknowl edged t hat “[ f ] or a l ar ge bi l l , ” HB 589

r ecei ved up t o thi s poi nt “t he best pr ocess possi bl e” i n t he House,

one he char act er i zed as “excel l ent . ” ( Doc. 165 at 56- 57; see al so

Pl . Ex. 25 at 6. )

HB 589 was r ecei ved i n t he Nor t h Carol i na Senat e t he next

day, passed f i r st r eadi ng, and was assi gned to t he Senat e Rul es

Commi t t ee. ( Pl . Ex. 121. ) The commi t t ee t ook no i mmedi at e act i on

on t he bi l l . The par t i es do not di sput e t hat t he Senat e bel i eved

at t hi s s t age t hat HB 589 woul d have t o be submi t t ed t o t he DOJ

f or “pre- cl earance” under § 5 of t he VRA, 52 U. S. C. § 10304

( f ormer l y 42 U. S. C. § 1973c) , because many Nort h Carol i na count i es

wer e “cover ed j ur i sdi ct i ons” under t hat sect i on. At t hat t i me,

however , t he Uni t ed St at es Supreme Cour t was consi der i ng a

chal l enge t o t he DOJ ’ s abi l i t y t o enf or ce § 5. So, t he bi l l sat .

On J une 25, t he Supr eme Cour t i ssued i t s deci si on i n Shel by

Count y v. Hol der , 133 S. Ct . 2612 ( 2013) , decl ar i ng t he f or mul a

used t o det er mi ne t he § 5 cover ed j ur i sdi ct i ons, 52 U. S. C.

§ 10303( b) ( f or mer l y 42 U. S. C. § 1973b( b) ) , t o be unconst i t ut i onal .

The next day, Senat or Thomas Apodaca, Republ i can Chai r man of t he

Rul es Commi t t ee, publ i cl y st at ed, “I t hi nk we’ l l have an omni bus

20



27/484

bi l l comi ng out ” and wor ds t o t he ef f ect t hat t he Senat e woul d

move ahead wi t h t he “f ul l bi l l . ” ( Pl . Exs. 81, 714. ) The cont ent s

of t he “omni bus bi l l ” wer e not di scl osed at t he t i me. HB 589

r emai ned i n the Senat e Rul es Commi t t ee wi t hout l egi sl at i ve act i on

unt i l l at e J ul y 2013. ( Pl . Ex. 121. )

2. Revision of HB 589

A meet i ng of t he Rul es Commi t t ee was schedul ed f or J ul y 23.

( See Pl . Exs. 121, 135, 202. ) The ni ght bef ore t he Rul es Commi t t ee

meet i ng, t he r evi sed ver si on of HB 589, now f i f t y- seven pages i n

l ength, was post ed f or t he member s on t he Rul es Commi t t ee websi t e. 19

( Pl . Ex. 18A at 7–8 ( decl ar at i on of Sen. J osh St ei n) ; Pl . Ex. 107;

Doc. 164 at 111–12 ( t est i mony of Sen. Dan Bl ue) ; Doc. 335 at 169–

72. ) The r evi sed bi l l cont ai ned a number of changes and now

f ocused mor e br oadl y on el ect i on l aw r ef or m. ( See Pl . Ex. 107. )

Pl ai nt i f f s have char act er i zed t he bi l l as a “monst er vot er

suppr essi on l aw, ” f ocusi ng on t he f act t hat i t emer ged at f i f t y-

seven pages. However , i n t r uth, most of HB 589’ s changes – some

f or t y- t wo of t he f i f t y- seven pages ( 74%) - have gone unchal l enged

i n t hi s case. The changes wer e al so hi ghl i ght ed f or t he

conveni ence of t he reader .

HB 589’ s var i ous unchal l enged revi si ons, whi ch cl ai med to

19 A ver si on of HB 589 appears t o have been di st r i but ed t o members of t heRul es Commi t t ee who were pr esent on J ul y 18, 2013. ( Doc. 134- 4 at 3. )I t i s not cl ear whet her t hi s ver si on di f f er ed f r om t hat post ed on t hewebsi t e on J ul y 22.

21



28/484

“r ef or m” Nor t h Car ol i na’ s el ect i on l aw, i ncl uded: ( 1)

st andar di zi ng t he pr ocess f or r equest i ng an absent ee bal l ot

t hr ough an absent ee bal l ot r equest f or m cr eat ed by t he SBOE ( Par t

4) ; ( 2) expandi ng t he publ i c agenci es of f er i ng vot er r egi st r at i on

t o i ncl ude seni or cent er s and par ks and r ecr eat i on ser vi ces ( Par t

5) ; ( 3) maki ng i t i l l egal t o compensat e per sons col l ect i ng vot er

r egi st r at i ons based on t he number of f orms t hey submi t t ed ( Par t

14) ; ( 4) r equi r i ng bi annual ef f or t s by the SBOE t o r emove

i nel i gi bl e vot er s f r omNor t h Car ol i na’ s vot er r ol l s ( Par t 18) ; ( 5)

r educi ng t he number of si gnat ur es r equi r ed t o become a candi dat e

i n a par t y pr i mar y ( Par t 22) ; ( 6) del et i ng obsol et e pr ovi si ons

about t he 2000 census ( Par t 27) ; ( 7) mandat i ng t hat sever al mat t er s

be r ef er r ed f or f ur t her st udy, i ncl udi ng r equi r i ng t he J oi nt

Legi sl at i ve Over si ght Commi t t ee t o exami ne whet her t o mai nt ai n t he

St at e’ s cur r ent r unof f syst em i n par t y pr i mar i es ( Par t 28) ; ( 8)

el i mi nat i ng t he opt i on of st r ai ght - t i cket vot i ng ( vot i ng f or an

ent i r e par t y r at her t han i ndi vi dual candi dat es) ( Par t 32) ; ( 9)

movi ng t he dat e of t he Nor t h Car ol i na pr esi dent i al pr i mar y ear l i er

i n t he year ( Par t 35) ; ( 10) el i mi nat i ng t axpayer f undi ng f or

appel l at e j udi ci al el ecti ons ( Par t 38) ; ( 11) al l owi ng f uner al

homes t o par t i ci pat e i n cancel i ng vot er r egi st r at i ons of deceased

per sons ( Par t 39) ; and ( 12) r equi r i ng pr ovi si onal bal l ot s t o be

mar ked as such f or l at er i dent i f i cat i on ( Par t 52) . ( Pl . Ex. 107. )

The bi l l al so changed t he or der i ng of Nor t h Car ol i na’ s bal l ot s.

22



29/484

Pr i or t o 2013, whi l e t he candi dat es’ names wer e l i st ed i n r andom

or der i n pr i mar i es, Democrat i c candi dat es wer e al ways l i st ed f i r st

i n t he gener al el ect i on bal l ot s. ( Doc. 341 at 165. ) HB 589

al t er ed t he l i st i ng f or gener al el ecti ons. ( Pl . Ex. 107 at 43. )

The provi si ons chal l enged i n t he present l awsui t compr i se

appr oxi mat el y f i f t een of HB 589’ s f i f t y- seven pages. 20 ( See i d. )

Of t hose, r oughl y ni ne pages cont ai n t he vot er - I D r equi r ement . 21

Many of t he vot er - I D pr ovi si ons di d not di f f er f r om t hose i n t he

ol d, al r eady debat ed ver si on of t he bi l l : The new changes

pr i nci pal l y i ncl uded t he r emoval of cer t ai n gover nment , st at e

uni ver si t y, and communi t y col l ege I Ds f r om t he accept abl e l i st .

( Compar e Pl . Ex. 105 at 2–3 ( or i gi nal bi l l f i l ed i n t he House on

Apr i l 4, 2013) , wi t h Pl . Ex. 107 at 2 ( ver si on appr oved by t he

Senate Rul es Commi t t ee on J ul y 23, 2013. ) The bi l l pr oposed t hat

t he voter - I D r equi r ement go i nt o ef f ect i n 2016 but be i mpl ement ed

t hr ough a “sof t r ol l out , ” wher eby vot er s at t he pol l s i n 2014 and

2015 woul d be advi sed of t he l aw’ s r equi r ement t hat t hey wi l l need

a qual i f yi ng phot o I D t o vot e begi nni ng i n 2016 and to per mi t t hem

t i me t o obt ai n a f r ee I D f r om t he St at e. ( Pl . Ex. 107 at 14. )

20 Several of t he chal l enged part s of SL 2013- 381 si mpl y remove r ef erencest o t he ol d l aw, such as del et i ng t er ms l i ke “pr er egi st r at i on. ”

21 I t i s wor t h not i ng t hat , whi l e t hi s was t he f i r st t i me t he Senat or shad seen t hi s bi l l , HB 351 had al r eady been passed by the Senat e twoyear s ear l i er . At l east t wo of t he Democr at i c Senat or s i n t he Rul esCommi t t ee ( Sens. Mar t i n Nesbi t t and St ei n) i n 2013 were al so Senatorswhen HB 351 passed.

23



30/484

So, of t he f i f t y- seven- page bi l l , ni ne pages r el at ed t o t he

vot er - I D r equi r ement , much of whi ch was i n t he or i gi nal ver si on of

t he bi l l , and appr oxi mat el y si x pages cont ai ned t he ot her

chal l enged pr ovi si ons i n t hi s case. Those ar e: ( 1) t he r educt i on

of t he per i od of ear l y vot i ng f r om sevent een t o t en days; ( 2) t he

el i mi nat i on of SDR; ( 3) t he pr ohi bi t i on on t he count i ng of bal l ot s

cast out si de a vot er ’ s cor r ect vot i ng pr eci nct on El ect i on Day

( “OOP vot i ng”) ; ( 4) t he al l owance f or up t o t en at - l ar ge pol l

obser ver s wi t hi n each count y; ( 5) t he abi l i t y of any r egi st er ed

vot er i n t he count y, as opposed t o pr eci nct , t o chal l enge a bal l ot ;

( 6) t he el i mi nat i on of t he di scr et i on of CBOEs t o keep t he pol l s

open an addi t i onal hour on El ect i on Day i n “ext r aor di nar y

ci r cumst ances”; and ( 7) t he el i mi nat i on of “pr e- r egi st r at i on” of

si xt een- and sevent een- year - ol ds who wi l l not be ei ght een by t he

next gener al el ect i on.

Sever al l egi sl at or s r epor t ed t hey had been caught of f guar d

by t hese changes. ( See, e. g. , Pl . Ex. 18A at 8 ( Sen. St ei n) ; Pl .

Ex. 21 at 7 ( Sen. Bl ue) . ) I n t r ut h, many of t hese addi t i ons t o HB

589 wer e dr awn f r om or pat t er ned af t er si mi l ar bi l l s t hen pendi ng

i n t he General Assembl y. See H. B. 913, 2013 Gen. Assemb. , Reg.

Sess. ( N. C. 2013) ( SDR) ; S. B. 666, 2013 Gen. Assemb. , Reg. Sess.

( N. C. 2013) ( ear l y vot i ng and SDR) ; S. B. 721, 2013 Gen. Assemb. ,

Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2013) ( ear l y vot i ng) ; H. B. 451, 2013 Gen. Assemb. ,

Reg. Sess. ( N. C. 2013) ( ear l y vot i ng and SDR) . Moreover , and as

24



31/484

di scussed bel ow, any asser t i ons of surpr i se ar e weakened by the

f act t hat Senator St ei n appeared t he next day wi t h chart s and

st at i st i cs on ear l y vot i ng and SDR t hat l i kel y coul d not have been

t abul at ed over ni ght . ( See Pl . Ex. 18A at 18 & Ex. A. )

When the Senat e Rul es Commi t t ee met as schedul ed on J ul y 23,

Senat or Apodaca al l owed members of t he publ i c i n at t endance t o

speak f or t wo mi nut es. 22 ( Pl . Ex. 202 at 41–56. ) Speaker s i ncl uded

t he League Pl ai nt i f f s’ counsel , Ms. Ri ggs, as wel l as J ami e

Phi l l i ps, who repr esent ed t he Nor t h Car ol i na St at e Conf er ence of

t he NAACP. ( I d. at 41–43, 53–54. ) The maj or i t y of comment s

addr essed t he vot er - I D r equi r ement , al t hough ci t i zens al so spoke

i n opposi t i on t o t he ot her chal l enged pr ovi si ons, i ncl udi ng t he

changes t o SDR, pr e- r egi st r at i on, and ear l y vot i ng. Sever al

opponent s char act er i zed t he bi l l as an ef f or t at vot er suppr essi on.

( See, e. g. , i d. at 41 ( Ri ggs: “vot er suppr essi on at i t s ver y

wor st ”) ; i d. at 53 ( Phi l l i ps: “The f ewer young peopl e and

mi nor i t i es who vot e, t he bet t er i t seems i n your mi nds. We get

i t . No one i s bei ng f ool ed. ”) . ) Pr oponent s deni ed t he char ges.

( See i d. at 67- 69, 74- 75. )

The Senat e Rul es Commi t t ee debat ed t he r ecent addi t i ons t o HB

589. Senat or St ei n ar gued t hat a vot er - I D r equi r ement , t he

r educt i on i n ear l y vot i ng, and t he removal of SDR were unneeded

22 Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t he t wo- mi nut e t i me al l otment was a devi at i onf r om nor mal r ul es.

25



32/484

changes t hat woul d bur den vot er s. ( I d. at 32, 37–40. ) Senat or

Robert Rucho, a Republ i can suppor t er of HB 589, r esponded. As t o

ear l y vot i ng, Senat or Rucho ci t ed concer ns about i nconsi st ency i n

t he admi ni st r at i on of ear l y vot i ng, l ack of opt i mal ut i l i zat i on of

ear l y vot i ng dur i ng t he sevent een- day per i od, and t he then- exi t i ng

ear l y- vot i ng syst em’ s pot ent i al f or “gamesmanshi p and part i san

advant age. ” ( I d. at 30–32, 74–75. ) He al so not ed t he pot ent i al

f or “savi ngs i n t he sense t hat by goi ng f r om sevent een t o ten days

you act ual l y have mor e oppor t uni t y t o open up more si t es. ” ( I d.

at 30. ) Senat or Rucho f ur t her ci t ed “i nt egr i t y and honest y” i n

Nor t h Car ol i na’ s el ect i on admi ni st r at i on as wel l as i ncr eased

publ i c conf i dence as reasons f or t he vot er - I D pr ovi si ons. ( I d. at

37, 68. ) He noted t hat ot her St ates have an I D- r equi r ement but

al so expr essed a bel i ef t hat most peopl e had one of t he requi r ed

f or ms of I D or , i n combi nat i on wi t h t he t wo- year sof t r ol l out ,

had ampl e opport uni t y t o obt ai n a f r ee photo I D, as pr ovi ded

t hr ough t he bi l l . ( I d. at 36, 39, 67–68. ) Senat or Rucho al so

obser ved t hat t he bi l l el i mi nat ed col l ege I Ds f r om t he l i st of

accept abl e I Ds because of t he i nconsi st ency i n t he i ssuance of

t hose I Ds across t he St at e. ( I d. at 68–69. ) The el i mi nat i on of

OOP vot i ng was descr i bed — appar ent l y by a l egi sl at i ve st af f er

i nt r oduci ng t he bi l l —as “mov[ i ng] t he l aw back t o t he way i t was

pr i or t o 2005; conf or m[ i ng] t o f eder al l aw”; no Senat or spoke i n

26



33/484

opposi t i on t o i t s el i mi nat i on. 23 ( I d. at 12. ) Senat or Rucho

def ended t he removal of SDR as a way t o ver i f y vot er r egi st r at i ons

by “gi v[ i ng] t he Boar d of El ect i ons an oppor t uni t y t o do t hei r j ob

cor r ect l y, [ t o] val i dat e t hose i ndi vi dual s. ” ( I d. at 41. )

Fi nal l y, as t o pr e- r egi st r at i on, Senat or Rucho st at ed t hat i t s

el i mi nat i on was meant t o “of f er some cl ar i t y and some cer t ai nt y as

t o when . . . t hat young per son i s el i gi bl e t o vot e and r egi st er s

t o vot e, ” ci t i ng hi s son’ s own conf usi on about when pr e-

r egi st r at i on aut hor i zed hi m t o vot e. ( I d. at 22. ) Af t er debat e,

t he bi l l passed t he commi t t ee and pr oceeded t o t he f l oor f or second

r eadi ng. ( I d. at 76. )

The f ol l owi ng af t er noon, on J ul y 24, HB 589 was i nt r oduced on

t he f l oor of t he f ul l Senat e. ( Pl . Ex. 549 at 1–2. ) Dur i ng

sever al hour s of debat e af t er t he bi l l ’ s second r eadi ng, Democr at i c

senat or s i nt r oduced and di scussed sever al pr oposed amendment s.

Pl ai nt i f f s argue t hat amendment s “desi gned t o amel i orate bur dens

on Af r i can Amer i cans [ pr oposed dur i ng t he debat e] were def eat ed

wi t h l i t t l e di scussi on. ” ( Doc. 346 at 52. ) Thi s i s si mpl y unt r ue.

Fi r st , many such “amendment s” wer e no mor e t han proposal s t o r emove

t he key pr ovi si ons at i ssue. ( See Pl . Ex. 549 at 32- 33. ) Mor eover ,

t he Senate di d consi der and adopt an ear l y- vot i ng aggr egate- hour s

amendment by Senat or St ei n, whi ch was subst ant i ve and si gni f i cant .

23 One member of t he publ i c noted i n passi ng t hat OOP vot i ng was bei ngr emoved. ( Pl . Ex. 202 at 54. )

27



34/484

Thi s came af t er Senat or St ei n ar gued t hat t he r educt i on i n ear l y

vot i ng woul d di spropor t i onat el y i mpact Af r i can Amer i cans, and he

i nt r oduced an amendment t o r equi r e CBOEs t o of f er t he same number

of aggr egat e hour s of ear l y vot i ng as wer e of f er ed i n t he l ast

compar abl e el ect i on ( whet her pr esi dent i al or of f - year ) . ( I d. at

16–18, 43–44; see al so Pl . Ex. 115 ( t ext of t he amendment ) . ) Thi s

coul d be accompl i shed, he pr oposed, by CBOEs of f er i ng more hour s

at pr esent si t es, or by openi ng mor e si t es. ( Pl . Ex. 549 at 46. )

Senat or Stei n argued t hat t he amendment woul d “mi t i gat e” t he i mpact

t he r educt i on of ear l y- vot i ng days woul d have on al l vot er s,

i ncl udi ng Af r i can Amer i cans. ( I d. at 28–29. ) Respondi ng, Senat or

Rucho urged t he Senat e t o suppor t Senat or St ei n’ s amendment , ( i d.

at 44) , and i t passed by a vot e of f or t y- seven t o one, ( i d. at

49) . I n al l , t en amendment s were r ai sed; t wo were wi t hdr awn, and

t hr ee wer e adopt ed. ( E. g. , i d. at 49–51; 64–65; Pl . Ex. 121. )

Dur i ng t he more t han f our hour s of debate, t he Senators

exchanged ar gument on many of t he ot her chal l enged pr ovi si ons,

i ncl udi ng vot er I D, SDR, pr e- r egi st r at i on, and t he i ncrease i n

al l owabl e pol l obser ver s, as wel l as sever al pr ovi si ons not at

i ssue her e ( i ncl udi ng t he el i mi nat i on of st r ai ght - t i cket vot i ng

and r educt i on of var i ous campai gn- f i nance r est r i ct i ons) . ( See Pl .

Ex. 549 at 66–141. ) Senat or St ei n pr esent ed char t s t o suppor t hi s

28



35/484

argument s about HB 589’ s di spar at e i mpact 24 wi t h r espect t o ear l y

vot i ng and SDR, ( see Pl . Ex. 18A at 18 & Ex. A. ) , al t hough i t i s

not cl ear how many senat or s r evi ewed t hem, ( Doc. 335 at 195–97) .

Dur i ng t hi s hear i ng, suppor t er s of t he bi l l of f er ed t he f ol l owi ng

r easons i n suppor t of i t s enact ment : r eest abl i shi ng conf i dence i n

t he el ect or al pr ocess t hr ough vot er I D, wi t h not ed skept i ci smabout

t he number of vot er s l acki ng accept abl e i dent i f i cat i on or t he

abi l i t y t o obt ai n one i n Nor t h Car ol i na, ( Pl . Ex. 549 at 2- 3, 86–

88, 90) ; t he publ i c suppor t f or vot er I D, ( i d. at 3) ; concer n over

vot er f r aud, ( i d. at 78, 95) ; i nconsi st ency i n col l ege I Ds ( whi ch

wer e pr evi ousl y per mi t t ed i n t he House ver si on of t he bi l l ) , ( i d.

at 91- 92) ; pr ovi di ng CBOEs wi t h f l exi bi l i t y t o expand ear l y- vot i ng

hour s and si t es t o ensur e vot er access, ( i d. at 4–5, 11) ; al l owi ng

f or t he ver i f i cat i on of vot er s’ i nf or mat i on, ( i d. at 5, 78) ;

el i mi nat i ng conf usi on st emmi ng f r om pr e- r egi st r at i on, ( i d. at 6–

7) ; and a desi r e t o al i gn t he St at e wi t h t he pr act i ces of ot her

St at es as t o SDR, pr e- r egi st r at i on, and vot er I D, ( i d. at 37, 76–

77) . At t he end of t he debat e, Senat or Mar t i n Nesbi t t ( Democr at ) ,

24 I n denyi ng Pl ai nt i f f s’ mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj uncti on, t hi s cour tused t he t er m “di spar at e i mpact ” as shor t hand f or t he f act t hat Af r i can

Amer i cans di spr opor t i onatel y used t he r emoved mechani sms. See N. C. St ateConf erence of NAACP v. McCr ory, 997 F. Supp. 2d 322, 355- 56 ( M. D. N. C.2014) . Thi s cour t di d not vi ew “di spar at e i mpact ” and “di scr i mi nat or ybur den” as necessar i l y equi val ent t erms, and t hus by usi ng t he t er mdi spar ate i mpact never meant t o i mpl y t hat i t had f ound an i nequal i t yof oppor t uni t y as cont empl at ed by § 2. Cf . League, 769 F. 3d at 240,244- 46 ( usi ng t he t er m “di scr i mi nat or y bur den” i n l ayi ng out i t s t wopar t t est , but usi ng t he t er m “di spr opor t i onat e i mpact ” i n appl yi ng t hef i r s t s tep of t hat t est ) .

29



36/484

al t hough opposi ng t he bi l l st r ongl y and ur gi ng i t s def eat ,

descr i bed t he debat e as “heat ed, ” “heal t hy, ” and “good. ” ( I d. at

136. ) He charact er i zed t wo of t he “uni nt ended consequences” of

t he bi l l t o have been “f i xed” t hr ough t he amendment pr ocess. ( I d.

at 137. ) Af t er t he bi l l passed t he second r eadi ng, Senat or Apodaca

obj ect ed t o a t hi r d r eadi ng t hat day, whi ch ext ended i t s

consi der at i on by mandat i ng t hat t he debat e of t he bi l l be car r i ed

over i nt o t he next day. ( I d. at 142. )

On J ul y 25, t he Senat e began i t s sessi on wi t h t he thi r d

r eadi ng of amended HB 589. ( Pl . Ex. 550 at 1–2. ) Senat or Rucho

of f er ed a bi par t i san amendment t o cl ar i f y Senat or St ei n’ s

aggregat e- hours amendment t o per mi t a count y t o obtai n a wai ver

f r om t he aggr egate- hour s r equi r ement upon unani mous appr oval of

bot h t he CBOE and t he SBOE; i t passed f or t y- si x t o zer o. ( I d. at

7, 16; see al so Pl . Ex. 119 ( t ext of amendment ) . ) Proponent s and

opponent s of t he bi l l debat ed bot h i t s pr ovi si ons and t he mer i t s

of var i ous amendment s over t he next f our - pl us hour s, and t he Senat e

accept ed an amendment deal i ng wi t h el ect i oneer i ng f r omSenat or Dan

Bl ue ( Democr at ) . ( Pl . Ex. 550 at 82–83. ) Poi nt s made i n f avor of

t he bi l l at t hi s t i me i ncl uded t he i ncreased i nt egr i t y of el ect i ons

f ur t her ed by r equi r i ng vot er I D, ( i d. at 44, 99) ; publ i c suppor t

f or a vot er I D r equi r ement , ( i d. at 44, 52, 98, 100) ; concer ns of

vot er f r aud, ( i d. at 76) ; i ncreased t i me f or ver i f i cat i on of vot er

r egi st r at i ons ( SDR) , ( i d. at 45–46) ; bol st er i ng publ i c conf i dence

30



37/484

i n t he el ecti on pr ocess, ( i d. at 53) ; i ncreased ear l y- vot i ng hour s

f or vot er s who wor ked f ul l - t i me j obs, ( i d. at 55–56) ; and st at ewi de

uni f or mi t y i n ear l y vot i ng, ( i d. at 56–57) . Sever al Democrat i c

senat or s char act er i zed t he bi l l as vot er suppr essi on of

mi nor i t i es. ( E. g. , i d. at 26–35 ( Sen. St ei n) , 57–67 ( Sen. Bl ue) ,

68–74 ( Sen. Gl adys Robi nson) . ) Ot her s char act er i zed t he bi l l as

par t i san. ( I d. at 42 ( “I can’ t hel p but wonder i f t he goal i s

si mpl y t o mai nt ai n pol i t i cal power . ”) ; i d. at 66 ( cont endi ng t hat

t he i nt ent of t he l aw i s i ncumbency pr ot ect i on) . ) Pr oponent s

st r ongl y deni ed such cl ai ms and cl ai med t he bi l l r ever sed past

pr act i ces Democr at s passed t o f avor t hemsel ves. See, e. g. , i d. at

50–53 ( Sen. Thom Gool sby ( Republ i can) al l egi ng Democr at - part i san

i nf l uence i n past el ect i on admi ni st r at i on) ; i d. at 74 ( Sen. Andr ew

Br ock ( Republ i can) expr essi ng desi r e t o cor r ect Democr at - i nf l uence

i n t he pl acement of ear l y- vot i ng si t es) . )

By t he cl ose of debat e, a tot al of f our t een amendment s had

been r ai sed i n t he Senate, wi t h f i ve bei ng adopt ed, and t he Senate

vot ed i n f avor of HB 589 al ong par t y l i nes; t he bi l l t hen r et ur ned

t o t he House f or concur r ence, as amended. ( I d. at 100; Pl . Ex.

121; Pl . Ex. 124. ) Senat or Nesbi t t ( Democr at ) , al t hough a vocal

opponent of t he bi l l , noted t hat “we’ ve had a good and thorough

debat e on t hi s bi l l over t wo days” and “r evi ewed t he bi l l i n gr eat

det ai l . ” ( Pl . Ex. 550 at 90- 91. )

Wi t h t he end of t he l egi sl at i ve sessi on appr oachi ng, t he House

31



38/484

r ecei ved t he Senat e’ s ver si on of HB 589 t hat ni ght . ( Pl . Ex. 121. )

At t he begi nni ng of a two- hour f l oor sessi on st ar t i ng at 7: 45 p. m. ,

Repr esent at i ve Henr y M. Mi chaux, J r . ( Af r i can Amer i can, Democr at )

moved t hat t he House f orm a Commi t t ee of t he Whol e25 t o consi der

t he bi l l . ( Pl . Ex. 138 at 1–3. ) Repr esent at i ve Mi chaux t est i f i ed

at t r i al t hat f ormi ng a Commi t t ee of t he Whol e was not cust omary,

and he coul d not r ecal l t he House ever bef ore havi ng done so.

( Doc. 336 at 38. ) Repr esent at i ve Ti m Moor e ( Republ i can) opposed

t he mot i on on t he gr ounds t hat “i t i s s i mpl y a wast e of t i me”

because such a commi t t ee “i s t he same as t he f ul l House, ” whi ch

t he bi l l was pr oper l y bef or e at t he moment . ( Pl . Ex. 138 at 5 ( “I

can’ t t hi nk of t he l ast t i me t he House has met as t he Commi t t ee of

t he Whol e. ”) . ) The mot i on appears t o have been a t act i c t o sl ow

or st op t he bi l l , and i t f ai l ed by a vot e of f or t y- one t o si xt y-

ni ne. ( I d. at 6–7. )

Two amendments of f er ed by opponent s ( Sen. Bl ue’ s amendment of

t he dat e f or el ect i oneer i ng; amendment s by Senat ors Rucho and St ei n

al t er i ng sever al i t ems, i ncl udi ng “expand[ i ng] and “bet t er

def i n[ i ng] ” t he t ype and number of I Ds t hat can be pr esent ed f or

vot i ng, and r equi r i ng t he same number of hour s of ear l y vot i ng)

wer e adopt ed 109 t o 0. ( I d. at 7–11. ) The pr ovi si ons of t he new

25 A Commi t t ee of t he Whol e i s a l egi sl at i ve devi ce where the whol emembershi p of a l egi sl at i ve house si t s as a commi t t ee and operates underi nf or mal r ul es. Webst er ’ s Thi r d New I nt er nat i onal Di ct i onar y 458 ( 1986) ;see al so H. R. 54 at 12.

32



39/484

f ul l bi l l wer e t hen r evi ewed. ( I d. at 12–27. ) Each member of t he

House Democr at i c caucus present — i ncl udi ng f our of t he f i ve

members who vot ed f or t he House ver si on i n Apr i l — were gr ant ed

t i me t o speak i n opposi t i on t o t he bi l l . ( I d. at 67–69, 76–79,

88–89; Doc. 165 at 64- 65 ( t est i mony of Rep. Gl azi er ) . ) Some

opponent s char acter i zed t he measur e as voter suppr essi on,

par t i san, and di spr opor t i onat el y af f ect i ng Af r i can Amer i cans,

young vot er s, and t he el der l y. ( E. g. , Pl . Ex. 138 at 57 ( “[ O] ur

anger t oni ght i s pal pabl e. Passage of t hi s bi l l i s a pol i t i cal

cal l t o ar ms. ”) ; i d. at 59 ( “Thi s i s t he most poi nt edl y, obvi ousl y

pol i t i cal l y par t i san bi l l I ’ ve ever seen. ”) ; i d. at 64 ( “vot er

suppr essi on”) . On t he Republ i can si de, Repr esent at i ve Lewi s, a

House suppor t er of t he bi l l , spoke i n suppor t of t he amended bi l l . 26

( I d. at 116–20. ) He poi nt ed out , among ot her t hi ngs, t hat t he

bi l l does not bar Sunday vot i ng, mai nt ai ns t he same over al l hour s

of ear l y vot i ng, pr ovi des f or f r ee phot o I D, and, i n hi s opi ni on,

26 Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat Repr esent at i ve Har r y War r en ( Republ i can) “[ i ] ndescr i bi ng t he changes made by the Senate . . . mi sl eadi ngl y cl ai medt hat t he Senate subst i t ut e made ver y f ew subst ant i ve changes t o t he Housever si on. ” ( Doc. 346 at 54. ) Thi s i s a mi schar acter i zat i on.

Repr esent at i ve Warr en actual l y st ated t hat t he Senate “made very f ewsubst ant i ve changes t o t he VI VA Act , ” speci f i cal l y r ef er r i ng t o t he vot erI D por t i on of HB 589 — not t he ent i r e bi l l . ( Pl . Ex. 138 at 13, 17( descr i bi ng changes t o t he bi l l beyond vot er I D as “addi t i on[ s] t o t heVI VA bi l l ”) . ) Whi l e Pl ai nt i f f s may debat e t he i mpact of t he changesmade to the voter- I D port i on, Repr esent at i ve Warr en’ s st atement was ar easonabl e descr i pt i on of t he number of changes made t o t hat por t i on oft he bi l l . ( See i d. at 13–15. )

33



40/484

st r engt hens t he r equi r ement s f or absent ee vot i ng. 27 ( I d. )

Subsequent l y, t he House vot ed —agai n al ong part y l i nes —t o concur

i n t he Senat e’ s ver si on of HB 589 at 10: 39 p. m. ( I d. at 120; Pl .

Ex. 122 ( not i ng J ul y 25 r ol l cal l vot e i n House) . )

I n t ot al , t her e ar e over 430 pages of t r anscr i pt r epr esent i ng

sever al hour s of debat e on HB 589 af t er i t s amended ver si on was

i nt r oduced i n J ul y 2013. Ther e i s no evi dence t hat any House or

Senate Rul e was di sr egarded or vi ol ated at any t i me dur i ng t he

bi l l ’ s l egi sl at i ve pr ocess. ( Def . Ex. 217 at 3; Doc. 335 at 193. )

The bi l l was r at i f i ed t he next day and present ed t o Gover nor

McCr or y on J ul y 29. ( Pl . Ex. 121. ) The gover nor si gned t he bi l l

i nt o l aw on August 12, 2013, over t he r ecommendat i on of t he

At t orney Gener al ( an el ect ed Democrat ) , who never t hel ess appears

i n t hi s l awsui t t o def end i t . ( I d. )

3. Enactment of HB 836

On J une 18, 2015, l ess t han a mont h bef ore t r i al was set t o

begi n i n t hese cases, t he Gener al Assembl y passed House Bi l l 836,

and the gover nor si gned i t i nt o l aw as SL 2015- 103 on J une 22,

27 Pl ai nt i f f s argue that Repr esent at i ves War r en and Lewi s f ai l ed t oi dent i f y t he changes made t o ear l y vot i ng. ( Doc. 346 at 54. ) A r evi ew

of t he ent i r e t r anscr i pt r eveal s t hat Repr esent at i ve War r en was nott asked wi t h i nt r oduci ng t he ear l y- vot i ng r evi si ons ( Par t 25 of HB 589) ;r at her , Repr esent at i ve Lewi s was. ( Pl . Ex. 138 at 20, 22. ) And, whi l eRepr esent at i ve Lewi s di d not st at e t hat t he bi l l “el i mi nat ed a f ul l weekof ear l y vot i ng” i n hi s i ni t i al descr i pt i on of Par t 25 of t he bi l l ( j ustas he di d not ment i on t he amel i orat i ve amendment of t he aggregate- hour sr equi r ement ( i d. at 22) ) , he di d i n f act addr ess i t dur i ng t he debat e,( i d. at 116–17) .

34



41/484

2015. 28 The l aw modi f i ed t he phot o- I D scheme cr eat ed by SL 2013-

381 i n t hr ee pr i mary ways.

Fi r st , i t expands t he cat egor y of accept abl e phot o I Ds by

per mi t t i ng dr i ver ’ s l i censes, per mi t s, pr ovi si onal l i censes, and

non- oper at or I Ds t hat have been expi r ed f or up t o f our year s. N. C.

Gen. St at . § 163- 166. 13( e) ( 1) - ( 2) . Mor eover , any vot er sevent y

year s of age or ol der i s per mi t t ed t o vot e usi ng any of t he

accept abl e i dent i f i cat i ons t hat expi r ed at any poi nt af t er t he

vot er ’ s sevent i et h bi r t hday. I d. § 163- 166. 13( f ) .

Second, t he l aw r equi r es pol l wor ker s t o i nf or mt hose wi t hout

an accept abl e I D t hat t hey can compl et e a wr i t t en r equest f or an

absent ee bal l ot at an ear l y- vot i ng si t e unt i l 5: 00 p. m. on t he

Tuesday bef or e El ect i on Day ( i . e. , t he deadl i ne f or r equest i ng

absent ee bal l ot s) . I d. §§ 163- 166. 13( c) ( 3) , 163- 227. 2( b1) , 163-

230. 1.

Thi r d, and most i mpor t ant l y, i t cr eat es an addi t i onal

except i on t hat per mi t s i n- person vot er s who do not have an

accept abl e phot o I D t o cast a pr ovi si onal bal l ot so l ong as t hey

compl et e a decl arat i on st at i ng a r easonabl e i mpedi ment pr event ed

t hemf r omacqui r i ng qual i f yi ng phot o I D. I d. §§ 163- 166. 13( c) ( 2) ,

163- 166. 15( a) - ( b) . Such vot er s must pr esent al t er nat e

i dent i f i cat i on, whi ch can consi st of “t he vot er r egi st r at i on car d

28 Sessi on Law 2015- 103 wi l l be r ef err ed t o as HB 836 when di scussi ngl egi s l at i ve hi story.

35



42/484

i ssued t o the vot er by t he count y boar d of el ect i ons” or “a cur r ent

ut i l i t y bi l l , bank st at ement , gover nment check, paycheck, or ot her

gover nment document ” 29 t hat shows t he name and address of t he

vot er . 30 I d. §§ 163- 166. 15( c) , 163- 166. 12( a) ( 2) . Al t er nat i vel y,

vot er s may pr ovi de t hei r dat e of bi r t h and t he l ast f our di gi t s of

t hei r SSN ( “SSN4”) . I d. § 163- 166. 15( c) .

Sessi on Law 2015- 103 expr essl y addr esses t he scope of t he

r easonabl e i mpedi ment except i on. At a mi ni mum, al l r easonabl e

i mpedi ment decl ar at i on f or ms ar e requi r ed t o i ncl ude separ at e

boxes l i st i ng t he f ol l owi ng r easonabl e i mpedi ment s t o acqui r i ng a

phot o I D: ( 1) “Lack of t r anspor t at i on; ( 2) “Di sabi l i t y or i l l ness”;

( 3) “Lack of bi r t h cer t i f i cat e or ot her document s needed t o obt ai n

phot o i dent i f i cat i on”; ( 4) “Wor k Schedul e”; ( 5) “Fami l y

r esponsi bi l i t i es”; ( 6) “Lost or st ol en phot o i dent i f i cat i on”; and

( 7) “Phot o i dent i f i cat i on appl i ed f or but not r ecei ved by t he vot er

vot i ng i n per son. ” I d. § 163- 166. 15( e) . I n addi t i on, t he f or m

must l i st a box f or “[ o] t her r easonabl e i mpedi ment , ” whi ch t he

vot er can check and pr ovi de a “br i ef wr i t t en i dent i f i cat i on of t he

29 These ar e t he same methods of i dent i f i cat i on t hat were r equi r ed f or

SDR when i t was i n pl ace. 2007 N. C. Sess. Law 253, § 1 ( permi t t i ng SDR-r egi st r ant s t o use any of t he document s l i st ed i n N. C. Gen. St at . § 163-166. 12( a) ( 2) ) .

30 A vot er who i s unabl e t o pr ovi de ei t her of t hese f orms ofi dent i f i cat i on may compl y wi t h t he r equi r ement by ret ur ni ng t o thei rCBOE by noon the day pr i or t o t he el ect i on canvass and pr esent i ng ther equi r ed al t er nat e I D. N. C. Gen. St at . §§ 163- 166. 15( d) , 163- 182. 1B( c) .

36



43/484

r easonabl e i mpedi ment . ” 31 I d. § 163- 166. 15( e) ( 1) h.

Al t hough a r easonabl e i mpedi ment vot er cast s a pr ovi si onal

bal l ot , t he bal l ot must be count ed unl ess one of t he f ol l owi ng i s

t r ue: t he i mpedi ment descr i bed i n t he decl ar at i on i s “f act ual l y

f al se, mer el y deni gr at e[ s] t he phot o i dent i f i cat i on r equi r ement ,

or [ i s an] obvi ousl y nonsensi cal st at ement [ ] ”; t he vot er f ai l s t o

pr ovi de one of t he al t er nat e f or ms of i dent i f i cat i on di scussed

above; t he CBOE coul d not conf i r m t he vot er ’ s r egi st r at i on usi ng

t he al t er nat e f or m of i dent i f i cat i on pr ovi ded; or t he “vot er i s

di squal i f i ed f or some ot her r eason pr ovi ded by l aw. ” I d. § 163-

182. 1B( a) . Si gni f i cant l y, i f a vot er ’ s r easonabl e i mpedi ment

decl ar at i on i s chal l enged, t he CBOE i s r equi r ed t o “const r ue al l

evi dence pr esent ed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he vot er

submi t t i ng t he reasonabl e i mpedi ment decl arat i on” and cannot

r ej ect t he i mpedi ment on t he gr ound t hat i t i s not r easonabl e.

See i d. § 163- 182. 1B( b) ( 5) - ( 6) .

House Bi l l 836 was pr oposed wi t h l i t t l e not i ce and consi der ed

as an amendment t o a pendi ng conf erence repor t , whi ch i s unusual .

( Pl . Ex. 895. ) The l egi sl at i ve r ecor d cont ai ns t hi r t y pages of

debat e and i ndi cat es an i nt ent f or a br oad appl i cat i on of t he

except i on. ( I d. ) Democrats quest i oned t he pr ocess but consent ed

t o f ast - t r ack consi der at i on, t hus enabl i ng t he l aw t o r ecei ve

31 The vot er can al so i ndi cat e t hat St at e or f eder al l aw pr ohi bi t s l i st i ngt he i mpedi ment . N. C. Gen. St at . § 163- 166. 15( e) ( 1) h.

37



44/484

i mmedi at e consi derat i on and passage by a wi de margi n ( 103 t o 4) .

( I d. at 30; see al so i d. at 29 ( Repr esent at i ve Hal l : “Thi s

conf er ence r epor t does co

NC Voting Law Ruling

Documents

Transcript of NC Voting Law Ruling