like gwendolyn farrington, think some of the individual voters bring to light the uncontested numerical socio- economic and disparate used testimony that she is a voter who works six days a week, 12 hours a day, she had voted early in 2008 and 2012. she did not have time to vote early during the compressed early voting. in 2014. she voted near her workplace because she worked on election day from 6:0e could have not got to her correct polling place in the time allotted because she had to pick up her adult children like 27% adult children like 27% of african-americans, three times higher than whites. there are transportation difficulties in her family wears most adults rely on one car. you see the same example of carolyn cottingham of the ways in which the birds in this case are committed. she was the first time voters who you - to the polls had prior

election. she works three jobs to make ends meet. on meet. on election day she did not know where her correct polling place west so she voted close to her job. even if they had told her she was a voting in the incorrect precinct she would not have had time to go to the correct precinct because it is there be penalties of being later to work. the same the one in washington. >> thank you very much honor. [inaudible] >> i am -- good morning your

honor. i am here on behalf of the north carolina state conference of the naacp and other plaintiffs in that case. many of whom are here in the courtroom today. i will primarily address the section to claim but hope to, briefly in the racial intent. we do, the north carolina double its naacp is looking at both the section to racial claim. >> you'll open your comments will focus on section two? >> yes i plan to primarily focus on results. your honors, the plaintiff, after being with you in 2014 went to trial, to trials and in those trials we applied the framework from the jingles case and from this legal voter case in terms of how to prove a textbook section two case. i want to talk briefly about

that so i just want to summarize that and that i want to talk about the heirs that the district court made that cause is you is your honor the inferences drawn by the district court to be legal, painted by legal air, but for the league of women voters we prove three critical case set the facts, one african americans disproportionately view same-day registration under precinct and the other eliminated practices and disproportionately do not have photo id. in the case of both of those practices those disparities were proven to be statistically significant which means they are not random, which means that under all race discrimination laws the significance and disparity tells you you need to look further. it doesn't tell you that you

prevail but it tells you you need to look further. that is what what the second and third prong of the league of women voters have tell us. >> so do you believe that section two result claim has a minimalistic impact threshold? for example it is out of precinct voting only impacting 20 people would it be liable claim? >> i'm sorry, 20 people but racially disproportionate? this is your section two result. >> 20 people are affected and it's racially disproportionate, i think that you would meet that thirst and i don't office 20 people up its statistical significance of that would be possible but you might reach the disproportionate youth prong but you probably would not succeed on the rest of the test

particularly when you get to the state justification for what it is doing, if it is eliminating a practice that only affects 20 people i think in the totality of the circumstances a claim may not succeed. >> there are some possibility? i think you have to apply the totality of the circumstances in all situations. but as a voting rights lawyer looking at that i would not expect a claim to succeed unless there's some unusual effect that i do not know about here. >> with the answer be somewhat different if we were looking at the section two discrimination which you just addressed a post to the section to results? >> yes, intentional discrimination require, that the end of it. the laws invalid and needs to be

enjoined if it is tainted by in part by racial intent. yes,. >> so let me proceed to the second and third prong witches once you have disparate youth, that is not always contrary to some of the claims from the defendants, we also proved as ms. baldwin set a connection between the connection between the racial history and its current impactor vestiges of racial discrimination that exist in an impact of african-american and latino voters in the state today and some of those connections are described on pages 12-14 of our -- as an in terms of the critical fact that the district court found, the district court did find that connection between the vestiges

and the lemonade practices. for example the district court said it is easy to see a connection between certain reasons for ending up in the incomplete and literacy. and then the district court found that african-americans vestige of discrimination is literacy and the benchmark of the practice which is same-day registration produces virtually no incomplete registration, that is the interaction between the league of women voters test shows us is a classic case of section two violation. now what caused the district court once you get to those three click critical facts and we proved eight of the senate factors what led the district court astray and not ruling in favor of the plaintiff? in the first think that the district court did was it created a new causation

requirement, it is not been required in any section or any governing law and that causation requirement instead of looking at the connection between the vestige, the eliminated practice the district court said you have to prove that the eliminated practices caused an increase in registration or turnout. that is not the causation requirement from league of women voters or any other precedents that is governing this case. for example the district court set on page 347 of its opinion, plaintiffs failed to show same-day registration is responsible for the african-american league over all other races in registration. and they said the same thing a page 355 about turnout. that is not a causation

requirement in the case law. that is the primary mistake that the district court make. >> i'm sorry, tell tell me what it should have said instead. >> with the district court should have done, we established the three prongs of league of women voters in the way proved the senate factors in those circumstances the district court should have found -- and a bottom line of what you want, a course that was really so you would have been from a summary judgment. so there were factual disputes, right? >> i think -- >> let me go to an easier question for you. i won't let you explain why you went for that if all the facts were in your favor, but i would like to know is you made this causation analysis and what should the analysis have been instead might be at the question of masking you. >> i will answer that question,

i will say briefly that from the beginning there were facts in dispute. the district court found the critical fact in our favor and that, so what the district court should have done, i mean it is. >> i think the question is relative, i think a couple of questions and that is that you are saying that the district court described in think it is described as a heightened cod station stander. but you're asking what should he has applied. it's pretty straightforward. and i think the confusion is that he did both, he applied the correct standard and he found all of the facts that lead to a section two violation and then he went and, that was enough. that was the senate factors, that is the only causation requirement. so then he instead of moving forward to the next step which would've been binding

signing the violation he veered off the road into a new causation requirement because there is nothing more the district court needed to do other then apply the league of women voters test which he did and found those facts in our favor. i think the district court, the veering off the road really is exemplified by the district court reliance on the 2014 turnout data to essentially chop the actual evidence that plaintiffs had a both burden and of a connection of the burden through the vestiges of discrimination. >> so let me ask you this question, under the test that you indicate here, and the same question i asked earlier, what would be her best evidence to

show this connection between this burden and the historical discrimination? >> that evidences on page 12-14 of our reply and we present evidence on each claim. so for same-day registration we show literacy disadvantages as well as transportation disadvantages, all connected to the same date registration who'll ameliorate because you only have to go wants to register and vote and if you have any literacy issues there are people there who will make sure that you do not leave something out your registration is not processed. we did that for each of the claims and different evidence to

connect the eliminated practice to the vestige specific to that particular claim. and i know i don't have much time left so i would like to make a couple of comments on intentional discrimination if i may. they are what i would say. >> section two discrimination or the 14th amendment? >> both, it's it's the same. my comments go to both. what i would say there is that the plaintiffs, the evidence show show that plaintiffs prove that the arlington heights factor and it said in a brief we proved that all of the changes approved after the shelby decision disfavored african-americans and we also proved that virtually all of the reasons that the legislator stated at the time in the legislative record were simply not true.

the legislators in the face of that asserted legislative privilege and never came forward and put their credibility under oath behind any other reason then they might say that they did what they did in this bill and therefore we believe that there is only one conclusion that can be made of this record in terms of racial intent and that is all of the evidence support and required a finding that this law was enacted for racial intent. >> if that's true doesn't the burden shifted the defendant in this case? >> yes, they would then be able to try to prove that they would've done the same thing without the racial intent, but they never made any effort to do that. they specifically said that the amendment to the photo id law,

they were not claiming that they cured any racial intent that existed in the original. >> where did they say that? >> they said that, it cited in our brief, they said it will where introducing a piece of evidence that would have shown that the intent carried forward through the amendment they said that we are not making that claim and then the evidence we withdrew the evidence. so as to the record. >> before you sit down, so what is your view on the timeline for implementing or dismantling each one of these mechanisms? >> ms. -- is a leading expert on that but what we would say is that it starts in july. >> that's a ritual talk about that,. >> thank you. i just want to mention in my four seconds remaining that we also have a

claim regarding latino voters and in addition we made that claim through the same type of evidence, it is not highlighted as much in the brief but that evidences in a footnote the fact that the district court that are missing regarding african-americans exist in a huge way with regard to latinos which is their registration and turnout in north carolina is extensively lower than for either white or african-american. thank you. >> allison raikes for the plaintiff. i will discuss in the remaining constitutional claims, anderson verdict 14th amendment claims in 2016 claims claims and answer any questions you have about implementation. >> maybe you can answer that

question. up slowly. >> what is ample time for this court to remedy the flaws in house bill 589. because of this courts same-day registration and out of precinct or the law, they've been implemented in the last three elections, none none of the infrastructure has been dismantled. so there is just no problem was same-day and out of precinct, with id early voting in preregistration there is still ample time to set up those systems, set up a system for early voting and to educate voters about these changes. >> i understand ample time but i'm looking for a little bit more specific information. >> certainly. >> were talking about the day after the long stay the year but were getting shorter down. >> so right now the early voting plans are due july 29. that is not a hard and fast deadline by any stretch of the imagination. the state board of election continues to review early voting plans through august and sometime into september asking them to change their early voting trends of their problems. additionally, with at least 70%

of the counties use as the early voting site their county board of election site or in lewisite, it's usually in the same building. so if we really implement 17 days, not only does the counties have time to come up within early voting plant to put that into effect, they're going to be using for the most part at least one of the same sites they already have in place. it is is just opening it up for voters for next are seven days, although they only really have to do it in the weekdays. with photo id, there is an opportunity to educate voters about this change that they will not be asked for photo id, a voter guide goes out, goes to the printer at the end of august, again that again that is not hard and fast deadline, that is a great opportunity for the state to educate voters that just like the last three alleged election same-day and out of precinct will be available to you, here the new early voting

schedule, and you will not be asked to show a photo id when you show up to vote. so these are some of the key deadlines but they are flexible and they get changed. so in 2012 the early voting to man was so great that the state board of election, during early election, during early voting ordered counties to provide extra time. >> so these are the same amount of time is necessary either to affirm or reverse this is out yourself telling us? >> if you're going to reverse the district court on the early voting and voter id, the sooner you vote the better. aim was same-day registration and out of precinct. it's not relevant. the infrastructure is in place and we are ready to go for the 2016 election. on your question on implementation i would like to

turn very briefly to the constitutional claims and note that under the verdict the state is not free to just give and take away at whim mechanisms for participating in the political process. >> this is different from the 14th amendment of the discrimination claim. this is is a general claim you're making. you don't need to show discrimination to get there but we then address that in a previous preliminary justice opinion in the united states is not pursuing this claim. i'm just thinking in terms of proof of it because essentially what you're dealing with his non- affirmative type measures and in that context i do not know of many cases that have addressed in this particular context. >> the courts in the six circuit have been active in addressing anderson verdict claims recently since 2012, two circuit cases in the last month, and others that reached the section to claim in the anderson verdict claim and

it wasn't as important in the pi stage for this is on the merit and we do see really. the we can get bail and if there's a finding of a 14th amendment violation. this is a 14th amendment violation. , we do believe -- >> is at the same remedy if you get the 14th a memo nondiscrimination as he would on this particular one? >> i think we can. the question is does it justify equitable relief and i think the facts in this case it does. generally speaking we say it's not just affecting -- >> i guess my question is more discrimination allegations you're stronger than a general than a general allegation on the 14th? >> on the fact that they are both very strong. it goes two different remedies. the intentional discrimination facts here are just hard to dismiss. the district court to not try to do it but they are really stunning. but here here we also see that a decade's worth of voting laws expansions,

created a situation where voters that relied heavily on those expansions and the court, the state north carolina takes them away with no good excuse. that does not support with the states obligation under the 14th amendment. very briefly on her on the 26th amendment claim despite not having much time to discuss them here today we do not waive them. the evidence when viewed as a whole leaves no room for a conclusion other than this, young voters were targeted for exclusion for the political process by a number of provisions that were applicable only to them. they were targeted for exclusion because of the way they were voting because of the power they are exercising. this is not not constitutionally permissible and the court should review send the amendment. >> thank you. >> before you begin maybe you

can tell me about what you regard as the timeline for implementing or dismantling each of these. >> judge motz, unfortunately for me mr. peters is going to address that question. >> okay but before he does -- >> he has been with the board of elections for a long time, i think it's very good information to support. >> your honor i'm here representing as my partner greg, rich bowers is representing the governor now peters is representing the state board of election. i think the most important point i can make is that we disagree with the plaintiff's position that the judge did not apply the test that this quarter to collating its rejection hearing. we believe he religiously applied that test and then he made extensive findings of facts

and concluded that based on these facts the planet have not cared their burden but proving either of the prongs of the section to test that this court laid out. >> for my understanding it would be helpful to be able specifically indicate the claim that you're talking about, you talking section two results intentional discrimination or the amendment or -- i guess in terms of the overall view of it and it's a noble review, but in terms of the analysis that we take here and what's been presented on the other side it is helpful at least from my perspective to get your position on those. >> yes or your honor. i am talking about the section to claim at this point. of my presentation.

>> are you talking section two results? >> section two results. i may be missing something but i also agree that intent analysis under section two of the of the 14th amendment are the same. if i get to that i will talk about it but i think if you read our brief, there really is no case that is been issued but any court with facts similar to what we have that were found with judge schrader were jurisdiction jurisdiction is the found guilty of intentional discrimination. the court found that the legislature followed its procedures, the court found that the legislature accepted amendments fairly significant one related to establishing a benchmark for the number of hours it could be used for early voting. the court found that the general assembly adopted a two-year rollout. with a photo id requirement that had been recommended by the commission that president carter had proposed and the court found that the general mandated a very extensive educational campaign and other findings related to

the intent argument weather on the 14th amendment or section two compare this case to the d.c. case right do not think the facts are as favorable to the status they are here in the north carolina case, for example the texas statute charged a fee for the photo idea when it was first enacted. despite having a less favorable record for the state, even the d.c. can't panel which found that the was illegal it overruled the lower court's findings that texas had been guilty of intentional discrimination. here we have a more favorable record for the state and we have factual findings, detailed factual findings by the district court, intentional discrimination does not take place. so whether that is under the 14th amendment section two, i think it is clear that the judge claims that they

are not erroneous. >> even with section 2i get your point i agree, i think there's similarity between section two and intentional discrimination there, in terms of intentional discrimination, there are some facts here that apparently some comment in terms of the timing of the enactment of the expanded deal at the same data shall be case came down in terms of some of the previous to that in terms of evidence that was presented and why it was presented for purposes of intentional discrimination. >> again your honor my first reaction is the district court reviewed and analyzed those facts and did not find them persuasive. as a matter of factual findings on intentional discrimination. i think think the court may be referring to the statement by one legislator, no doubt a significant one, senators were

he made the comment about now we can go forward with his full deal. i would refer you first to the d.c. court when they go into detail same reliant upon upon the statement of one senator to find intentional discrimination by nintendo general assembly is a very slim read. however, if the senator had good counsel, why wouldn't it be prudent to wait to see what the supreme court was going to do with the shelby county case and before you decide how you move forward with legislation. one thing i . out out is a must all the provisions that have been challenged in this case have been filed previously. it was was not like they just dreamed them up. after shelby county was issued. >> let me ask you a question. this is where it gets muddled.

your dealing with the racial case certainly politics -- and intentional discrimination case do you maintain an entity or state can use race as a basis for effectuating the part a single? that is to increase the representation of one or the other and race being the basis of it knowing that all minority group boards assert where it happens to suppress that will result in a partisan advantage and if the partisan advantage is the basis for doing it, not not the race, is that legitimate? >> your honor, you may be but we hadn't made that argument. the cases you're referring to and you and i've had this discussion recently with other cases, where the court found that the district was not racially gerrymandering. >> that's why brought up the word gerrymandering so we can

differentiate what were talking about were talking about intentional discrimination claim, my claim and my question goes to whether you make the argument or not but i think something is clear that the question comes up at least from the plaintiff perspective that race was used here is a basis for suppressing a minority vote that unit would vote heavily in a particular democratic instance. i'm only asking, is that a legitimate basis under analysis for intentional discrimination under the 14th amendment or section two? >> your honor my answer is it may be but we have not made that argument. however i want to point out that in this case the plaintiffs have equated quoted the lueck decision and that is justice kennedy said there's a troubling mix between race and politics. lueck was a relation case because that opinion was made advocate --

>> i want to have a question. you do make the argument, i'm nothing you make the argument i'm saying if the plaintiff makes an allegation that race was used in this instance as a basis for to effectuate a partisan goal, what is your argument to that? what is your statement to that? this is not your case that you're defending i'm asking what your defending west mark. >> the evidence did not show that that happened in the district court did not find that that happened. >> the go something like this. undermining the program progress of a racial group that is been said to significantly voted related discrimination and that would be increasingly politically active bears warrant -- >> yes ron i'm aware of that language pray but that language was loose. it was brought up in the context of a claim where there is injury

to the plaintiff's because the plaintiffs had met the jingles preconditions, they have assumed they were compact, minority population sufficient to be a majority in a single-member district and they cannot elect candidates of choice without, because of racially voting. that that language is just quoted would not of been relevant if there with the -- that's for that comment came from. >> what is the point that you're making in regards to both the solution. i'm just trying to understand it because maybe you can help me with it but i thought i understand his daughter section two. >> yes but it goes under with there's been an injury. >> is the same statutory provision. >> in the case where the statement was made the plaintiff

was saying that it was injured. here there is no showing of injury. this goes back to the section two result test that this court adopted where the first prong was a direct that judge sure to had to decide if the law imposes a discriminatory burden and members of the class have less opportunity the members of the political process with candidates of their choice. so if you read the briefs that the other side has filed they drop their citations your test the phrase less opportunity and other members to participate in the political process. so that was the key inquiry. you don't get to the jingles factors as we talk about the societal conditions of your test until the plaintiff proves the first part of your test. . .

you don't have that direct evidence and you need this indirect evidence. >> know your honor first of all i strongly deny the general assembly engaged in discrimination but even in that discrimination case -- you have

to prove the injury element is stronger when you have her results to when you are trying to prove her results test or maybe you don't think it does. i would have thought that was part and parcel to what you are saying in other words you are talking about the injury and the injury you have to show has to be stronger to coast you can't point it at any evidence of intentional. >> your honor i have to apologize in answering this question because there is not a lot of guidance by the supreme court on these cases. so what we can only do is we can look at the cases and look what sort of slows -- clues we can discern from the cases. we know the constitutional vote you still have to prove discriminatory results to get that the case but you also have

to pre-purposes from a nation. >> i was just trying to line up because of it was exactly the same you would never have, there wouldn't be any difference to them. >> the difference your honor is for the 14th amendment of the potential discrimination claim you would have to prove the results. >> why would you ever go to an intentional discrimination claim uis go to the results claim. >> that if you want to take the step that has only happened once in the history of the country to put north carolina back under the preclearance requirements that the plaintiffs were seeking in this case. they don't get that simply by proving their section to results claim. they have got to prove intentional discrimination claim to put north carolina back under the supervision of the district

court where they would effectively be in the preclearance situation again. that's the reason why the claims are brought. c i see why you think they brought it but what i'm trying to do is understand why congress would enact it. i don't think they would have enacted a statute in which there were exactly the same elements and you have to prove extra. just doesn't make any sense. in other words i was trying to find a the difference. >> again your honor i apologize if i'm not clarifying this as well as perhaps i might but i would say in an intentional discrimination case you have to prove purposeful discrimination. c all i'm saying is you have to show more impact if you are doing a section to comment the other section to claim. i would have thought that would be the argument. >> your honor that sounds plausible to me.

>> i need better than plausible. sprey then i will defer to the court's interpretation on that issue. >> i want to understand what's going on here because then they understand what you are saying here potential to nation is there an additional part two at an potential discriminatory. you have to show interests of the question she is posing as what's the difference if you don't have the two different claims? >> judge i'm sorry the only thing i can say is it's purposeful discrimination that puts you in a line where the state is now under the equivalent of preclearance obligation through the district court. that is a benefit to the plaintiffs approving discrimination i would say there are precious few cases where purposeful discrimination has been found by a district court in these types of cases much

less where the district court has found it was not purposeful discrimination relying upon extensive factual findings in the case was reversed by the appellate court. intentional discrimination is a quintessential issue of fact and that relies upon credibility of the witnesses. >> i agree with you on all of that. >> accept. i apologize if i'm not answering your question. >> on this record you have evidence that there is a surge in african-american -- 10 years prior and the law is changed and they claim you were firstly affected to protect your own political interests. it could be the republican party

got control of the house and the senate and the governorship and the opportunity came to change those. liberal voter registration provisions which happened the same day shelby was decided it looks pretty bad to me in terms of purposeful discrimination. >> your honor i hope i can persuade you that it was not a nefarious thing. certainly judge schweiker found that it wasn't and there was a couple of premises in your question or your question that i have to challenge. there's a correlation between same-day registration and 17 days where boating and out of precinct voting in preregistration and the increase in the black attrition patient. in registration.

from the 2008 to 2012 election. now this, bever been a trial where more experts that came from m.i.t. and harvard and every university in the country and all these have been what's called across data analysis where they give opinions on whether election practices are the cause of an increase in turnout of registration. none of them and they have all done them at the plenary injunction stage none of them had done across state analysis to try to opine whether these practices have caused an increase in turnout of registration. and they were all put on notice that there's evidence that there were states like north carolina such as virginia where the black turnout of registration rates went up at equivalent rates and virginia did not have same-day registration and 17 days of early voting so was our

contention that the luminary injunction stage that they'd failed to prove any sort of causal link between these repealed practices and the increase in participation by african-americans so then we went to trial and we have the benefit of the 2014 election and the plaintiffs say well you can't just rely on one election. it's the only election we had so relied upon it and after we had the 2014 election,. >> is there something you can rely upon for intentional discrimination? i understand it's at the point where we talk about results on intent to discrimination but we are kind of going back and forth and i think the question going back to the initial question really the legal issue with the application is standard here in the question being whether the district court applies the extra voting standard or did he apply

directly on a rational basis and what are your comments on that? >> your honor he went down all the factors intimate factual findings that he relied upon but there was no discrimination. >> your honor i'm not sure what you mean by motive standard. i think. >> on the intentional discrimination claim he followed arlington heights. >> he looked at did they follow their normal procedures which they did despite all the arguments that have been made that they did not island the rules and they handled this bill in a similar way to other bills. they adopted amendments that soften the alleged impact on the protected group.

they adopted a very significant amendment when proposed by democratic senator stein where the original bill dropped the number of days from 17 to 10. they dropped the number of days from 17 to 10 because as judge schroeder found under the prior law there have been gamesmanship on the early voting sites. they were placed in areas that favor democratic voters and the judgment of factual finding on that. the reason why the legislature cut the days was one of the reasons they wanted to have equal treatment and all counties same day same hours. >> isn't that kosher to a rational basis? isn't an actual motive on engaging. >> your honor honestly think the rational basis issue is a

completely different question. >> i need to articulate. i'm not trying to make the case one way or the other but that i think is critical and critical determination is whether the trial judge do in applying the law? if he didn't apply to the law correctly then we have a problem , problem outside of whether the facts are there so my question to you is the standard of review that the trial judge applied here, it seems to me it's more than a rational basis review and if it was tell me was -- would that have been or was it correct? >> your honor i think it's a different question. >> let me ask that question. i think i'm not asking my question. my question is would it have been a problem assuming the trial court to apply under

rational basis review. >> would have been proper for him to look at issues like that when he got to the arlington heights of tenuousness of the policy. that's about this on the list. >> it would have been proper to apply rational basis review would look happy statute with regard to tenuousness. >> would have been a rational basis when you're analyzing a statute that is not in the suspect class. under arlington heights the issue is where there are rational reasons for the legislature's decision and in fact your honor they did articulate rational reasons for their decision in the legislative history. for example for early voting i bartik talked about that they

decided they were unhappy with the gamesmanship that was being done by less than majority votes by the county board of elections in the state board of elections as far as the location of early voting sites so they decided they wanted to have all sites in a single county treated the same way and they wanted the fees reduced to reduce potential for gamesmanship. then senator stein offered an amendment suggesting despite the reduction of days for early voting that each county required to keep the same number of hours that they had used in the most analogous recent election so for example in 2014 she had to use the same hours the county used in 2010. in 2010 they had to use the same number of hours they used in 2016. this will work why are the

county boards open up more sites , extend the evening hours extend weekend hours. >> but they're there some sort of waiver. >> unlike the prior system where whoever was in the majority on the county boards could dictate what the plaintiffs would be. under h.b. 589 day requires a majority vote or a unanimous vote sewn other words north carolina has got to republicans and one democrat on the county board of elections and they have three republican appointees and three democrats. county boards cannot reduce the number of hours unless all three of the county board members agree and all i've of the state board members agree. >> there are 100 counties? >> yes maam. see neck and they are all aligned that way?

>> which is that? >> the governor decides who is a majority are on there. >> two republicans and one democrat. >> for the benefit of the public where there's a democratic governor that governor decided he was the majority. >> why did this statute -- that you'd does -- exclude the public system? >> your honor i can't answer that question. on the why they did that. >> we know those are typically used more by minorities but the question i'm asking if you don't know you just don't know but judge mccrory did give an answer and i thought maybe you give me an answer as to why he excluded the legislature. >> first of all your honor i don't know that was ever suggested by anybody.

it may have been but i don't know. >> suggested that it was excluded? i'm sure they did the plaintiffs counsel did on rebuttal. >> i thought they would exclude it. >> yes your honor but i don't know if there was a vote to amend the statute to allow public assistance i.d.s. >> it seems like the question is not why did someone ask you to put it back in. the question is why did he take it out he goes you were the one to have potentially discriminate. that's my question why did they take it out? >> because it was reasonable for them to give most the responsibility for the creation to the division of motor vehicles which have offices all over the stage where people could get a night d. we put all this bashing under the division of motor vehicles throughout this case.

>> with me ask another question. did the legislature's specific way for quest demographic data? >> yes your honor. let me ask you a question your honor. >> no, you don't ask me. you and i have been together a lot and i understand where we are. i'm simply asking a question and the answers either one way or the other. my question is simply you know that racial data information is the question. the legislature did so knowing how it would affect minority voters. i simply asked you to respond. >> your honor i would say it is not prudent not to answer that data knowing that these laws

could be subject at the time when the data was passed the state was still under section 5 but even after section 51 away it was still under section 2 so it only would be prudent for the legislature to ask for that information. in fact judge schroeder asked the justice department when of our hearings would have been worse or better for the state of north carolina not to enter that data and the justice department basically said we can't answer that question. we don't know the answer to that question so if you are concerned about complying with the laws and we have laws that prohibit discrimination against minorities is prudent to find out some degree of what the racial demographics are. >> that demographic information once you have it you have information that information warms you of certain kinds of behavior and that is early voting is more likely to be used by americans in the first week.

voter i.d.s are more likely not to be possessed and voting may more likely be used. is that the type of information my question is that the legislature had? >> may i answer the questionnaire on there? your honor first of all every case where there isn't intentional discrimination or section. >> or section i've every court has said evidence over disparity does not prove anything so that's the first . secondly there is no evidence or honor --. >> is one of those courts united states supreme court? >> absolutely. you don't prove a violation because there isn't alleged result.

>> mr. farr i'm trying to get my understanding clear. i'm asking a specific question as to the type of evidence that was before the legislature and weathered informed decision or not i don't know. he it could go either way but i want to know did have this information on it picked off by example, information that the use of these particular procedures were unfortunately higher in the minority entity than a non-entity? >> your honor they had knowledge that the state border elections report indicated that they were unable to match african-americans at the same. as whites. it was no indication that they didn't possess photo i.d. it's just they could not match them. the state board of elections said their report was inflated because there were all sorts of

problems associated and the evidence shows that it was inflated and the state took that information and they adopted a two-year rollout rollout period before they decided to enforce photo i.d. and they mandated what's been unprecedented as found by an educational campaign to educate people on photo i.d. to get the federal i.d.s. they got information and they took appropriate steps to try to do something about it. >> thank you. >> thank your honor and made please the corporate i'm alexander peters at the north carolina attorney general's office and the only thing i am going to talk about is the title and a ticket might be simpler conceptually but i want to make sure the court is aware of its practical considerations.

a general election is 20 weeks from today so i want to make sure the court is aware of what's going to happen in those 20 weeks and i think it might be simplest if i take it by each of the mechanisms we are talking about preregistration str provision voting photo i.d. and early voting. the counsel for the plaintiffs said was partially right but partially incorrect peer plaintiffs don't administer elections so would be understandable that perhaps they don't have quite the information when it comes to preregistration same-day registration of precinct provisional balloting and photo i.d. all of those things are handled in the system which is the state election information management system suite of applications. there is testimony about that in the record below. it has to be in place if in the

form it's going the form it's going to be used prior to the beginning of absentee voting at the beginning of september or so seems pretty much has to be locked in for what it's going to be looked like during the election mid-to late out is before it can be locked in a number of tests and essentially mock elections and that's where things have to be run. to make sure everything is working together properly and is going to do what it is supposed to do on election day. those tests have already started so we are really at the point at this point that it's very difficult if not impossible to start recoding new information and four to work for the general election. >> there's no way that we can issue an opinion. >> in fact that's not what i'm saying your honor. that's not what i'm saying at all. with one exception and that's

preregistration. it is too late at this point especially of it has to be courted with dmv. it's too late to have seems set up to deal with preregistration and happened in place prior to the beginning of september which is when it would need to be in place. the purposes of this election that doesn't have the effect it might seem because anyone who will be a team on the number eight can register so the fact that there is not preregistration built into the system at this point would not prevent anyone who will be 18 at the time of the election to register if they haven't already because they may have registered to vote in the primaries. >> i'm thinking preregistration is something you have to do in addition to what you are to have. it seems you are taking away

from things that are there are so it may be easier to subtract them to add. >> same-day registration out of precinct original voting because of the preliminary injunction in the trial court in because of this court's order those were to stay in place pending the decision of this court. same-day registration out of precinct provisional voting already in it. seems to set up to handle them and can handle them and will handle them in the same with photo i.d.. it's set up to handle that. the ideal would the if we were not going to have any of those things, would be to pull them out of the system but you can't do that without risking messing up other things you don't intend to mess up so with the state board would have to do if the court were to issue decisions that either said no same-day registration in november no out of precinct original voting in december and november or, and/or the state board was simply have

to make sure county boards know not to use any of those. that leaves do with the second issue is with regard to this and that's training and education. statewide mandatory training for county boards of elections. county board members and county elections officials are expected to attend this training and as a training that they use to train. that training is said and has been set or months for august 8 and 9th which is seven weeks from yesterday, seven weeks from today. that's one county elections officials are going to be trained on what the rules are for the election and given the materials to take back to their counties and use for training. if any changes are made after

that date, then it becomes an issue not just of educating people on what the rules are bred reeducating people. it's not what you party been told, it's now going to be this. it also means redoing, there's testani and evidence in the trial court about what's called the guide. it's the big resource manual essentially that every poll worker has at their station that has all the information about how to do everything. that would have to be redone in order for accurate information to be available to county poll workers. >> what is this information now? >> currently,. >> at the moment some of these provisions are enjoyed. >> currently with this asian guy does is tell them how to implement data, how to do same

day registration and how to do out of precinct voting because those things are all in place for this election as it stands now. >> so we should seem to would be see to strike those. i used to represent election boards in my youth. >> it might be easier for same-day registration and out of recent traditional voting for photo i.d. it becomes much harder because it's interwoven into so many aspects of the guide in terms of the process coming in. i would also point out that videos and the like have been prepared that were used for the primary that would be used for training in this go-round. all of those deal with photo i.d. on how to implement photo i.d.. the bottom line is if they're going to be changes and if we want to make sure the elections are to minister to uniform lay

and the county elections officials have the best information available to them really the state board of elections would need to know what changes need to be made well and advance weeks or months in advance of the training so that they could make sure that all the training materials are accurate. the council also mentioned the voter guide that goes out to every household in north carolina, 4.5 million go out. under the contract with the vendor who is printing the guide for the state board of elections have proved have to be at the vendor at the printer on august 5 so again we are talking in early august date by which things are going to be going into print and county board officials will be educated in terms of what the rules are for the elections. if we get after that point it comes an issue of reeducation

rather than simply saying these are the rules. with regard to early voting i think it's important to remember that it's the counties that implement those and it is true county boards of elections have the ability to tell other public buildings in the county we intend to use that doping on these days for early voting. ..

>> >> unless you know, something. i have no plans. [laughter] >> i want to reply to the points with the evil mentation points but i think those that our little more central that there is no case where it is discriminatory there is no case like this. there is no precedent for their rollback house bill 589 created impairing voting rights also represented the

first major construction since 1965 in north carolina picked up where history left off right after shelby county came down. the legal errors were numerous so to your point, it does matter the distinction if the court is an important legal distinction. >> how do you know, that? i did not get that so how do you know, ? >> the district court said it would not have been unreasonable for north carolina to see how shelby county came down. but an important point is that was in just sitting on

the voter i.d. bill with the burden of going through pre- clarence they go through all of these other changes and the contrary but that previous version of house bill that came out of the house did include public assistance identification. post shelby they take that out for a reason they could have surmised absolutely. these are not actual reasons they are rational basis if deloitte for pre-tax or motive you commit legal heir and reach the wrong

conclusion. so with that troubling interplay between race and politics. somehow would only applies to a case and that is not true. they use the same language of intentional discrimination to fence out a portion of the electorate so it is not constitutional are limited and there also mentioned incredibly there is no showing of injury there is no evidence n

injury the district court found hundreds of voters that are disenfranchised because of house bill 589. and it is there. i just want to make clear that the record does show that on all different levels the legislature asks for data on racial impact on the post shelby consideration. that is on page 26. >>. >> it is a relevant point but also the knowledge with which the of the legislature was acting.

>> are you making arguments of legislature couldn't have the president? >> no. they were relieved of that duty to comply with section five but they knew that disparate impact of the decision to include there are tens of provisions that are filed every year my dad is voted is the disparate impact of racial minority voters so if there is separate bills dealing with all of these provisions but just not combined in one piece of legislation. >> i am not sure that there

was proposing to eliminate registration but and there were bills wanted to cut early voting. and that is all in the history of the tracking. >> jumping around up a little bit but this court in 2014 emphasized the district court committed legal thereby dismissing is minimal the number of voters that are disenfranchised. and this court the basic truth says even one let alone thousands is too many.

the fact that he demonstrated there were thousands of voters that were disenfranchised. with the bureaucratic efficiency and it goes to the remedy that the state board of elections made into enfranchised voters may have a contract if the federal court rules the day are discriminatory and unconstitutional there is ample time to educate the voters to make sure north carolinian can vote. >> we will take the case