debate, what kind of pack should we want to help the poor, well, what would you do if it was your little sister? you make certain her needs were met. you would provide with encouragement but also say, there are things you're going to -- this is exactly how somebody treated somebody they cared about. the problem how do you recreate that through the processes of government. it's technically very difficult. you're not going to do that by changing incentives and letting people pull up by the bootstraps. you have find other ways and that requires a lot of effort and search across and innovative government. you can't -- we can do pilot programs up here and i've done that. you know, the pilots. the state are ongoing pilot program and really we do need more innovative governors to do more from both right of center and left of center and really to push and push their own groups who will tell them, oh, you can't change anything because if

you change anything, everybody will-the poverty rates will go way up. i would agree. i'm disappointed. >> so if you have questions, you'll have to save them for the next panel. thank you so that panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> as always is said this panel is between you and the reception. [laughter] >> so be nice to us.

because we know the chef. i am doug and i teach at the university of maryland. i want to thank specially the last panel for setting up this panel. we have a small panel. one, two -- we have a small panel and we have all of 30 minutes. so ear is what we are going to do. i'm not going to introduce them. number two, except for a couple of sentences, i'm hardly going to say anything. i'm just going to get out of the way but i'm going to tell you what the assignment was, the last panel, besides all the reminiscing was we have to do a better job in the future. so the assignment to this panel is tell us what we should do in the future. we are going to start with the staff director of house ways and means subcommittee on human resources and successor times in

the middle and i'm going to go right down the list and because she's a big-shot and because this is her home gets ten minutes. everyone else gets five minutes. anyone who ends a little earlier gets our love and appreciation. [laughter] >> but in five minutes because i do have to keep this to end roughly on time. we are going to start. anne, thank you very much. you're on. >> all right, well, thank you. yes to follow ron raised the bar when he had this job and ron raised it again in the last panel so i think we certainly heard -- we certainly have our work cut out these days. someone referenced earlier the fact that there's been a discussion draft out there. that's been some kind of movement. really in the last ten years we haven't done a major

reauthorization and that's something we are figuring out and work in a bipartisan to do. so i'm going to signed of set up where we are now and what we see going forward at the committee and through the speakers' efforts as well. in the last two years discussion draft that we worked in a bipartisan way and got a lot of feedback and there's still a lot thoughts on both sides about how this program should operate, how it has played out, what the role has been of states, what the role of the federal government should be and so that debate continues. and so the work first maintenance but that debate about education, training and what role that should play is the top of the mound. that's not something we've been able to breakthrough at the subcommittee or at the committee or in the congress and so we started from the bottom up in the last year or so and looking at what pieces could we pick up.

i think the last panel did a nice job of segueing in where we are today in what are states using their money for and are they focusing on individuals on 2000% on poverty, not all of them. what do we do to get it back to core purpose, but in doing that there are a lot of good lessons that we have learned and when tanif was created in 1996, all the debates were going on about welfare reform, ultimately it was about one program at the end of the day, there are discussions about medicaid, food stamps and things like that. ultimately they only reformed one program and so where we kind of are and the speakers' task force on mobility, we have really been focusing on what does that mean going forward, and so some of you may be familiar with the welfare state chart that committee has put out which demonstrates the 80 plus

different programs that make up the welfare state and those programs haven't been touched. those programs haven't been focused on helping folks move from where they are to where they need to be and where they want to be. i think we heard a lot about that today too. and so the progress that has been made over the last 20 years has always opened our eyes on what we need to do next and that means going beyond tanif, strengthening relationships with the child support enforcement program. what are other ways in lessons from tanif, setting expectations can be applied to other programs that may include food stamps or housing or how do we engage fathers, and i think wendell brought that up too. it's also about looking at, sorry, other programs and how they're expecting work or not necessarily expecting work at

this time and how those things all fit together, and so for those of us at the ways and means committee we really kind of have four welfare reforms themes that we see guiding us going toward to not only apply lessons of tanif but to reapply them to tani if -- tanif and one expect to work in exchange for benefits, prepare to go work, doing something, activity that getting up, getting out of the house, we heard a lot about that today. that piece remains and is a big part of what should be the basis for our programs. the second part of that is getting the incentives right. i think we heard that on the last panel. it's not just incentives for states, it's incentives for individuals, nonprofits to engage in the process. it's making sure that the financial incentives are there for folks to do the right thing so that we can take our hands off and let them go do what it

is that they do best. that goes along with our third theme, which is focusing on the results of our welfare program. we've come a long way and something alluded early on and something that happened in the 1990's, hey go do this other thing but it's like go this other thing, let's study it, understand it and let's see what the impacts are and learn from it. now we have come to a point 20 years later where we are much more effective at doing evaluation, they're much quicker at turning the results around and making that a consistent part of how it is that we do public policy. everybody likes to talk about evidence base decision but embedding it in the way we do business. that goes along with the incentives. you can actually set up things to create the incentives for evaluation and fourth improving the integrity so the programs are there for those who truly need them the most.

and so i think senator talent talked about it in the last panel making sure that meets our net for those who do need them but we also make sure that the integrity of the program is there so we are keeping those who aren't necessarily eligible because we do have limited resources, states may think the money comes from the sky, in fact, it doesn't, it comes from hard working taxpayers and we owe to them to make sure that we are spending their money properly. and so when we kind of bring all of those things together along with some of the pieces are our folks in other committees working on education, training and things like that, you create a system that helps to support families. today we talked about a program. it's about a system because a family does not walk into a welfare office and say, i need this program. they walk in and they have trouble, they can't pay their

electric bill, they can't get their kids to school on time because they don't have transportation and they need to get to work and all these other things, they don't care what the programs are and so that's our responsibility to -- to make it work for families that are out there. and so i think i'm under time, but i just want to point out that we are making progress on tanif, we hope folks will remain engage in the conversation that we are having and what we've been doing in a bipartisan basis trying to take tanif out of the appropriations process where it's been straight expenses with a few minor changes and really regain the program, and that's a priority of chairman brady and take a wider view of what's going on with the rest of the safety net. >> thank you very much. we are not going to go in the order. [inaudible]

>> flexibility. >> yeah. .. >> we believe that most covered with another good parents attached to this somewhere that we, so what we've done is look at one of the goals is to try to put families together so we are looking at how fathers really hurt so we put together three

programs to be able to do that. one is all of them provide some kind of subsidy to men. i know that's kind of unusual because most of these guys really do need subsidized employment and a couple things we found out about it is when we get guys jobs , many of them get married. so it ought to say something to us that men don't marry when they don't have jobs. and that if we can get them employment, they tend to form families. the other side of that is women don't marry men who don't have jobs so it's kind of critical with that wetried to figure out how to get men jobs but we also found out just getting them jobs is not enough. we also need to figure out , because many of them come to us having been in the child welfare system, having been in prison and having a lot of trauma in their life they

need the kind of support systems usually give the women but we don't give to men so we need to put those kind of support systems, it's much more clinical. they also need, and i know some of you are not going to like this, they need spiritual development because many of them have no faith at all and they need some. the other one is communication skills. my favorite is math skills. one of the reasons why we focused on math skills is because in wisconsin, one of the things, the jobs that are going untapped our infrastructure jobs. plumbers, electricians, carpenters, construction workers and machinists and welders. all those require the same set of skills, math. algebra, geometry and trigonometry. some of you don't like those things, they are not difficult subjects and we can teach them pretty easily and fast so one of the things we are pushing his math skills. math skills for fathers who

have decent jobs so they can have a family. the other thing we are looking at is, i: 2.0 is changing our provider system. most of the people who provide social services are women area and that's the wrong set of providers. what we would like to have his mormon providing services to men so men who get what they need can change their trajectory in terms of work. the other thing we would like to see more of his more perpetrator programs because a lot of our men have found themselves in a domestic violence situation and they go into domestic violence programs that are designed i women for what they think men need and what we would like to have is more programs designed by men for what men need so we want to turn our whole system around towards giving men a fair opportunity within our system and we believe that if we give men a

fair opportunity for our system, we start to deal with the goals which is the important area and father involved families. that's it thank you very much. >> actually, it sounds quite logical. first of all, great to see so many of those involved in this revolution and it's really been a great privilege to be involved myself. the state played a crucial role in developing welfare reform. you've heard about that from the governor's earlier. from the wave experience and all through the jobs programs, they figured out how to build work into the welfare system. they didn't all do it equally well but we've heard about some exemplars in the case of wisconsin, michigan and also

new york city where you still have awell-developed work system so this was i think a real success . the problem with the first responsibility act, however, is it not only allowed the diversion of funds away from the proper but it also did not require the states maintain work programs which they had previously instituted. they now can satisfy, the state requirements mainly by taking credit for the many jobs which welfare mothers got on their own so what we don't really have in many states today is a serious work program aimed at welfare mothers. what i think ed is talking about is efforts really to reconstruct the kind of work programs that states had

under the waiver system and also under jobs. we need to go back to an idea that there has to be a program aimed at welfare mothers with a structure that allows experimentation which is still important but there has to be a federal structural goals that mean that this program is aimed at, the things that we want to lead to to come out of welfare. so i think that's the way things are going and clearly we need to do that, we need to have something beyond the work the dissipation standards and an actual work program. the other thing i want to do, i would like to see and i think eloise has already alluded to this, we need to extend welfare reform beyond welfare mothers. which is essentially what we addressed in the 90s. we need to have welfare reform for men. that's what eloise is really talking about. my previous book is pretty much how one can do that by using the child support system and the criminal justice system. these systems are aimed in a sense at punishing men who we think have obligations to work but we don't actually create an institution for them to do that. what we need to do actually

is have work programs aimed at men who should be working either in child-support or criminal justice and the states are developing these programs more than we realize. it's just nobody inside the beltway has heard about it. we need to take seriously the progress that is being made here and we need especially to work forward with the kind of reforms that the federal child-support enforcement has already suggested area those reforms have been held up in congress. we need to unblock that and make it possible for there to be federal funding for child support work programs and otherwise develop these structures to make it possible to have a serious work program for men.i think that is really the frontier. we need to improve canis but also have welfare reform or men so i'll lay that huge challenge at your feet and asked people to work on that more than they have until now. >>. [inaudible] on advantages is

coming at the end so i don't have to read my prospectus as most people have said or a number of people have said what i want.i want to develop a little bit particularly what ron and larry just talked about. it seems to me in 96 there was great promise that states would develop more comprehensive work programs. programs that would address more issues and would not only deal with getting people into work but also helping them stay at work, helping them advance and i think there was initially a lot of enthusiasm for that. hhs at the time and a lot of states were interested in that. we ran projects with them, joint efforts together and evaluation and that pretty much died out. and i think there are a number of reasons why it died

out but it's basically what ron said, the money was drained out of the program. so work programs have kind of withered rather than developed. and i think the only way we can sort of remedy that is somehow to bring money back for that purpose and for that purpose alone. and maybe ron is correct that to do that is strict in canada. the other option is to put new money in. i think there's a lot of probably disagreements about what the content of that money would go for but i would say it should go for states to develop work programs. i myself would provide a lot of flexibility and require rigorous evaluation. i think that's a way we could learn about what's effective and what isn't and i think it could also, it would energize states against potentially to take this effort seriously

and i think there are a number of reasons why i think the money left for other things, otherreasons. part of it i think, some of them were for good things like more childcare , stronger child protective services but i think it was also because those things were easy. you had existing systems, you knew what to do kind of and you could augment what was going on. developing more comprehensive work programs was really a new frontier and i think that's why it was fighting for a while it lasted and while there's money to spread, i think it was hard to do, it was easy to take the money and do other things with it and i think a lot of money went for purposes totally unrelated and i think it's hard to deny that. i think the only way to do it is somehow to really bring back something like the waiver experience where the states are encouraged to develop and they are given

some moneyto do it and that's all they can do with it . and i think that's the only, without money i don't think there will be any progress in this area. >>. [inaudible] >> so first let me admit, maybe there's something wrong with me but i'm really enjoying this thing. i think i'm a policy geek, i know there's three or four of you out there. my background, i came in as a welder administrator in iowa in 1993 right as the state was implementing statewide waivers and we had a number of waivers, some were things we copied from other states like the makework pay concepts that you heard from the governors and from others. one that we did, i was told we were the first at the time to do us straight statewide

family section and i came in as that was implemented and weak by week what i was answering more media inquiries on that and signing off on more reports to howard on impact and policy changes and process studies but i think what we learned out of that and subsequently two years after, i worked for governor anglin is a human services director, what we learned out of all that was while we were really trying to do in the simplest forms increase risks and rewards. do things like work incentives, making work pay, opportunities to build assets, supportive services, you are creating the awards and the opportunities or welfare recipients to go to work. the risks were of course really transformed into the kind of form of, we need to make these programs look like employment. these are employment programs, after all. so they have to be consequences if you don't show up to work on time. you get docked in pay or you lose your job. you don't participate in the

work around you lose your benefits but that was an important message moving forward for us all. when welfare reform pass, if i was asked to consolidate into two things that had the biggest impact, one of the flexibility. everybody thought about it. there's debates on whether it's good, bad, great, abuse, whatever but it did drive a lot of impacts and regardless of what you think the bottom line is, i will adamantly defend it was better than what we had under a fpc. the other thing that made a huge difference was work participation rate. it changed the culture of state government. we attack things like jobs program under the family support act of 88. we toyed with the work programs under waivers but the work rotation rate made it real. we had tochange the culture and do things differently so i think as congress thinks about what they want to do , and i started maybe at the 100,000 foot level and i am not sure i didn't get and notes here. when i think about the framework i think you have to start with a discussion on

what are the outcomes you want? we kind of worry about job placement and caseload reduction. we started thinking about things like rates and retention and i would say retentions are great example of a good outcome because it means you got placement. you've got them at an income level that would sustain their work, you've got employer satisfaction. so i think there has to be agreement on those outcomes. there has to be incentives to drive the behavior and i talked about that and there has to be aspects of program integrity. finally, the work participation rate it into the outcome discussion. i don't think it's working today the way people wanted it to. states are doing a lot of good things to put people to work, i think it needs to be restructured. we need to talk about outcomes. i hope that flexibility stays. part of that challenge is the

debate that started 20 years ago, is it rapid job attachment or working training? the best mix of work and training is a mix of work and training and it really depends on participant needs. it depends on your local economic area. what are the jobs? do you have an abundance of mental skills jobs that need training or entry-level jobs? do you have sectors with good employers and job demand in which you can create training programs and those are the things i think drive the need to retain flexibility so the state can tailor those programs. it doesn't mean there should be some kind of accountability to drive it but that flexibility will be important and i feel the balance of my time. >> i'm going to have a few words at the end. >> i'm going to pick up on something that and said area one of the tenants is to expect work in exchange for benefits. i think it's increasingly difficult if you adhere to that concept as a way forward from where we are to

effectuate it and i will explain why. it's more difficult today than before. when welfare reform waspassed , one of the things we learned is that if caseworkers say you really have to go to work and thanks for being in the office, now we're going to help you look for a job and put you in the position to take a job. when that was perceived as the only option for the best option or if you didn't take that option and go to work in the private sector, you would end up working in a community service job or going to training. in other words, your time was occupied. back then that was a powerful incentive and we learned that people went right into work, that you don't have to take somebody in the front door and process them to a government program that really what happens. in reality, if people ask of their own volition to take jobs that they always could have had on their own,had they needed to , that's part

of the system isn't functioning anymore and the reason for that is the system is awash in money that wasn't there before that people can survive on, live on, maybe not prosper but can avoid work and let me give you three examples. let's take food stamps as the worst area the three examples are the e itc, food stamps and disability. all those three programs provide lots of money into the system without obligation to work and i know you're going to say that the itc does have an obligation to work and i'm going to try to disabuse you of that. but let's take food stamps first.how many minutes do i have left? two minutes. if you look at that chart over there, the green line is tanner and we went from 96 from 4.72 2.1 cases.

look at food stamps. it's exactly tracks it, that's because people on food stamps combined it with kenneth but when they went to work they usually closed their foodstamp cases and they were going to work. beginning in 2002, and explicit decision by the food and nutrition service in the bush administration was to expand food stamps including nonworking food stamps, there was no pairing of work and food stamps and now look what happened. the red line shows how many, those are the same people, the same families, female primarily female head of household that were on kenneth but they're not expected to work and they don't work. in fact, disability. disability roles have expanded immeasurably and a lot of academic work revolves around the notion that disability because it's increasingly easy to get has become a substitute for retirement.

and for people that want to retire early and that has to be attacked. the only way to get to that is to condition a session onto the disability roles with some form of participation standards including vocational education. it's not there and this congress won't abide by it and neither will the social security administration in the form of a waiver. finally, the e itc and this is the most disturbing of all because initially the e itc is your obligation for your actual work with benefits and that's a good thing. but here's what we learned in wisconsin at the welfare office. between january and march of each year, welfare recipients won't come in, many of them were most of them, to participate in their work activity because they take

the eitc benefit without having earned it. what that means is you can go online and we show the ways and means community how to do this, you can go online with turbotax, makeup self-employment, take children from other families with their social security numbers, submitted and 45 days later you get a check or $6000. that's a huge problem right now so if you take those three things, you really have a system now that we didn't have 20 years ago. you have a system that exists without work or without the obligation for work the next thing we need to do is focus on broad but also focus on all programs should have a work requirement or activity requirements in force at one time or another. >> i'm academic and i'm forced to come to conclusions, despite the conclusion of this wonderful

program. this thing we call welfare reform of 20 or 30 years, larry, when did you write about new york city, what year? >> the first article was 83 i think? >> and about a program that started in the late 70s. >> 67 so there was a history with a lot of people getting involved and we heard from the last panel where nothing much is going on and so forth but we heard a little bit in this panel about some of those things that are going on and part of that is we haven't had a process that brings that to the attention of policymakers or the public in the way that 20 or 30 year period of welfare reform took place. secondly, you are the number of people talking about job training and i'm here to tell you, i inhale to to coin a phrase. but the fact is, we don't really know how to do it.

the fact is we don't have an infrastructure or doing it and that's a long, hard slog. the sooner we start the better but let us realize that we are not doing all that much today and then the last point i would make, a number of people talked about the waivers and the money that was available either within the system or from the states in the experiments themselves and we're clearly going to need, i don't think this is a political comment, we're clearly going to need money to lubricate this system. whether the money comes from new appropriations or whether it comes from a super waiver, that's something that we hope will be on the table and people will work it out but you can't think that this process can move to fruition by having 10 or 15 extras sit around the table and come to a conclusion. it will take a kind of work that started in the 60s really and the 70s and came to fruition in the 90s and it's just that process that's the start.

or the organizers, let me thank you very much. you've been a great audience and before you clap and all that sort of stuff, great panel, jason wants to make an announcement. >> there's several of us that are getting together for dinner. dutch treats after the reception which should be approximately 6:45 or something like that. if you would like to come and pay your own dinner and sit in ... >> i heard that. >> that's okay too. stand up please. if you would stand up tammy, there she is. if you would let tammy know you would like to join us at about 6:40 5 pm we will be leaving here and walking to bowl feathers, we would like to have you. >> when they fill those

tables over? >> right away. >> so we just been here for a minute or so? >> this is 5:45. >> those tables right there. when does the reception happen? >> immediately. >> there you go, thank you. [applause] today on duende, robert kaplan, author and contributing editor at the atlantic talks about his book in europe's shadow: two cold wars and the 30 year journey to romania and beyond. the program starts at 7 pm eastern and on book tv in prime time tonight, the

president. the beginning it began to get over to the white house, the ordeal presidency and evan thomas and tim weiner and richard nixon panel from the annapolis book festival. after that, each w brand and thomas mallon discussed ronald reagan at the san antonio book festival. and then jean edward smith investigates president george w. bush. all this on tv at prime time tonight on c-span2. >> with the house and senate returning from their summer break next week, join us tonight eastern for a preview of four key issues facing congress this fall. federal funding to combat the motz virus. >> women in america today want to make sure they have the ability to not get pregnant. why? mosquitoes private rabbit women. >> today they turned down the very money that they argued for classmate and theydecided to gamble with the lives of children like this .>> the annual defense and policy

program still. >> all these boats are still very vital to the future of this nation in a time of turmoil and time of the greatest number of refugees since the end of world war ii. >> nonviolence legislation and criminal justice reform every member of this body, every republican and every democrat wants to see less gun violence. >> we must continue the work of nonviolence and demand an end to senseless killing everywhere. >> and the resolution for congress to impeach irs commissioner john pocketing. >> house resolution 828 impeaching john andrew koskinen, commissioner of the internal revenue service for high crimes and misdemeanors. >> we will review the debate susan for riccio, senior national correspondent for the washington examiner. one is tonight at eight eastern on c-span for

congress this fall. >> earlier this week, a three-judge panel on the fourth circuit court of appeals in richmond virginia unanimously struck down north carolina's boating law. the court ruled that 40 restrictions passed by the republican control legislator were enacted with a racially discriminatory intent violating the 14th amendment's equal protection clause and voting rights act. the new laws require voters to produce a government issued id, eliminate same-day voting registration and cut a week of early voting and prohibited out of precinct votes from being counted. north carolina's legislature passed the new voting rules in 2013, weeks after the supreme court'sruling a portion of the act .the state had a history of information to get approval before changing election laws. >> good morning, please be seated.

we're happy to hear arguments in north carolina state conference of the naacp versus pat mccrory. we know you have prepared and there's a lot of issues here so if you can try to organize yourselves as you get to your most important issues in the time allotted, we would really appreciate it. iq. with this in mind, ms. fallon? >> good morning. anna baldwin representing the united states. as the order of this presentation i'm going to be addressing the section to claim under intent and results. ms. hare is going to address the section to claim focusing

on the results and miss rigs will address the constitutional claims and also addressing any questions about implementation. >> man, who has the closing argument which i might find distributive. that's not the case here. if the emphasis drawn by the district were to pause, i'd say you are doing. >> your honor ... certainly your honor and under the standard if the district court applied the wrong legal standard, the facts are biting so to start with the intent now, there are critical errors in the legal analysis of the united states intent claim that claim the analysis. we have to start with the fact that in passing hb 589 the north carolina legislature actively throughout african-american political power who had begun to experience real political gain. in looking at this claim, the district court failed to take

account of the fact that even as the defendant's expert testified in north carolina, the best predictor of voting behavior is not party registration but race and so a proper intent analysis would have required the district court to express reconsider whether passage of hb 589 was motivated in part by what the supreme court called the troubling blend of race and politics. the district court committee believes a legal error in failing to analyze the intent claims through the framework of the supreme court that out in the last. >> when you speak to the teddy claim, are you referring to the section 2, sexual discrimination or the 14th amendment of discrimination? >> under the 14th amendment intentional discrimination and section 2, intentional discrimination, in the same standard. the united states is pressing its claim under the guise of section 2 but the standard is the same, that the question is was thelegislature's

action motivated in part by racially discriminatory practice . >> in the event you are presenting a constitutional argument here and yet there's a section 2 result argument. should we reach that one first? >> your honor, we think that the section 2 result claim in this case, it's helpful in the tenuous factor in particular to look at the intent claims and the parties would ask the court to reach both results and intent violation because of the nature of the relief we are seeking, we are seeking relief undersection 3 of the voting rights act . >> your colleague is going to argue to explain that also, right? >> he's going to be addressing the anderson verdict constitutional claim but in terms of the intent claim, the racially discriminatory intent claim is necessary under the voting rights act to re-trigger preclearance and coverage

requirements under section 3c so that's why that needs to be made under the intent claim . >> looking at the legal error ... >> we understand you on everything but i think what my colleague express to you was in your first brief to give the intent claim first and in your second brief you did the claim second so which is first in your heart?>> your honor, we think both are very strong claims. and with respect to both ... >> what a person is going to is that typically we don't do a constitutional issue to be resolved on legal grounds. the question is for you, in section 2, could we first address that and if we reach a resolution there we might go for remedial reasons to the constitutional question but should we start at least there? >> i think in terms of what's practically important, the parties were all aware of the fact that there is an election upcoming in november

so the importance of having some kind of remedy in place and having a reversal and an injunction enjoining the decisions that are discriminatory, that can clearly be done under the results claim that this court can correct errors that the district court made. >> it couldn't be done under the intent claim? >> the intent claim to because there's a legal error in failing to account for in the analysis racially poor ability, the seismic growth of the blackelectorate, the significance of turnout . >> as my colleague says, i think we understand all those arguments. that's basically what you've done in your first presentation is go over your brief with us and you can rest assured we've read the brief. i would be a little more interested in the specifics if you can give them to me. for example, did you present at that trial any expert data predictions on what the 214 voter turnout would have been without the new statute? >> no your honor and in fact

we explained why that's not possible. doctor stewart testified that in order to predict what 2014 turnout would have been, not just doing the simplistic comparison as the district court did, you need more elections, more states, more data to do that. >> we know what it was under the statute. did you make experts try to make a prediction what it would have been if you hadn't had the new statute in place? >> there's some factual testimony that you don't even need expert testimony. we know that the statute hadn't been in place, more than 1600 voters in ballots were counted, those ballots could have been counted. we know that for the, i believe it's yearly over 12,000 voters who registered after the book closing., after the 25 day deadline but before the election, those voters would have been able

to take advantage of same-day registration but those voters couldn't do that under this action. so the notion that if we are talking about turnout, the notion that united states and the plaintiff didn't prove this law impacted the number of voters who are able to vote, that's simply not true. there are thousands of voters on the records were shot out of the political process under this bill. what the district court did is result analysis and the critical error there is looking to key numbers rather than the numbers i've just cited of voters who were concretely set out of the process. this court said what the turnout was in 2010 and 2014 and everybody's expert testified, plaintiff and defendants alike. you can't measure the impact of an election law just by looking at those two numbers. in 2010 you had a $10 million senate rate, you had $100 million in a senate race in 2013. of course that's going to have an impact. in looking at turnout, of course the statute prohibits

laws that have an abridging effect as well as an outright denial. on this parker, we clearly proven out like denial but it's wrong to set up a standard where you have to show that voters are concretely shut out and don't take extraordinary efforts to overcome that so this records in this case joe there were extraordinary efforts organized by churches to counteract the effects ofthe law . >> and in other textual, you talk about the 72 new early voting sites. is there any evidence in the record in terms of whether they were located in the black or white communities or republicans or democrats? >> your honor, one thing i would like ... >> i'm interested in your explanation but is there anything in the record about that? i don't believe there is and if i'm wrong ... one thing that i think is important qualified in our challenge to

the early voting changes, the united states is not challenging the only portion of the law that there is a rationale for which is equalizing the locations within counties. we're not challenging that. we are challenging the cutbacks to the number of days of early voting and that is something for which the defendants have had no rationale. >> your argument was that one of the problems was the board of elections was given its authority to move voting sites around and include in that way discriminated against minority voters. is that not part of your claim? >> that is not part of our claim and in the reverse, the state has relied more on the fact that the location of early voting centers and arguing that they were used to benefit african-american and democratic voters. we are not making a claim about the location of the early voting centers. if anything, we think the state reliance on that

argument is basically an admission ofwhat the facts in this case show that race and party are closely tied together . >> isn't your race and party argument, that's what i'm asking you about. >> we are not claiming that the new locations, the old locations discriminated against african-american voters. what we are claiming is the cutbacks to early voting, eliminating seven days and particularly eliminating a sunday where the record shows in 2008 49 percent of the voters who used that were african-american and in 2012 that eliminated sunday, 43 percent. that's where the disproportionate impact is, in the cut to the number of days. we are not challenging the location issue under the bill. >> so the answer is to three questions, as long as you believe there was a legal error, there's emphasis .

>> the six critical facts before the court are contested as even the district court in closing said. you all could have submitted a lot of this case by stipulation. we agree. if the inferences the district court drew from those facts and the facts that wrongly adopted. the claim is elevated turnout along every other kind of metric where to say that as long as aggregate turnout goes up, as long as more black voters voted in 2014 than in 2010, you can't have a discriminatory burden and that's not the case. with something like same-day registration, we showed what the discriminatory burden is. this isn't just an disparate use statute, it's that african-american voters are more likely to use that and they're more likely to use that because of reasons connected to a history of discrimination and importantly, the removal of that burdens and amplifies the effects of that

discrimination because of the literacy deficit and that's not just speculation. the best evidence of some of that is an incomplete voter registration to that you see in 2014 that the voters were going to have more problems submitting the voter registration application, failing to check the box or something, they are disproportionately african-american and taking away same-day registration where you have an opportunity to correct those errors is going to disproportionately burden african-americans so that the way in which in particular the burdens that the law imposes are cumulative and greater. you take away a week of early voting. you take away the opportunity for african-american voters to use same-day registration during that period area the more you take away that early voting. where voters can show to any precinct, the more likely they are to end up in the wrong precinct on election day. >> what is your best evidence connecting that burden to historical discrimination?

>> i think the tasks that this court set out properly is that you start with a discriminatory burden so we showed that through the disparate use and we also show that through the socioeconomic effects of discrimination that amplify the fact that it's going to be more difficult for voters to navigate the process in north carolina without those mechanisms . so i give an example of voter like wendell carrington, i think some of the individual voters bring to light the uncontested numerical socioeconomic and disparate use testimony, that she's a voter who works six days a week, 12 hours a day. she has voted early in 2008 and 2012. she didn't have time to vote

early during the early voting. in 2014, she voted near her workplace because she worked on election day 6 am to 6 pm and couldn't have gotten to her correct polling place in the time allotted because she had to pick up her adult children 27 percent of african-americans, three times higher than one with transportationdifficulties in her families where multiple adults rely on one card. using the same example in carolyn cunningham and the ways in which the burdens in this case are cumulative . she was a first-time voter who used the polls in a prior election. she works three jobs to make ends meet. on election day, she didn't know where her correct polling place was showing so shevoted close to her job. even if polling workers told her she was voting in the incorrect precinct she wouldn't have time to get the correct briefing because she rest penalties for being just a few minutes late at work and the same with yvonne washington .

>> thank you very much your honor. may please the court? i am penda hair. i am here on the half of the north carolina state office of the naacp and other plaintiffs in that case. many of whom are here in the courtroom today. i will primarily address the section 2 claims but hope to comment briefly on the racial intent and we do, the north carolina naacp is serving both the constitutional and the second to racial intent claim area. >> your comments will focus on section 2 as results?

>> i primarily intend to focus on results. your honor's, the plaintiffs after being with you in 2014 went to trial, i've seen two trials and in those trials we applied the framework from the jingles case and from this court's league of women voters case in terms of how to prove a textbook section 2 case and ms. fallin talk briefly about that so i want to summarize that and i want to talk about the errors the district court made that cause as your honor, the inferences broad by the district court to be tainted by legal error but as per the league of women voters case, we prove three critical case steps of that. one, african americans disproportionately use

same-day registration out of precinct and the other eliminated practice and disproportionately do not have photo id and in the case of most of those classes, those disparities were proven to be statistically significant which means they are not random which means under all of race discrimination law, statistics are posted as significant disparities tell you you need to look further. it doesn't tell you you prevail but it tells you you need to look further and that's what the second and third wrongs of the league of women voters test tell us. >> about these statistics, so do you mean that section 2 results claims has a minimum impact threshold? for example, if out of precinct voting only impacted 20 people, you wouldn't be a liable claim? >> i'm sorry, 20 people

racially disproportionate? >> this is your section 2 results. >> right. 20 people. 20 people are affected and it's racially disproportionate. i think he would need that first and i don't know if it's 20 people, whether there's a statistical significance that would be plausible but you might reach the disproportionate use problem but you probably would not defeat on the rest of the test, particularly when you get to the states justification for what it's doing, if it's eliminating a facet that only affects 20 people, i think that in the totality of the circumstances that the plan might not succeed. >> so there is some spots? >> i think you have to apply the town totality of the circumstances in all situations but as a voting

rights lawyer, looking at that i would not expect the plaintiff to defeat unless there was some fact i don't know about. >> with the answer be somewhat different when you are addressing this section on discrimination which was just addressed with section 2 results? >> yes and discrimination, intentional discrimination, that's the end of it. the law is invalid and it needs to be enjoined if it is painted in part by racial intent, yes. so let me proceed to the second and third prong which is once you have disparate use, that is not always true contrary to some of the claims from the defendant. we also proved as ms. baldwin said a connection between the states awarded racial history and its current impacts or

vestiges of racial discrimination that exists and impacts of african-american and latino voters in the state today and some of those connections are described on i think pages 12 to 14 of our brief and in terms of the case critical facets the critical court found, the district court did find that connection between the vestiges and the eliminated practices. for example, the district court said it's easy to see a connection between certain reasons for ending up in the incomplete queue and literacy and the district court then found that african americans are vestiges discrimination is literacy and the benchmark electoral practice which is aimed a registration produces virtually no incomplete registration. that is the ameliorative

interaction that the league of women voters test shows us is a classic case of section 2 violations. and what caused the district court once you get to those three critical factors and approved eight of the senate factors, what led the district court to say not ruling in favor of the plaintiff? the first thing the district court did is it treated a new causation requirement. it's not been required in any section today or any governing law and that causation requirement, instead of looking at the connection between the vested eliminated practice and the eliminated practice, the district court said you have to prove the eliminated practices cause an increase

in registration or turnout. that is not the causation requirement from league of women voters or any other precedents governing this case and for example, the district court said on page 347 of its opinion, plaintiff failed to carry their burden of showing that same-day registration is responsible the african-american leave over all other races and registration. that is the same thing on page 355 about turnout. that is not a causation requirement in the case law and that is the primary mistake the district court made and ... >> i'm sorry, tell me what it should have been in said. >> what the district court should have done, we established the three prongs of league of women voters and then we included eight of the senate factors and those circumstances, that is the district court should have found ...

>> i understand the bottom line of what you want, if that was really so youwould have moved for the enjoyment . there were factual disputes, right? i was really going to an easier question for you, i will make you explain to me why it didn't go for summary judgment if all the facts were in your favor but what i would like to go into his the same that you made this causation analysis and what should the analysis have been instead? >> i will answer that question, i will say briefly at the beginning there were facets of the case but the district court found the political facts in our favor and that is, so what the district court should have done, i mean the analysis ... >> the question is relative, i think it's several questions, that is you were saying you applied what i

think was described as a causation standard. what she is asking is what should we have applied? >> it's pretty straightforward. >> and i think the confusion as he did both. he applied the correct standard and he found all of the fact that leads to a section 2 violation and then he went and that was enough, that was a set of factors, that is the only causation requirement so then he instead of moving forward to the next step which would have been finding the violation, he veered off the road into a new causation requirement that there was nothing more district court needed to do other than apply the league of women voters test which he gave in and found those facts in our favor and i think the district court, fearing off the road really is ... exemplified by the district court's reliance on the 2014

turnout data to essentially drop the actual evidence of plaintiff had of burdens and the connection of the burden to the vestiges of discrimination. >> let me ask you this question. if even under the test indicate here, the same question i asked the attorney, will be your best evidence to show the connection between this burden and the historical discrimination? >> that evidence is set out on page 12 through 14 of our reply brief and we presented evidence of claim. >> we showed literacy disadvantages as well as transportation disadvantages that all connected to same-day registration of how

to ameliorate because you only have to go on to register and vote and if you have any literacy issues, there are people there who will make sure that you don't leave something out for forget to check a box and your registration is not processed. and we did that for each of the claims and different evidence that connects the eliminated practice through the message specific to that particular claim. 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 is ... >> is it intentional discrimination or 14th amendment? >> both, my comments go to both.

and what i would say there is that plaintiffs, the evidence shows that plaintiffs proved that arlington heights actors , all as set in our brief we proved that all the changes made after the shelby decision this favored african-americans and we also proved that virtually all of the reasons that the legislators stated at the time in the legislative record were simply not true. and the legislators in the case of the record asserted legislative privilege and never came forward and said their credibility under oath behind any other reason that they might say they did what they did in this bill and therefore we believe that there is only one conclusion that can be made on this record in terms of racial intent and that is that all

of the evidence supports and requires a finding that this law was enacted for racial ... >> then doesn't that shift the burden to the defendants in this case? >> yes. they would then be required to prove that they would have done the same thing without the racial intent but they never made any effort to do that and they specifically said that the amendment to the voter id law was they were not leaning that cured any racialdiscrimination that existed in the original . >> where did they say that? >> it's cited in our brief, they said it and when we were introducing a piece of evidence that would have shown that the intent carried forward through the amendment , they said we are not making that claim and in the evidence, we withdrew the evidence. >> before you sit down, what is your view of the timeline for implementing or

dismantling each one of these? >> ms. riggs is the leading expert on that but what we would say is that it starts in july. yes. 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 types of evidence, it's not highlighted as much in the brief but the evidence is in a footnote and the fact that the district reports are missing with regard to african-americans exists in a huge way with regard to less pinots. it's just that there registration and turnout in north carolina is extensively lower than foreither white or african americans .

>> may it please the court, allison riggs for the plaintiff. i will discuss the remaining constitutional claims, anderson verdict and 26 amendment claims and answer any questions you might have about implementation. absolutely. there's ample time for this court to remedy the flaws in hb 589. because of this court same-day registration and out of precinct of the law, they implemented in the last three elections, none of the infrastructure has been dismantled so there's just no problem with same-day and out of precinct.with id, early voting and preregistration, there's still ample time to set up those systems, set up thesystems for early voting and educate voters about these changes . next i understand ample time but i'm going to need more specifics about time.

>> certainly. >> we are not dealing with the day after, longest day of the year. >> right now the county's early voting plans are due july 29, that is night a hard and fast deadline by any stretch of the imagination but the state board of elections continues to review early voting plans through august and sometimes even into september, asking them to change their early voting plans if there are a problem. additionally, at least 70 percent of the county's use as their early voting sites their county board of elections site or in the louisville site it's usually in the same building so if we reimplement 17 days, not only does the county have time to come up with early voting plans that put that into effect, they're going to be using for the most part the same sites they already have in place so it's just opening it up to voters for an extra

seven days although they really only have to do it in the weekday.with photo id, there is an opportunity to educate voters about the change that they will not be asked to put photo id, a voter guide goes out, it goes to the printer at the end of august. that's again not hard and fast deadline but that's a great opportunity for the state to educate voters that just like the last three elections, there registration and out of precinct will be available to you here as the new early voting schedule and you won't be asked to show up a voter id when you show up to vote. so these are someof the key deadlines but they are flexible . and they get changed so in 2012, early voting demand was so great the board of elections during early voting ordered counties to provide extratime .

i'm just thinking in terms of the proof of it because what you

dealing with is non- affirmative type measures. in that context, i don't know of any cases that have addressed it in this particular context. >> courts in the sixth circuit have been active in addressing the claims recently since 2012 in circuit cases. it reaches both the section two claim and the anderson verdict claim. it wasn't as important in the pi stage but this was on the merits. the plane language is that we can get valent if there is a finding of a 14th amendment violation. this is a 14th amendment violation. we do believe it burdens voters -- is at the same remedy if you get it done a lot. >> i think we camped at the question it justify equitable

relief and on the facts of this case it does. generally speaking it's not just affecting. >> i guess my question is more a discrimination allegation? >> on these facts they are both very strong. he goes to sort of go to different remedies. the discrimination facts are just hard to dismiss. they are really stunning. here we also see that decades worth of voting law expansion created a situation where voters relied heavily on those expansions and the state of north carolina take them away with no good excuse. very briefly, your honor, despite not having much time to discuss them, the evidence when viewed as a whole leads to no other conclusion than this. young voters were targeted from

the clinical process exclusion by provisions that were applicable only to them. they were targeted for exclusion because of the way they were voting in the power they were exercising. this is impermissible and the court should reverse it and on the 26 amendment as well. >> before we begin maybe you can tell me what is the timeline for implementing or dismantling each of these. >> fortunately for me mr. peters is going to address that. >> okay then i want to be sure he does. >> no no, we spent a lot of time on this. mr. peters has represented the board of election for a long time. he has very good information for the court.

my name is tom far and i'm here to represent the defendants with me. my partner and alec peter is representing the state board of elections. i think the most important point i can make your honor is that we disagree with the plaintiff's position that judge schroeder did not apply the test of the articulation. he religiously applied that test and then he made extensive findings of facts and concluded that based upon his facts, the plaintiff had not carried the burden of proving either of the prongs that the court had laid out. >> it's helpful as far as to be able to indicate the claim you're talking about. [inaudible]

i get your point in terms of the overall view of it, but in terms of the analysis here and what's been presented here, i'd like to get your position on those. >> yes sir, your honor, i'm talking about the section to claim at this point. >> you are talking section two results. >> yes results but i may be missing something but i also agree with the intent analysis under section two. i guess i'll talk about it but i think if you read our brief, there's nothing that's been issued by any court with facts like what we found where jurisdiction has been found guilty of discrimination. the court found that the legislature followed this procedure and they want to

establish a benchmark for the number of hours that could be used for early voting. they found that the general assembly adopted a two-year rollout. for the requirement that had been recommended by president carter and the general assembly mandated a very educational campaign. compare this case to the d.c. case where i do not think the facts were as favorable to the state as they are here in the north carolina case, for example the texas statute charged a fee for the photo id when it was first enacted and despite having a less favorable record for the state, the d.c. panel which found the taxes id was illegal,

it was overruled in the lower court found that texas had been guilty of intentional discrimination. here we have warm favorable records by the state and findings from the district court that discrimination did not place to take place. i think it's clear that is not clearly erroneous. >> get your point, i agree, the similarities between section two and 14 are similar there. the differentiation is a result. >> in terms of discrimination, there are some facts here that bear at least some, in terms of the timing of the enactment of the deal on the same day the shelby case came down in terms of some of the comments previous

to that, in terms of evidence that was presented as to why this was presented and potential discrimination, would would you address those? >> again, my first reaction is that the district court reviewed and analyzed those and did not find them persuasive as a matter of factual findings on discrimination. i think the court may be referring to the statement by one legislature who no doubt is a significant one, senator opper dr. where he made a comment about now we can go forward with this full bill. i would just refer you first to the d.c. court where they go into detail saying relying upon the statement of one senator to find intentional discrimination by an entire general assembly is a very slim read to rest your finding on. however your honor, if senator

op a doctor 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 before you decide how you would move forward with legislation. the one thing i . out is almost all of the provisions that have been challenged in this case had been filed previously. it wasn't like they just dreamed them up after shelby county was issued. >> let me ask you a question. this is somewhat, your dealing with a case, certainly politics can be the basis for you moving forward on it. in an intentional discrimination case, do you maintain that entity or state can use race as a basis for perpetuating a partisan goal? that is to increase the representation of one or the other with race being the basis of it knowing that a particular minority group devotes a certain way, efforts to suppress that

vote results in a partisan advantage and the partisan advantage is the basis for them doing it, not the race, is that legitimate? >> it may be, but we haven't made that argument. the cases that you are referring to, you and i have had this discussion recently and it's the case where the court found that a district was not. [inaudible] >> that's why i brought this up so we could differentiate, were talking about a potential discrimination claim. my question, those two, whether you made to the argument as or not. i think you made something clear that the question comes up, at least least from the plainest perspective that race was used as a basis for suppressing a minority group that you knew would vote heavily in a particular democratic system. i'm only asking is that legitimate basis under the analysis of intentional discrimination for section two.

>> my answer to that question is that it may be but we didn't make that argument for the state has not made that argument. however, i want to point out that in this case, the plaintiffs have quoted the decision, i think there was a trouble between race and politics, that opinion was made. >> you can make the argument, if the plaintiff makes an allegation that race was used in this instance as a basis to perpetuate a partisan goal, what is your argument to back? what is your statement to that, not that you made that, i'm asking what are your reactions. >> my reaction is that the evidence does not show that that happen in the district court

found that did not happen. >> undermining the progress of the racial group and that was becoming politically active in cohesive, there is a mark of intention there. >> yes your honor, untran, i'm aware of that language but that language was brought up in the context of a claim where there was injury to the plaintiff's because the plaintiffs had met the jingles precondition. they had shown they were a compact minority population sufficient to be a majority in the single-member district and they cannot elect candidates of choice because of racial voting. that language you just quoted would not have been relevant if they had not established they had been injured by the districting plan because of the

preconditions. that's where that comment came from and it must be used in context.were making regarding. [inaudible] i'm just trying to understand it as i understand it's in section two. >> yes but it goes to whether or there's been an injury, your honor. >> in the case where the statements were made, the the plaintiff said they had been injured. here there is no showing of injury. this goes back to the section two results that this court adopted where the first prong is directed at judge schroeder to decide whether the law imposes a discriminatory burden meaning members of the protected class have less opportunity the members to participate in the political process and the candidates of their choice. if you read the brief that the

other side has filed, the drop from their citation of your test, the phrase less opportunity than other members to participate in the political process. that was the key inquiry. you don't get to the jingles factors as we call them or the societal conditions that are part of your second test until the plaintiff clears the first party or test which is the challenged election practice imposes a burden that results in less opportunity for members of the protected class. judge schroeder religiously applied that and they made detailed findings that plaintiffs had failed to carry the burden in that respect. >> so in a section two results test which is what you're talking about here, your submission is that you have to demonstrate more burden then you would in section two intent case

because tied into, you don't have that direct evidence and you need this indirect evidence. isn't that your submission? >> no, sir, first i deny that the engagement is discrimination. even in potential discrimination case we believe there has to be injury. you have to prove the injury element is stronger when you have a results test, when you're trying to prove the results test. or maybe you don't think it does >> i would've thought that was part and parcel with what you're saying. in other words you're saying you can't have a results test or talking about the injury in the injury that you have to show has to be stronger because you can't point to this in your results test, evidence of intentional discrimination. >> i have to apologize your honor in answering this question because there is not a lot of

guidance by the supreme court on these cases. the best. >> we are aware of that. >> so what we can only do is we can look at the cases and see what sort of clues we can discern. we know in a constitutional vote solution you still have to prove results, if you go back to the city a mobile case but you also have to prove purposeful discrimination. i would say. >> yes i was just trying to line up, because of it's exactly the same you would never have there wouldn't be any difference to them. >> no i think the difference your honor is that for the 14th amendment you have to prove purposeful discrimination plus the injury. for the results claim you just have to prove the results.

why would you ever go to potential discrimination claim that. he would always go to the results. not if you wanted to take the unprecedented step that has really only happened once in the history of the country they don't get that simply by proving their section two results claim. they have to prove a discrimination claim to put north carolina back under the supervision of the district court. that's the reason why the claim has been brought. >> i understand why you think they've brought it but i'm trying to think why congress would enact it. i don't think they would've enacted a statute in which there were exactly the same elements except you had to prove the next or thing with. just of the make any sense. that's why i was trying to understand the different. >> again your honor, i understand if i'm not clarifying

this as well as perhaps i might, but i would just say within discrimination case you have to prove discrimination plus injury. >> right but all i was saying is you have to show more injury or more impact if you're doing a section two, the other section to claim. >> that seems plausible to me. >> i need better than plausible. >> well then i defer to the court's interpretation on that issue. i need to understand what's going on here. i understand what saying is potential discrimination, in addition to purposeful discrimination injury there might be fewer results were you have to show injury. the question that she's posing is what's the difference if you don't have two different claims mark. >> i'm sorry, the only thing i can say say is that if you prove purposeful discrimination, that

puts you in line to get this other remedy where the state is now under equivalent preclearance for the court. that is a benefit to the plaintiffs. i would say there is precious few cases where purposeful discrimination has been found by district court in these types of cases, much less where the district court has found it was not purposeful discrimination relying upon extensive findings and then the case was reversed by the appellate court. intentional discrimination is the quintessential issue of fact that relies upon the credibility of the witnesses in analyzing all of the. >> i agree with you on all that. >> sure. >> i apologize if i'm not answering your question.

>> the law has changed and they claim through adverse effects you have to protect your own political interests. the means in this case could be that republican parties have control of both the house and senate and the opportunity came to change those registrations provisions. [inaudible] it looks pretty bad to me. in terms of purposeful discrimination. >> your honor, i hope that i can persuade you that it was not,

judge schroeder found that it wasn't and there's a couple premises in your question that'll have to challenge. there's a correlation between same-day registration and 17 days of early voting and out of precinct voting and registration and an increase in the black participation and registration rate during the 2008 and 2012 election. i've never been in the trial where there's more experts from mit and harvard and every university in the country and all these ballots have done a cross state analysis where they give opinions on whether election practices are the cause or increase of voter turnout registration. none of them, and they've all done them at the preliminary injunction state has done an

analysis to try to see if these practices had caused an increase in turnover registration and they were all put on notice but there's evidence found by judge schroeder that there are states like north carolina and virginia were the black turnout of registration rates went up and virginia did not have same-day registration and out of precinct voting so it was our contention at the primary injunction stage that they had failed to prove any sort of causal link between these practices and the increase in participation by african-americans. then we went to trial and we had the benefit of the 2014 election the plaintiff said you can't just rely on one election, while it's the only election we have to rely upon. after we had the 2014 election. >> is this something you can

rely upon for potential discrimination? were kind of going back and forth and i think the question going back to judge floyd, i think the initial question deals with the application and the question being whether the district court extended those or did he apply it incorrectly. what are your comments on that? >> your honor, he went down all the factors and he made factual findings that he relied upon but there was no purposeful discrimination. did he employee the actual vote expenditure? >> i'm not sure what you mean by motive standard. >> on the claim he fought with

arlington heights. he looked at, they follow their normal procedures and of course they did despite all the arguments that have been made that they did not violate any of their rules and they handled this bill in very similar ways as other bills. they adopted amendments but softened the alleged impact on the protected group. they adopted a very significant amendment when proposed by democratic senator, senator stein where he took the original bill and drop the number of days from 17 down to ten. they dropped the days because as judge schroeder found, under the prior law, there had been gamesmanship about the location of the early voting site and they were placed in areas of favored democratic movers. the reason why the legislature

cut the base was they wanted to have equal treatment in all counties with early voting centers. >> isn't it supposed to be a rational basis tight type of you on engaging in actual motives? >> your honor, i honestly think with all due respect, this issue is completely different question. >> that's what i need to - i'm not trying to make a case one way or other on it, but that i think is critical and what did the judge do in applying the law. our review there is not clear and if he didn't apply the law correctly, then we have a problem, a problem outside of the facts. my question to you is addressed the span of the review because it does seem to me that it's

more in the rational basis venue and if it was, what does that tell me? would that have been, or was it correct? >> your honor, i think think it's a different question. the question is. >> let me ask that question. maybe i'm not asking my question. my question is, assuming. [inaudible] if they apply to rational basis review. >> it would have been proper for him to look at issues like that when he got to the arlington heights. [inaudible] that's. [inaudible] it would have been proper for him to apply rational basis review when looking at the statue with regard to tenderness.

>> it goes to when you're analyzing a statute that does not impact the suspect class. under arlington heights the issue is, were there rational reasons for the legislature's decision? they did articulate rational reasons for the decision in the legislative history. for example, for early voting, i very talked about that, they decided they were not happy to 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 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 it reduced to reduce the potential for gamesmanship. then senator stein offered an amendment suggesting that

despite the reduction of days for early voting, each each county be required to keep the same number of hours that they had used in the most recent election heard in 2014 they had to use at least the same hours that the county had used in 2010. 2012 patties the same number they used in 2016. this required and will require that the county boards open up more sites, expand the evening hours, extend weekend hours. >> unlike the prior system where whoever was in the majority on the county boards could dictate what the plans would be, under the new system it requires a majority vote or a majority vote

they now have two republicans on one democrat on the board of elections. county boards cannot reduce the number of hours a must all three of the county board members agree and all five of the state toward members agree. >> there's a county board for each county. >> yes, ma'am. >> there all aligned that way. >> yes, ma'am. >> two republicans and one democrat. >> yes, ma'am.

>> >> i am unsure if they did but the council will say so on rebuttal. >> yes but i don't know but to amend the statute. >> at '01 to be argumentative but the question is why did you take it out?

because you are the one to a said to intentionally discriminate so why did they take it out quick. >> it was reasonable to give the responsibility for the creation for the division of motor vehicles for people to get the i.d. with all this bashing of the department of motor vehicles for this case >> let's answer another question. if you look at that comment with that legislature specifically with demographic data? >> colombia sqf question laugh less. >> you don't ask me a question. i and understand. with key but the way we are i ask the questions in you answer i will deal with what

you give me an legislatively to do so to know how would affect minority voters and. >> your honor i would say it is not prudent not to be in to that because the only nevada these laws that the time it was still under section five but even after section five went away it was still under section number two. in fact, asking the justice department if that would have then worse or better? we don't know the answer to the question.

so it is prudent to find out to some degree those racial demographics. >> but once you have that that early voting is more likely to be used by those in the first week with photo i.d. or that it may be more likely to be used. is that the type of information that the legislature had before it quick. >> let me answer the question. >> please. >> every case whether intentional discrimination section number two are

section number five with that disparage it used so that is the first point. >> is that the united states supreme court quick. >> that is not the disparage >> i am really trying to get to my understanding of the type of evidence before it was enacted i dunno. it could go either way but i just want to know to have this information by a example that the use of these particular procedures and the minority community

and that they were unable to match. there was no indication that they cannot match them. to say that the report was inflated. but it shows that it was inflated and the state took that information and adopted a two year rollout . and they mandated'' was unimpressed bond that unprecedented to educate people to help them get the photo i.d. so they got the information and got appropriate steps.

>> if it pleases the court the alexander peters attorney general's office the only thing i will talk about is the timeline. nickname be simpler conceptually but to be aware of practical consideration then general election is 20 weeks from today. and what would happen in those 20 weeks that need be simple if we take it from me to those mechanisms of pre-registration and early voting. what plaintiffs said was partially correct but latest don't administer elections.

they don't have quite be information when it comes to pre-registration or same-day registration and photo identification with the election management system barrett is testimony with the record below and seems to be in place prior to the beginning of absentee voting. for what it will look like during the election. and with the number of tests and essentially e mod collections were things have to be run to make sure everything is working together properly.

and it is very difficult but not impossible to rico would do information of the general election. >> no way we can issue an opinion. >> that is not what i am saying. at all with one exception was pre-registration is too late at this point it is too late to deal with pre-registration to have it emplace prior to september for anybody can register so the fact that there is not

pre-registration built into the system at this point does not prevent anyone if they haven't already. >> to be sure this is this something in addition p. other thing to take away that it may be easier to subtract. >> same day registration the cause of of preliminary injunction is to stay in place it is already in st. st. they will n new handle them they are set to handle that but the ideal is if we

would not have any of those stains without messing up theater things. for that court order no same day registration no hotter precinct provisional voting and/or no photo i.d. this estimate should those county boards no that leads to the second issue with regard to training and education. the county board members and states with of elections officials are elected to attend this training will. that has been set for months

august 8 and 9th, which is seven weeks from yesterday and today. that when county elections officials are trained on what the rules are and give their own materials that is used for training. so with any changes are made after that day, it becomes an issue not just to educate people but to reeducate people. there is testimony the big resource manual that every poll worker has a their station that would have to

be redone in order for accurate information to be available for county poll workers. currently they have joined. >> currently it talks about how to implement photo identification, same-day registration and precinct voting this is all in place as it stands now. >> so inseams to me this ec to strike those. >> it may be easier for same-day registration but for photo identification becomes much harder because it is interwoven into so many aspects with a process

coming and. but the videos have been prepared used for the primary with this bill or around with implementing photo identification. ben to make shirts the elections are administered uniformly and officials have the best information available the state board of elections need to know what changes need to be made well in advance to make sure all the training materials are accurate. >> four and half million go out with the state board of

elections they have to be at the printer august 5th so we again we talk early august date by which things will be going into print and officials will be educated in terms of the rules after that point it is an issue of re-education. with regard to early voting it is important to remember the counties that implement that the true county board of elections to have that ability of other public buildings we intend to use them on these days with the 90 day deadline. for their early voting .

they need to get that notice by july 22nd a bigger issue for counties would be pulled workers this is the july 8 through june budget. if we got into an instance. >> i thought it was the same hours provision. >> why is there an increase? it depends if they are able to spread things out as

counsel alluded to that requirement of 17 days of early voting is the county board of elections of early voting during business hours and simply by early voting. that is consistent with the old statute. >> >> i hate to see leave the department of justice and anybody knows this as well as you. [laughter] >> unless you know, something i don't. [laughter]

talk about the implementation points there is no case with fax like this would to be intentionally discriminatory that there is no case like this there is no precedent for the rollback that was created to pare voting rights across the state to. it represented the first major construction from north carolina picking up where history left off right after shelby county came down. it does matter is rational basis.

>> had you know that i did not get that answer very clear also how dino quick. >> the exact language from the district court that said it would not have been unreasonable for north carolina senate to wait to see social the county came down. that is not actual evidence that is the district court coming up with a rational basis it dramatically expanded the scope of the of bill but that previous version of house bill 589 did include public assistance i.d.. post shelby they take that