and today, we honor those who gave their lives for all of us. [applause] president obama: we're linked together, as well, by the institutions that we've built to keep the peace. a united nations to advance our collective aspirations. a nato alliance to ensure our security. norad, where americans and canadians stand watch side by side -- and track santa on christmas eve. [laughter]

president obama: we're linked by a vast web of commerce that carries goods from one end of this continent to another. and we're linked by the ties of friendship and family -- in my case, an outstanding brother-in-law in burlington. [applause] had to giveama: burlington a shout-out. [laughter] president obama: our relationship is so remarkable precisely because it seems so unremarkable, which is why americans often are surprised when our favorite american actor or singer turns out to be ! nadian [laughter] [applause] the point is,a:

we see ourselves in each other, and our lives are richer for it. as president, i've deepened the ties between our countries. and because of the progress we've made in recent years, i can stand before you and say that the enduring partnership between canada and the united states is as strong as it has ever been, and we are more closely aligned than ever before. [applause] president obama: and yet, we meet at a pivotal moment for our nations and for the globe. from this vibrant capital, we can look upon a world that has benefited enormously from the international order that we

built together, but we can see that same order increasingly strained by the accelerating forces of change. the world is by most every measure less violent than ever before, but it remains riven by old divisions and fresh hatreds. the world is more connected than ever before; but even as it , but even as it spreads knowledge and the possibility of greater understanding between peoples, it also empowers terrorists who spread hatred and death, most recently in orlando and istanbul. the world is more prosperous than ever before, but alongside globalization and technological wonders, we also see a rise in inequality and wage stagnation across the advanced economies, leaving too many workers and communities fearful of diminishing prospects, not just for themselves, but more importantly, for their children. and in the face of such rising uncertainty, it is not enough to

look at aggregate growth rates, or stock prices, or the pace of digital innovation. if the benefits of globalization accrue only to those at the very top, if our democracies seem incapable of assuring broad-based growth and opportunity for everyone, then people will push back, out of anger, or out of fear. and politicians -- some sincere, and some entirely cynical -- will tap that anger and fear, harkening back to bygone days of order and predictability and national glory, arguing that we must rebuild walls and disengage from a chaotic world, or rid ourselves of the supposed ills brought on by immigrants -- all in order to regain control of our lives. we saw some of these currents at work this past week in the

united kingdom's referendum to leave the european union. despite some of the initial reactions, i am confident that the process can be managed in a prudent, orderly way. i expect that our friends on both sides of the channel will develop a workable plan for how to move forward. and i'm equally confident that the transatlantic values that we all share as liberal, market-based democracies are deeper and stronger than any single event. but while the circumstances of brexit may be unique to the united kingdom, the frustrations people felt are not. the short-term fallout of brexit can be sensibly managed, but the long-term trends of inequality and dislocation and the resulting social division -- those can't be ignored. how we respond to the forces of globalization and technological

change will determine the durability of an international order that ensures security and prosperity for future generations. and fortunately, the partnership between the united states and canada shows the path we need to travel. for our history and our work together speak to a common set of values to build on. proven values, values that your prime minister spoke of in his introduction. values of pluralism and

tolerance, rule of law, openness, of global engagement and commerce and cooperation, coupled with equal opportunity and an investment in our people at home. as prime minister pierre trudeau once said, "a country, after all, is not something you build as the pharaohs build the pyramids, and then leave standing there to defy eternity. a country is something that is built every day out of certain basic shared values." what is true of countries is true of the world. and that's what i want to talk about today -- how to strengthen our institutions to advance these commitments in a rapidly changing world. let me start with our shared economic vision. in all we do, our commitment to opportunity for all of our people has to be at the center of our work. we are so fortunate because both of our countries are so well-positioned to succeed in the 21st century. our two nations know firsthand the awesome power of free markets and innovation. canadians help run some of

silicon valley's most innovative companies. our students study at each other's world-class universities. we invest in research and development, and make decisions based on science and evidence. and it works. it's what's created these extraordinary economies of ours. but if the financial crisis and recent recession taught us anything, it's that economies do better when everyone has a chance to succeed. for a long time, it was thought that countries had to choose between economic growth or economic inclusion. but, it turns out that's a false choice. if a ceo makes more in a day than a typical employee makes in a year, that kind of inequality is not just bad for morale in the company, it turns out it's bad for the economy.

that worker is not a very good customer for business. [applause] president obama: if a young man in ohio can't pay his student loans, or a young woman in ontario can't pay her bills, that has ramifications for our economy. it tamps down the possibilities of growth. so, we need growth that is broad and that lifts everybody up -- , including tax policies that do right by working families, and robust safety nets for those who fall on hard times. as john kenneth galbraith once said, "the common denominator of progress is our people." it's not numbers, it's not abstractions, it's how are our

people are doing. of course, many who share this progressive, inclusive vision can be heard now arguing that investments in our people, protection for our workers, fair tax policies, these things are not enough. for them, globalization is inherently rigged towards the .op 1% and therefore, what's needed is an end to trade agreements and various international institutions and arrangements that integrate national economies. and i understand that vision. i know why it's tempting. it seems as if we draw a line around our borders, it will give us more control, particularly when the benefits of trade and economic integration are sometimes hard to see or easy to take for granted, and very specific dislocations are obvious and real. there's just one problem -- restricting trade or giving in

to protectionism in this 21st century economy will not work. [applause] president obama: it will not work. [applause] even if we wanted to, we can't seal ourselves off from the rest of the world. the day after brexit, people looked around and said, "oh, how is this going to work?" [laughter] president obama: the drag that

economic weakness in europe and china and other countries is having on our own economies right now speaks to the degree to which we depend -- our economies depend, our jobs, our businesses depend -- on selling goods and services around the world. very few of our domestic industries can sever what is now a truly global supply chain. and so, for those of us who truly believe that our economies have to work for everybody, the answer is not to try and pull back from our interconnected , it is to engage with the rest of the world, to shape the rules so they're good for our workers and good for our businesses. and the experience between our two nations points the way. the united states and canada have the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship in the world, and we are stronger for it. [applause] president obama: it means a

company in quebec can create jobs in north carolina. and a start-up in toronto can attract investment from texas. now, the problem is that some economies in many of the fastest-growing regions of the world -- particularly the asia pacific region -- don't always abide by the same rules. they impose unfair tariffs, or they suppress workers' rights, or they maintain low environmental standards that make it hard for our businesses to compete fairly. with the trans-pacific partnership, we have the ability to not only open up these markets to u.s. and canadian products and eliminate thousands of these unfair tariffs -- which, by the way, we need to do because they're already selling here under existing rules, but we're not selling as much as we should over there -- but it also affords us the opportunity to increase protections for workers and the environment, and promote human rights, including strong

prohibitions against human trafficking and child labor. and that way our workers are competing on a level playing field, and our businesses are less prone to pursue a race to the bottom. and when combined with increased investments in our own people's education, and skills and training, and infrastructure and research and development and connectivity, then we can spur the kind of sustained growth that makes all of us better off. [applause] president obama: all of us. [applause] the point is,a: we need to look forward, not look backward. and more trade and more people-to-people ties can also help break down old divides. i thank canada for its indispensable role in hosting our negotiations with the cuban

government, and supporting our efforts to set aside half a century of failed policies to begin a new chapter with the cuban people. [applause] president obama: i know a lot of canadians like going to cuba. [laughter] president obama: maybe because there haven't been americans crowding the beaches and the streets. but that's changing. [laughter] president obama: and as more americans engage with the cuban people, it will mean more economic opportunity and more hope for ordinary cubans. we also agree, us americans and canadians, that wealthy countries like ours cannot reach our full potential while others

remain mired in poverty. that, too, is not going to change in this interconnected world. if there is poverty and disease and conflict in other parts of the world, it spills over, as much as we'd like to pretend that we can block it out. so, with our commitment to new sustainable development goals, we have the chance to end the outrage of extreme poverty. we can bring more electricity to -- [applause] president obama: we can bring more electricity to africa, so that students can study at night and businesses can stay open. we can banish the scourge of malaria and zika. we can realize our goal of the

first aids-free generation. [applause] president obama: we can do that. it's within our grasp. and we can help those who are working to replace corruption with transparent, accountable institutions that serve their people. as leaders in global development, the united states and canada understand that development is not charity. it's an investment in our future prosperity. [applause] president obama: because not only do such investments and policies help poor countries, they're going to create billions of customers for u.s. and canadian products, and they'll make less likely the spread of deadly epidemics to our shores, and they'll stabilize parts of the word that threaten the security of our people. in fact, both the united states and canada believe our own

security, and not just prosperity, is enhanced when we stand up for the rights of all nations and peoples to live in security and peace. [applause] president obama: and even as there are times when unilateral action is necessary to defend our people, we believe that in a world where wars between great powers are far less likely but transnational threats like terrorism know no boundaries, our security is best advanced when nations work together. we believe that disputes that do arise between nations should be, wherever possible, resolved diplomacy. with that international organizations

should be supported, that multilateralism is not a dirty word. [applause] president obama: and certainly, we're more secure when we stand united against terrorist networks and ideologies that have reached to the very doorstep of this hall. we honor all those taken from us by violent extremists, including canadians john ridsdel and robert hall. [applause] president obama: with canada's additional contributions, including training iraqi forces, our coalition is on the offensive across iraq, across syria. and we will destroy the terrorist group isil. [applause] president obama: we will destroy them. [applause]

president obama: we'll continue helping local forces and sharing intelligence, from afghanistan to the philippines, so that we're pushing back comprehensively against terrorist networks. and in contrast to the hatred and the nihilism of terrorists, we'll work with partners around the world, including, particularly, muslim communities, to offer a better vision and a path of development, and opportunity, and tolerance. [applause] president obama: because they are, and must be, our partners in this effort. [applause] president obama: meanwhile, when nations violate international

rules and norms, such as russia's aggression against ukraine, the united states and canada stand united, along with our allies, in defense of our collective national security. [applause] president obama: doing so requires a range of tools, like economic sanctions, but it also requires that we keep our forces ready for 21st century missions, and invest in new capabilities. as your ally and as your friend, let me say that we'll be more secure when every nato member, including canada, contributes its full share to our common security. [applause] president obama: because the canadian armed forces are really good. [applause] and if i canma:

borrow a phrase, the world needs more canada. [applause] president obama: nato needs more canada. [applause] president obama: we need you. we need you. [applause] president obama: just as we join together in our common defense, so must we work together diplomatically, particularly to avert war. , results are rarely quick, but it turns out even the most intractable conflicts can be resolved. here in our own hemisphere, just in the last few weeks, after half a century of war, colombia is poised to achieve an historic peace. [applause] president obama: and the nations of north america will be an important partner to colombia going forward, including working

to remove landmines. around the world, canadian and american diplomats working together can make a difference. even in syria, where the agony and the suffering of the syrian people tears at our hearts, our two nations continue to be leaders in humanitarian aid to the syrian people. and although a true resolution of this conflict so far has eluded us, we know that the only solution to this civil war is a political solution, so that the syrian people can reclaim their country and live in peace. and canadians and americans are going to work as hard as we can to make that happen. [applause] president obama: i should add that here in the nation of

lester pearson, we reaffirm our commitment to keep strengthening the peacekeeping that saves lives around the world. there is one threat, however, that we cannot solve militarily, nor can we solve alone -- and that is the threat of climate change. now, climate change is no longer an abstraction. it's not an issue we can put off for the future. it is happening now. it is happening here, in our own countries. the united states and canada are both arctic nations, and last year, when i became the first u.s. president to visit the arctic, i could see the effects , myself. glaciers, like canada's athabasca glacier, are melting

at alarming rates. tundra is burning. permafrost is thawing. this is not a conspiracy. it's happening. within a generation, arctic sea ice may all but disappear in the summer. and so skeptics and cynics can insist on denying what's right in front of our eyes, but the alaska natives that i met, whose ancestral villages are sliding into the sea -- they don't have that luxury. they know climate change is real. they know it is not a hoax. and from bangladesh to the pacific islands, rising seas are swallowing land and forcing people from their homes. around the world, stronger storms and more intense droughts create humanitarian crises and

risk more conflict. this is not just a moral issue, not just a economic issue, it is also an urgent matter of our national security. and for too long, we've heard that confronting climate change means destroying our own economies. but let me just say, carbon emissions in the united states are back to where they were two decades ago, even as we've grown our economy dramatically over the same period. alberta, the oil country of canada, is working hard to reduce emissions while still promoting growth. [applause] president obama: so, if canada can do it, and the united states can do it, the whole world can unleash economic growth and protect our planet. [applause] president obama: we can do this. we can do it. [applause]obama: president obama: we can do this. we can help lead the world to meet this threat. already, together in paris, we achieved the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change. now, let's bring it into force this year.

[applause] president obama: with our agreement with mexico that we announced today, let's generate half the electricity on this continent from clean energy sources within a decade. [applause] president obama: that's achievable. [applause] president obama: let's partner in the arctic to help give its people the opportunity they deserve, while conserving the only home they know. and building on the idea that began in montreal three decades ago, let's finally phase down dangerous hfc greenhouse gases. this is the only planet we've got, and this may be the last shot we've got to save it. and america and canada are going to need to lead the way. [applause] president obama: we're going to have to lead the way. [applause] president obama: just as we are joined in our commitment to protecting the planet, we are also joined in our commitment to the dignity of every human

being. we believe in the right of all people to participate in society. we believe in the right of all people to be treated equally, to have an equal shot at success. that is in our dna, the basic premise of our democracies. i think we can all agree that our democracies are far from perfect. they can be messy, and they can be slow, and they can leave all sides of a debate unsatisfied. justin is just getting started. [laughter] so, in case you hadn't figured that out, that's where this gray hair comes from. [applause] [laughter] president obama: but more than any other system of government, democracy allows our most precious rights to find their fullest expression, enabling us,

through the hard, painstaking work of citizenship, to continually make our countries better. to solve new challenges. to right past wrongs. and, prime minister, what a powerful message of reconciliation it was -- here and around the world -- when your government pledged a new relationship with canada's first nations. [applause] president obama: democracy is not easy. it's hard. living up to our ideals can be difficult even in the best of times. and it can be harder when the future seems uncertain, or when, in response to legitimate fears and frustrations, there are those who offer a politics of

"us" versus "them," a politics that scapegoats others -- the immigrant, the refugee, someone who seems different than us. we have to call this mentality what it is -- a threat to the values that we profess, the values we seek to defend. it's because we respect all people that the world looks to us as an example. the colors of the rainbow flag have flown on parliament hill. citizens whollow are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. [ applause ]

and neighbors who run businesses and serve in our armedments and in our forces, are friends with our on our sportslay teams. up againstto stand the slander and the hate. ed against those who look or worship differently. that's our obligation. who we are. that's what makes america special. makes canada special. [ applause ] canada.

of the highest office in the land. woman is the presumptive nominee of a major time.for the first [ applause ] our work won't be finished until women in our country are truly equal. treated equally, given the same opportunities as men. [ laughter ] until girls have the same opportunities as our boys. need to be!e [ cheers and applause ] and let me say this, because i don't feel particularly politically correct on this issue. [ laughter ] i don't believe that these are

canadianvalues or values." "western i believe, and justin believes, and i hope all of you believe, universal values. at homeheir defense, and around the world, and not on away from speaking up behalf of the -- [ applause ] i feel sometimes that we are timid in defense of these values. that's why we'll continue to stand up for those inalienable rights. in our own hemisphere, in places like cuba and venezuela, also in more distant lands. for the rights of citizens in

theirsociety to speak mind and work for change. for the rights of journalists to truth.the for the rights of people of all faith to practice their religion freely. those things are hard, but they're right. only convenient, but they're true. in the end, it is this respect inty of all -- dignity of all people, vulnerablethe most among us. that perhaps more than anything countries our two together. being canadian, being american is not about what we look like our families came from. it is about our commitment to a creed. and that's why together we must not waver in embracing our values. our best severals. that -- selves.

nation of immigrants. we must continue to welcome people from around the world. [ applause ] vibrancies of our economies by the addition of striving immigrants. this is not just a matter of economics. refugees escape bombs and torture and deserts and seas seeking a better life. simply look the other way. we certainly can't [ indiscernible ] terrorists. [ applause ] ]applause

>> president obama: we can insist that the process is orderly. can insist that our security is preserved. something.n but at moments like this, we are see ourselves in others, because we were all once strangers. stranger, youra grandparents were strangers. grandparents were strangers. theiridn't all have papers ready. they fumbled with language. faced discrimination. had cultural norms that didn't fit. some point, somewhere, your

family was an outsider. and so the mothers, the fathers, the children we see today, they're us. and we can't forsake them. so as americans ask canadians -- will continue we to welcome refugees, and we can that we're doing so in a way that maintains our security. do both.d we will [ applause ] and we will do both. [ applause ] we're increasing our support to central america so that fewer families and children attempt journey north. this fall, at the unite united we'll host a global summit on refugees. need tomore nations step up and meet our basic obligations to our fellow human

beings. will be difficult and budgets are tight. legitimate issues, and not everybody's going to be helped. but we can try. people have good will and compassion. show us the way. familiesanders pulling to shore, and germans handing to migrants in stations. and here in canada, the world has been inspired as canadians openedthis country have up their hearts and their homes. and we've watched citizens refugeestouqes to keep warm in the winter. and we've seen your prime minister welcome new arrivals at and say you're safe at home now.

feele see the refugees who they have a special duty to give back and seize the opportunity of a new life. the girl who fled afghanistan by plane.and camel and jet and who remembers being greeted in this country by helping hands. today she serves in this chamber and in the cabinet, home!e canada is her [ cheers and applause ] country is not something you pharos builtfa the pyramids.

a country is something that said built every day -- that is built every day. values.ertain shared how true that is. we are, to have had day,e before us, day by brick by brick, build these extraordinary countries of ours. how privileged we are to have the opportunity to now, ourselves, build this world anew. what a blessing. and as we go forward together on that freedom road, let's stay true to the values that make us who we are. alliesns and americans, and friends. now and forever. much.you very [ applause ]

merci. thank you. [ applause ] [ cheers and applause ]

>> mr. president and prime minister. mr. speaker, and the house of commons, excellencies, guest, ladies and gentlemen. mr. president it is a great me to thank you for being here today. fori'd like to thank you your address to our parliament. withbvious enthusiasm --ch you have been received

[ applause ] both seek countries to advance the same principles mentioned, wedy share the same hopes and dreams, not only for ourselves, but for nations as brother well. because of this shared belief in upholding these principles, canadians from across this great country have followed your presidency closely, and we have watched you face many challenges. havehrough it all you calm, withith reason, and with an unwavering clarity of purpose. result has been an extraordinary legacy for the american people and for the whole of the international community. [ applause ]

ththe great american philosopher and war veteran, hailey, when writing about the turmoil in the world said we are each living in the eye of a hurricane joaquin. hurricane. nature of oure fellow and human beings is always nearby swirling around us. center, in the eye of the hurricane, there can be our job, calm, and individually and collectively, is to do our best to push out of thaters of the eye storm. to expand the calm, to expand good thatable and the is and can be in the world we live in. mr. president, in a world that has so often seemed driven by anger and destruction,

by unimageinable acts of violence and forces beyond our control, you have stood tall. tall for thed reason of principle over politics. in your own words, you have cautioned us -- [ applause ] your very own words, from the audacity of hope, you have cautioned us that we will need to remind ourselves, despite all said, just how much -- differences just how much we share. dreams, and, common above all a bond that will not be broken. [ applause ] in closing, mr. president, on of all my parliamentary colleagues and on behalf of all i thank you for the very inspiring words you shared

with us today. leadership in of the world. and most especially, for your very strong and enduring friendship with our great country, canada. merci. thank you. [ applause ] >> mr. president, prime minist minister. mr. speaker of the senate. honorablees, senators, members of the house distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. mr. president on behalf of all here in the chamber, i would like to thank you for having addressed us today.

it's really nice to have you back in ottawa, and to be able the city'syou when at its loveliest. bythe last time you dropped in february of 2009, the weather was decidedly cooler. so all of ottawa still remembers cold to stoped the in at a nearby bakery and pick cookies fore-leaf your daughters. [ laughter ] now sir, you mentioned a few flecks of gray you have in your hair. trudeau president visited, you told him, if in to keep your dark hair, you'll have to start dying it early. [ laughter ] may i just say to you both, it could be worse. [ laughter ] [ applause ]

there is an inscription embedded internationalthe friendship memorial. ontario in 1959. "this stone bears witness to the common purpose of two nations whose frontiers are the friendship." whose ways are the ways of works are thehose works of peace. it would take much too long to count the ways in which canada the united states have come together to create a better life people, but also for humanity.

however, over the years, several of our respective leaders have the closeon friendship between our two countries. almost 40 years ago, former trudeau remarked in a speech to congress "the friendship between our two countries is so basic, so it has longe, that since been regarded as the standard for enlightened relations."l [ applause ] visited us inast 2009, sir, you echoed those saying "as neighbors we are so closely linked that sometimes we may have the tendency to take our relationship for granted, but the very success of our friendship throughout history demands that we renew and deepen

the 21stration here in century." and as a good neighbor, here you again, doing just that. mr. president, thank you for friendship,for your and for strengthening the enduring ties of family that our two nations together. thank you very much. and have a safe trip home. [ applause ]

manhattanek the institute held a discussion on rupennureship -- aun entrepreneurship. here's a look at some of the event now. >> the idea is actually relevant for disability insurance and unemployment insurance. the pernicious effects of these are because they discourage or they're tied to not working. the government, i cannot tell you how awful a thing this is, stopping people from going to work. you getg that says when unemployed, you just get a check your expected duration. you don't stop the payments when

you go back to work. smallerg that's just a check overall. same thing with disability. we give them a check, there's a condition.cal we don't reduce it. in some sense this puts the normal fears about disability on its head. often the fears about disability are that oh, gosh it's terrible that he's working while he's getting disability, right? this is some clear case of fraud. worry less about fraud and worry more about the fact that we're stopping people from using their tal-- their better.to make things the way is to give people a check and don't make it dependent upon them not working. the government needs to stop bribing people to be idle. fundamental point here. >> that was just a portion of an thet held last week by manhattan institute. the entire discussion could be starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. today at the aspen institute's ideas forum,

general loretta lynch discussed criminal justice and rights. she also talked about her decision to meet with bill phoenix this week, and recommendations by the team of hillary clinton use of a private server. can see the comments tonight c-span.eastern on >> this fourth of july weekend, book tv has three days of and authors ons c-span 2. 10:00 p.m. eastern, on afterwards, she discusses her "rise of the rocket girls, the women who propelled us from moon to mars" in unique --chroncules a chronicles a unique group of women. rand.interviewed by lisa >> in the beginning they did a lot of trajectories.

potentiallculated the of different rocket propellants, and they did trajectories for early missiles. they worked on the corporal and the sergeant. things changed when the space race happened. and when nasa was formed. and then these women's roles began changing. the lab's up becoming first computer programmers. and they had these incredibly nasa.areers at 40, 50 years. one of them still works at nasa today. >> on sunday, live with author and documentary film maker younger who will take your calls, texts and e-mail from 12:00-3:00 p.m. eastern. discussing his latest book home coming and belonging." he's also the author of war, a in domont, fire and the perfect storm." two partof a special

q&a interview with former politician mark green, author of a generational memoir on the progressive rise. monday at 2:30 eastern. tours the vivian harsh collection, the largest african and literaturey collection housed at the chicago library's branch. booktv.org for the full schedule. >> last month a case challenging votingarolina's restrictions as discriminatory. requires a government issued id and cuts a week of early voting and out of precinct votes from being counted. minutes.bout 90

>> we're happy to hear argument .n north carolina we knownd gentlemen, you have a lot of things to say and there are a lot of issues here. organize can try to yourselves so that you get to your most important issues in aallotted -- allotted, we really appreciate it. thank you. in mind. >> good morning. represent anna baldwin representing the united states. to be addressing the united states section 2 claim andr both its intent results prongs. she's also gauche to be addressing -- going to be addressing the section 2 claim.

and then addressing the claims and any questions about implementation. argument,closing which i might find persuasive, fact.of but that's not the case here. me, that's the core of the case. honor, andy, your under the pullman standard if the district court applies the standards, the facts found by the district court are binding. errors in theical legal analysis in the district court's analysis of the united states intent claim that framed analysis. we have to start with the facts hb-589 the north acted tolegislature block as they began real political gain.

the district court failed to take account of the fact that defendant's experts testified, in north carolina the best predictor of voting behavior is not party registration, but race. analysisproper intent would have required the district court to expressly consider passage of hb-589 was motivated in part by what the supreme court called the of race andend politics. the district court committed the failing to in analyze point of intent and claim. >> when you speak to the the tent claim, are you referring to the section 2? potential discrimination or theh amendment potential there anation and is difference? >> under the 14th amendment potentialn 2 discrimination it's the same standard and the united states is pressing its claim under the 2.se of section but the standard is the same, that the question is was the motivated inction

part by racially discriminatory purpose. any event, you're presenting a constitutional argument here and yet there's a section 2 results argument. that one have reached first? >> your honor, we think understanding the section 2 results claim, in this case it's uousnessin the ten factor in particular, to look at the the tent claim. they would -- we're seeking under section 3c of the voting rights act which requires intent.ing of >> your colleague who is going to argue last is going to right? that, >> she will address the anderson claim. constitutional but in terms of the racially is necessary under a --oting act to trigger

3c. that finding needs to be made the the tent claim. >> we understand you on everything, but i think my you wase's question to in your first brief, you did the the tent claim first. in your second brief you did your intent claim second. first?h is >> we think both are very strong and with respect to both -- >> the question is going to is that typically we don't do a constitutional issue if we can resolve it on another ground. the question is here, congress, under section 2, should we first we reach at and if resolution there, of course you would like for us to go for your reasons to the constitutional question, but should we start at least there? >> i think in terms of what's very practically important, the court, the parties, we're all aware of the fact there's an election upcoming in november. having sometance of kind of remedy in place and

having a reversal and an injunction in joining the areisions that discriminatory, that can cleanly be done under the results claim that this court could correct the errors that the district relief.de in a >> not under the the tent claim? >> the the tent claim too there's a -- intent claim because there's -- the thement growth, significance of turnout. my other colleague said, i think we understand all those arguments. what you've done in your first presentation. now it's go over your brief with rest assured, we read the brief. i would be a little more interested in the specifics, if give them to me. for example, did you present at expert data what the 214n voter turnout would have been without the new statutes? >> no, your honor. we explained why that's

not possible. dr. stuart testified that in order to predict what 2014 turnout would have been, not just doing the simplistic comparison that the district need did, to 2010, you more elections, more states, more data -- what it was under the statute. did you have any expert try to what it wouldion have been if you hadn't had the place?tute in >> there's some factual testimony your honor, that you testimony.expert we know if the statute hadn't the ballots could have been counted. the -- ihat for believe it's nearly over 12,000 registered after the book closing period, after the theay deadline, but before election. those voters would have been able to take advantage of registration. but those voters couldn't do

that under this statute. so the notion that if we're turnout, the notion that the united states and the plaintiffs didn't prove law impacted the number of voters who are able to vote. that's simply not true. voters onthousands of the uncontested factual record who are shut out of the political process under the still. what the district court did in this results analysis. critical error there is looking to two numbers, rather numbers of voters who were concrete [ indiscernible ] out of the process. the district court said what was turned out in 2010 and 2014, everybody's experts testified, plaintiffs and defendants alike. impact ofmeasure the an election law just by looking at those two numbers. in 2010 you had a $10 million senate race, you had a $100 2014.n senate race in of course that's going to have an impact. and also in looking at turnout, the statute prohibits

laws that have an abridging as an outright denial. on this record we have clearly denial, but it's wrong to set up a standard where show voters are concretely shutout and don't take extraordinary efforts to overcome that burden. this shows there were organizedary efforts by churches to counteract the effects of this law. another factual question. you talk about the 72 new early voting sites. is there any evidence in the record in terms of whether they black or white communities or republicans or democratic areas? honor, one thing i'd like -- >> i'm interested in your but is there anything in the record about that? >> i don't believe so, and if i'm wrong, i'll correct. important to clarify

in the early voting challenges. challengings is not the only portion of the law that defendants have asserted a rationale for, which is equalizing the locations within counties. challenging that. we are challenging the number of of early to the days voting. that is something for which the defendants have had no rationale. i've misunderstood your argument was that one of the the board of elections was given this authority to move voting sites in thatand they could way discriminate against minority voters. claim? not part of your >> that is not part of our claim. in the reverse, the state has fact that the the locations of early voting centers, and arguing that they benefit african american and democratic voters. we're not making a claim about location of the early voting

centers. if anything, basically an admission of what the facts in race and show that party are really tied together in north carolina. party argument -- that's what i'm asking you about. >> we're not claiming that the locations, the old locations discriminated against african american voters. we're claiming the cutbacks to early voting, eliminating days, and particularly limiting the ability of a sunday, where the record shows 49% of the voters who used that were african and 2012, 43%. that's why the disproportionate impact, it's cut to the number of days. thee not challenging location issues under the bill. >> so the answer to that was becausestion you believe there was a legal error. to affordhave

[ indiscernible ] district courts -- before theical facts court aren't contested, even the district court toward closing said you submitted a lot of this stipulation. we agree, it's the inferences district court drew. it's elevating turnout above metric.her kind of where to say that as long as up.egate turnout goes as long as more black voters voted in 2014 than in 2010, you a discriminatory burden. that's simply not the case. with something like same-day registration, we showed what the discriminatory burden is. disparate uset a statute. african american voters are more likely to use, that and for reasons connected history of discrimination and the removal of that. the affects of that

discrimination because of the deficit. that's not just speculation. some of the evidence of that is in the voter registration queue that you see in 2014. voter registration applications, you know, failing a box or something, they're disproportionately african american. away same day registration where you had an opportunity to correct those to burdengoing african americans. so that's a way in which in particular, the burdens are cumulative and greater. away a week of early voting. you take away the opportunity voters ton american use same-day registration during that period. the more you take away that voting period where voters can show up to any precinct, the likely they are to end up at the wrong one on election day. evidences your

connecting that burden to the historical discrimination? the test that this court set out, properly, is that with the discrimination burden. so we show that through the disparate use and we also show that through the socioeconomic of discrimination that amplify the fact it's going to be more difficult for voters to navigate the process in north carolina without those mechanisms. so as an example of a voter like gwendolyn fairingten. i think some of the individual light theng to uncontested socioeconomic and disparate use testimony that, she's a voter who works six days a week, 12 hours a day. had voted early in 2008, in 2012. she didn't have time to vote early during the compressed early voting period in 2014. workplacenear her because she worked on election

day from 6:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., gotten touldn't have her correct polling place in the time allotted, because she had children. her adult like 27% of african american, whites,mes higher than their transportation difficulties in her family. where multiple adults rely on car. you see the same example of the wayscunningham and in which the burdens in this case are cumulative. whowas a first-time voter used souls to the polls. worked three jobs to make ends meek. she didn't know her correct she voted close to her job. had been told she was in the incorrect precinct, had timen't have because she risked penentially for being late to work. penalties for being late to work. you.ank

>> thank you very much your honor. >> may it please the court. penda. i am here on the state naacp and of the other plaintiffs in that case, many of whom are here in the courtroom today. address therily section 2 claims, but hope to racial briefly on the intent, and we do the -- the north carolina naacp is both a constitutional and a section 2 racial intent claim.

focus onomments will section 2 insofar as results? >> yes i plan to focus on results. your honors, the plaintiff after went toth you in 2014 trial, actually two trials. appliedhose trials, we ajingleswork, the m case and women voters case in to prove a textbook section 2 case. she talked briefly about that, want to summarize that and then i want to talk about the errors that the district thet made that cause, inferences drawn by th the district court to be tainted by legal error. case,h the women's voters we proved three critical case sets of fact. americansan disproportionately use same-day

precinctson out of and the other eliminated practices. disproportionately do not have photo i.d. practicese of most those disparities were proven to be statistically significant. which means they are not random. which means under all of race statisticalon law, disparity tells you need to look further, not that you prevail, but you need to look further. and that's what the second prong voters tellslegal us. >> can i stop you for just a statistics. these do you believe that section 2 results section claim has a deminmous threshold. for example is out of precinct impacted 20 people, would it be a viable claim? >> 20 -- i'm sorry, 20 people,

disproportionate? >> your section 2 results. >> right. >> 20 people are affected and disproportioned? i think you would need that first -- i don't know 20 people, whether there's statistical significance to us would be possible. but you might meet the disproportionate use prong, but you probably would not succeed on the rest of the test, theicularly when you get to state's justification for what it is doing. it's eliminating a practice that only affects 20 people, i think that in the totality of the circumstances, that claim succeed. >> so there is some -- apply the you have to totality of the circumstances situations. but as a voting rights lawyer,

looking at that, i would not to succeed,im unless there was some unusual fact that i don't know about here. >> would the answer be somewhat different -- >> yes. intentional discrimination -- that's the end of it. the law is invalid and needs to enjoined if it is tainted in intent. racial yes. me proceed to the second and third prongs, which is once have disparate use, that i is -- contrary to some of the claims of defendants. proved a connection between the states for the its currentry and

impacts or vestiges of racial that exist.on an impact of african american latino voters in the state today. and some of those connections think pagesd on, i brief.f our reply and in terms of the case critical fact that the district found. the district court did find that vestigesn between the and the eliminated practices. the district court said it's easy to see a connection between certain ending up in the incomplete queue and literacy. court thentrict found that african americans are vestige of discrimination is literacy and the benchmark electoral practice which is same-day registration produces virtually no incomplete

registrations. that is the emulative womenction that legal voters test shows us a classic violation.tion 2 now what caused the district court, once you get to those facts, and we proved eight of the senate factors, what led the district court astray in not ruling in plaintiff. and the first thing that the district court did is it created a new causation requirement. that's not been required in any case or any governing law. and that causation requirement, instead of looking at the theection between vestige -- the eliminated practice and -- yes, the vestige eliminated practice. the district court said you have to prove that the eliminated caused an increase in registration or turnout. causationt the

requirement from legal women other precedent governing this case. example, the district court opinionpage 347 of its plaintiffs failed to carry the dayen of showing same registration is responsible for the african american lead over in other races registration. said the same thing on page 355 about turnout. a causation requirement in the case law. mistake is the primary that the district court made. >> i'm sorry, tell me what it should have said instead. >> what the district court should have done. established the three prongs of legal women voters, and when proved eight of the senate factors and in those courtstances the district should have found -- >> i understand the bottom line of what you want.

but of course it there was really so, you would have moved judgment.y so there were factual disputes, right? it's really going to an easier question for you. make you explain why you didn't go for summary judgment if all the facts were in your favor. but what i would like to know, is you were saying they made causationa analysis. what should -- causation analysis. what should it have been? >> at the beginning there were disputes. the district court found the critical facts in our favor. so what the district court should have done -- i mean it is -- >> this question. relatively, iis think a separate question. that is, you're saying the what it court described think is described as a hyphen causation standard. is asking what should

he have applied. .hat's pretty straightforward >> and i think that the confusion is he did both. applied the correct -- the correct standard and he found all of the facts that lead violation.n 2 and then he went -- and that was enough. senate factors, that is the only causation requirement. of moving, instead forward to the next step, which should have been sign the violation. he veered off the road into a new causation requirement. so there was nothing more that needed to docourt other than apply the legal women test, which he did and found no facts in our favor. i think that the district off the the veering -- exemplified by

court's reliance on data to turnout essentially trump the actual plaintiffs had of both burden and of a connection ofthe burden to the vestiges discrimination. >> so let me ask you this question. even under the rec test here. indicate and the same question i asked you earlier -- the earlier attorney. be your best evidence to show this connection between historical and the discrimination? >> that evidence is set on page of our reply brief. and we presented evidence on each claim. so for same-day registration, we showed literacy disadvantages as well as transportation disadvantages. that same-dayto

registration helped to ameliorate, because you only have to go once to register and vote. and if you have any literacy are people there who will make sure that you don't leave something out, box and areeck a not -- your registration is not then.sed and we did that for each of the toims and different evidence connect the eliminated practice vestige specific to that particular claim. much timeon't have left, so i would like to make a couple of comments on discrimination, if i may. there what i would say. 2, intentional discrimination? >> my comments go to both.

what i would say there is that plaintiffs -- the evidence proved theplaintiffs arlington heights factors. it's said in a brief. we proved all the changes made decision didlby favor african americans. proved that virtually all of the reasons the legislator stated at the time, in the legislative simply not true. we proved pretext. and the legislators in the face assertedecord legislative privilege and never came forward and put their behind oath behind any other reason that they might what they did that they did in this bill. thatfore we believe there's only one conclusion that can be made on this record in intent. racial

and that is that all of the evidence supports and requires a finding that this law was enacted for racial intent. doesn't the true, burden shift to the defendants in this case? >> yes. be able to try to prove that they would have same thing without the racial intent. but they never made any effort that, and they specifically said that the amendment to the photo i.d. law, that thatnot claiming cured any racial intent that existed in the original. >> where do they say that? >> it's cited in a brief. we were introducing a piece of shownce that would have that the the tent carried forward -- intent carried amendment.ough the they said we're not making that claim, and then the evidence -- evidence.w the it's in the record. >> before you sit down, so what is your view of the timeline for

implementing or dismentling each one of these mechanism -- one of theseny mechanisms. >> she's a leading expert on that, but what we would say is that it starts in july -- >> that's all right. whatever you want. [ laughter ] >> thank you. to mention in my four seconds remaining that we 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 but the evidence is footnote, and the fact that the district court said are africanwith regard to americans, exists in a huge way with regard to latinos. their registration and turnout in north carolina is lower than for either white or african americans. thank you. >> thank you.

it please the court. i will be discussing the remaining constitutional claims. anderson verdict 14th amendmentand 26th claims and answer any questions you have about implementation. >> maybe you can answer that question. >> absolutely. ample time for this court to remedy the flaws in bill 58 589. and precinct are the law. none of the infrastructure has dismantled. so there's just no problem with precinct.nd out of with i.d., early voting and preregistration. there's still ample time to set up those systems -- set up the systems for early voting and to about thesers changes. >> okay. i understand ample time, but i'm bit moreor a little

specific information about time. >> certainly. >> without dealing with the day after the longest day of the year. but we're getting to shorter days. >> the counties early voting plans are due july 29. hard and fast deadline by any stretch of the imagination. board of elections continues to view early voting plans, through august and even into september, asking them to change their early voting plans if there are problems. additionally, at least 70% of the counties use as the early voting site their county board of elections site, or an in lieu of site. it's usually in the same building. so if we implement 17 days, not only do the counties have time to come up with an early voting puts that into effect, but they're going to use for the most part at least one of the same sites they have in place. so it's just opening it up to voters for an extra seven days,

although they only really have to do it in the weekdays. with photo i.d., there is an opportunity to educate voters about the change, that they will not be asked for photo i.d. a voter guide goes out. it goes to the printer at the end of august. again, not a hard and fast deadline. but the great opportunity for to educate voters that, just like the last three same day registration and out of precinct will be available to you. here's the new early voting schedule. and you won't be asked to show a photo i.d. when you show up to vote. these are some of the key deadlines. they're flexible. changed. >> so either to affirm the courts?

>> if you're going to reverse courtrly -- the district on the early voting and photo i.d. the sooner you rule, the better. whim the political process. >> you do not need to show discrimination to get there. we did not adjust it in the previous and the u.s. is not suing this claim. essentially what you are dealing

non-affirmative. context i do not know what is addressed in this particular context. since 2012, 6 circuit cases within the next month, to that we said that reach both claims in the end is inverted claims. it was not as important in the pi stage, but this is on the merit. in the plain language, if we could get they'll, if there is a finding of a 14th amendment violation. this is a 14th amendment violation. we do believe of burdens voters did. -- voters >> -- >> does it justify relief and in the fact this case it does.

generally speaking is not just affecting -- a generaltronger than allegation? >> they are both very strong. it goes to different remedies. it is hard to dismiss. they are really stunning. here we also see that a decade's expansion,ting laws created a situation where voters relied heavily on those expansions. and north carolina takes them away with no good excuse and a does not comport with the state obligation under the 14th amendment. you're on mom and 26 amendment claim, despite not having enough time to discuss today, we do not waive them and evidence when viewed as a whole raise -- leaves no room for conclusion. they were targeted from

exclusion from the political process by a number of provisions that were applicable only to them. and they were targeted for exclusion because of the way they were voting and because of how they were exercising. this is not permissible and it should be reversed. thank you. >> mr. farr, can you tell me what you regard as the timeline on each of these? me,as farr: fortunately for mr. peters will adjust that question. i want to be sure that he does. thomas farr: we spent a lot of time on this and mr. peters as their representative of the board of elections for some time.

you're on a call my name is thomas farr, and with me today is my partner. mr. bowers is representing the governor. and alexander peters representing the state of election. i think the most informed point i can make -- the most important point i can make is that the judge to not apply the test at the injunction hearing. we believe that he religiously applied that test. and concluded that based upon these findings, the plaintiffs had not carried their burden. either prongs of the section to test by the court laid out. helpful,erstanding is to specifically indicate the claim that you are talking about. are you talking about section two results, or the general claim?

i get your point in terms of the overall view. analysis that we take. what was presented on the other side, at least from my perspective, to get the position on those. >> yes, my honor. i am talking about the section to claimant this point. if i get to that, i will talk about your but i think if you read my breed -- read my brief mother has been no case that has had fax more than what we have.

establishing the benchmark for the number of hours for voting. the court found that the general assembly adopted a two-year rollout. iod for the federal id requirement that was requested. and other findings related to the argument with the 14th amendment, section two, compare this case to the d.c. case where i do not think that the facts were favorable to the state as they are here in the north carolina case. for example, the texas statute charged a fee for the federal id when it was enacted. and despite having a less favorable record for the state, even though the -- found the

texas id was illegal, overruled the court findings that texas had been guilty of intentional discrimination. here we have a more favorable record for the state and we have factual findings by this report, the intention of discrimination did not take place. i think it is clear that the findings unintentional discrimination are not clear. >> i get your point. i agree, i think the similarities from section two and intentional determination with 14 is there. and section two as a result. in terms of intentional discrimination, there are some facts here that there at least some, in terms of the timing of the enactment of the expanded bill on the same day that the shelby case came down in terms of some of the comments

previous. in terms of evidence that was presented, why this was presented, for purposes of intentional this commission, would you adjust those? thomas farr: my first reaction is that the court analyzed these facts and did not find them persuasive as a matter of intentional discrimination. i think that the court may be referring to the statement by one legislator, no doubt is and isn't one, the senator that made it, about, now we can go forward with this bill. i would refer you to the d.c. court where they go into detail saying, relying upon the statement of one senator to find intentional discrimination by entire general assembly is a very slim read to rest a fighting -- finding on. however, your honor, if senator

abbott doctor had given counsel, why would it not be prudent to agency with the supreme court was going to do with the shelby case before deciding how to move forward with legislation. one thing i point out, almost all of the provisions that have been challenged in this case have been filed previously, it was not like they just dreamed them up after shelby county was issued. >> this is where it gets a little muddled. judge wynn: certainly politics can be the basis for moving forward. in the intent of this termination case id maintain that the state can use race as a basis for effectuating a partisan goal? to increase the representation being or the other race, the basis of it, knowing that a particular minority vote -- group vote a certain way, in an effort to suppress that vote,

and if the partisan advantage is aces for doing it, not the race, is that legitimate? thomas farr: it may be, but we have not made the argument. the cases you are referring to and we had this district -- this discussion recently in a case where the court found that the district was not racially gerrymandering. judge wynn: that is why i brought up gerrymandering, so that we could to the injury between -- see the difference , iween -- migration goes to feel something is there that the question comes up, at least from the plaintiff perspective, that race was used as a basis for suppressing, when you knew one group would vote particularly heavy and an democratic way in this instant. is that a legitimate basis on an analysis of intentional discrimination of the 14th

amendment, section two? thomas farr: my answer to that question, it might be but we do not make the argument. the state did not make that argument. i want to point out that in this case, the plaintiffs have quoted the decision, inlay lack, i think there was a troubling mix between race and politics. leelac was a federal investigation case. judge wynn: i want to make sure that i got a question. i am not saying that you made the argument. i am saying of the plaintiff makes an allegation that race was used in this instance, the basis to effectuate a partisan vote, is that -- what is your argument to that? your statement to that? this is not your case, you are defending it. i am asking for your reaction. thomas farr: the evidence does not show that that happened and the district court found that

that did not happen. you just quoted leelac. undermining the progress of a racial group that has been under discrimination and has become increasingly political activist and cohesive, there's a part of intention. thomas farr: i am unaware of that language. that language was brought up in the context of a claim where there was injury to the because they had met preconditions. sufficient to be a majority in a single member district and they cannot elect candidates of choice because of racially polarized voting. that language is not relevant if they had not established that they had been injured by the districting plan, because of the

preconditions. that is where that came from and it must be viewed in context. judge wynn: what is the point you are making regarding the vote, i am trying to understand it. you can help me with it. as i understand, both are under section two. thomas farr: yes, but it goes to whether there is injury, your honor. judge wynn: it is the same provision. thomas farr: but in the case were the statements were made, the plaintiff showed they had been injured. here, there is no injury. this goes back to the test this court has opted, where you redirect to judge schroeder, directing -- that the discriminatory burden needs members of opportunity and members of, other members participate in the process and have a candidate of their choice. if you read the briefs that the

from has filed, they drop their citation to your text, the phrase less opportunity. and other members to participate in the process. so that was the key inquiry, you do not get to the societal conditions that are part of your second test until the plaintiff proves the first part, which is that the challenged election process imposes a burden that results in less opportunity for members of the affected class. and judge schroeder applied that, making detailed findings, that plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden. judge motz: in a section to submission isyour that you have to demonstrate ,ore burden than you would

section two intent case for example. a pre-constitutional case, because tied into -- you do not have that direct evidence and you need the indirect evidence. isn't that your submission? thomas farr: i strongly denied that the general assembly engages in discrimination. even with intentional commission, there needs to be injury. judge motz: i understand it but you need to prove that the injury elements is stronger when you have a result test and you are trying to prove the results test. or maybe you do not think it does. i thought that was part of what you are saying, otherwise you are saying you can result here when you're talking about injury and the injury you have to show as a result of the test must a stronger, because you cannot point to this in the results test, the evidence of termination. thomas farr: i need to apologize

in answering this question, because there is not a lot of guidance by the supreme court on these cases. judge motz: we are aware of that. [laughter] thomas farr: so what we can only do is look at the vote issue in the case and see what we can discern from the tests. we know that in a cost to know -- constitutional vote case, you need to be -- you need to prove discriminatory results. you also have to prove purposeful does commission. judge motz: right. i was just trying to line up. if it was exactly the same, you would never have, you would never, there would not be any different to them. thomas farr: i think the difference would be for the 14th amendment, section two, intentional dissemination claim, they've have to have purposeful does commission. for the section to results claim, you only need to prove the results. judge motz: why would you ever

do an intentional discrimination claim, you would always go to the results claim. thomas farr: not if you would want to do what only happened once in the country, working on the back -- but effective preclearance requirement of the plaintiffs are seeking in this case. they do not get that presently proving the result claim, they need to prove an intentional dissemination claim to put north carolina back under the supervision of the district court where they would effectively look at the situation again. that is the reason why the plaintiffs brought it. judge motz: i understand why you think they brought it. what i am trying to do is see why congress would enact it and i do not think they would have enacted a statute in which they had exactly the same elements, except you had to prove annexed her thing with one. it does not make -- prove an extra thing with one. it does not make sense. thomas farr: again, i apologize

if i am not clarifying this as well as i might. but i would say in the intentional dissemination case you have to have purposeful determination plus injury. judge motz: what did all i was saying is you need to show more injury or more impact is you are two, the other section to claim. i would have thought that would be the argument. thomas farr: that sounds possible to me. [laughter] judge motz: i think better than plausible. thomas farr: then i would defer to the words -- the court cost interposition on the issue. judge wynn: i understand what you are saying is potential discrimination is entered, that is additional. in addition to injury. if you want results, you need to show injury. the question she is posing as what is the difference? sorry, the: i am only thing i can say is that you

played purposeful does commission, it but to align where the state puts you in the preclearance obligation for the court. that is the benefit to the plaintiffs for purposeful determination and i would say that there is 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 where there is not purposeful discrimination, with extensive factual findings, that it would be reversed by the appellate court. intentional discrimination is the quintessential issue of fact and that relies upon the credibility of the witnesses, and -- judge motz: i agree with you on all that. thomas farr: sure. judge motz: ok. thomas farr: i apologize if i did not answer the question. judge floyd: for this record, if

you had evidence there was a surge in african-american registration 10 years prior and laws changed and they claimed that they were adversely affected, which would protect your own political interests. in this case, it could be the republican party has control of the house and senate and the governorship, and the opportunity came to change those pretty liberally, those restrictions -- registration provisions, and it was the same day shall be was decided. -- shelby was decided. it looks bad to me, in terms of purposeful discrimination. thomas farr: i hope that i can persuade you that it was not

enough areas saying -- the farias thing, just wrote or found it wasn't. and there are couple of premises in your question that i need to challenge. there is a correlation between same-day registration and 17 of preregistration from out of precinct voting, and an increase in the black registration rate between 2008-2012 election. this is, i have never been a trial where there are more experts, they came from m.i.t., harvard, every university in the country. and all of these have done what is called across analysis -- what they call a cross analysis, where they showed the increase in registration. none of them, they have all done them, at the primary injection stage, none of them had done a cross analysis to try to tie

with her these practices caused an increase in registration. and they were all put on that is that there is -- notice that there is evidence, there are states like north carolina and virginia lower the black registration went up at equivalent rates and virginia did not have single day registration and out of precinct voting. so it was our contention at the -- stage, that they had failed to prove a link between these repeal practices and the increase of participation by african-americans. then we went to trial. and we had the benefit of the 2014 election and the plaintiffs said, you cannot use that election but it was the only election we had. after we had the 2014 election -- judge floyd: is it something you

can rely upon? i understand it applies when we are talking results. judge wynn: we are kind of going back and forth. i think the question, going back to the initial question, fax -- fax were given, but the legal issue deals with standard here and the question being whether the district court applied the actual motive, or did they apply the plaintiffs had an incorrect rational basis. what are your comments on that? thomas farr: he was all the way down the factors and he made factual findings he relied upon, concluding there was no purposeful dissemination. judge wynn: did he -- thomas farr: your honor, i'm not sure by what you mean with motive standard. judge wynn: was there a basis review? tell me the standard he applied?

thomas farr: he followed arlington heights. judge wynn: what is that standard? thomas farr: he looked at, did they follow the normal procedures, which they did. despite the arguments that were made, they could not follow -- --d in the rules, to find they adopted amendments that softened the impact on the protect group. they adopted as an amendment, would propose by the democratic senator, senator stein, where the original bill dropped the number of days from 17 to 10. because, as judge schroeder found, under the prior law, there had been gamesmanship -- the sidesal were placed in areas that favor democratic voters. the reason why the legislature

cut the days was they wanted to have equal treatment in all counties, particularly early voting centers my same-day same hours. judge wynn: isn't that closer to a rational basis type of you, as opposed to the actual motive review, engaging in actual motives under the arlington heights standard. thomas farr: i think that with due respect, the issue is a different question. judge wynn: that is what i need. i need you to articulate. i do not need you to go one way or the other. but that is critical, discrimination is what did the judge do in applying the law? if he did not apply the law correctly, then we have a problem. a problem outside of one of the facts. question toso my you, it does seem to me that

this is more i rational basis review, and if it was, what does that tell me? defined rational basis review, would that have been correct? thomas farr: i think it is a different question. judge wynn: let me ask that question. maybe i am not asking my quicken, my question is, what would be correct in assuming that the -- to the trial court to apply a racial basis review -- thomas farr: it would of been proper for him to look at issues like that when he got to the arlington heights chapter about tenuous miss of policy behind the statue. that is about it on the list -- fifth on the list. judge wynn: and would have been proper for him to apply rational basis review? thomas farr: it would of been proper. rational basis goes to win you are analyzing a statute that is

not impact the clearance. under arlington heights, the issue is, where their rational reasons for the legislatures decision. in fact, they did articulate rational reasons for the decision in the legislative history. for early voting. i've already talked about that. they decided that they were unhappy with the gamesmanship that was being done by less of the majority votes, by the county board of elections and stapler, as far as the location of the early voting site. so they decided they wanted to have all sites in a single county treated the same way and they wanted -- reduced, to reduce potential for gamesmanship. then senator stein offered an

amendment suggesting that despite the reduction of days of early voting, that each candidate be required to keep the same number of hours that they had used in the recent election. in 2014, they had to use at least the same hours the county had used in 2010. 2012, same number as 2016. requirered and will that they open up more sites, extend evening hours, extend weekend hours. judge motz: but there is a provision? thomas farr: there is. unlike the prior system, where whoever was the majority on the county boards could dictate with the plaintiffs would do. under the new system, it required the majority with a unanimous vote, north carolina

has two republicans and one democrat on the county board of elections, three republicans and two democrats on the state board. they cannot reduce the number of hours, unless all three county board members agree and all five of the state members agree. judge motz: and there are 100 counties? and they are all aligned that way? thomas farr: yes. judge motz: two republicans, one democrat? thomas farr: the governor decides who is in the majority and who is not. judge motz: two republicans and one democrat now. thomas farr: right. for the benefit of the public, when there was a democratic governor, that governor decided. judge motz: maryland has something similar. judge floyd: why did this public id?luded judge wynn: -- thomas farr: i cannot answer

that question. judge wynn: i am getting back to the intentional dissemination aspect of it. we know that those are typically used more by minorities. if you do not know, you do not know. but they do not give an answer either and i thought that maybe you would give me one today as to why he would exclude public systems id from the legislator. thomas farr: i have to confess, i do not know if that was suggested to anybody. it may have been. judge wynn: subjected it was included -- excluded? it was definitely excluded. thomas farr: i am sure that the plaintiffs counsel will say so when they have rebuttal. judge wynn: it was looted. specifically excluded. thomas farr: i do not know the terms. i do not know if it was in the statute to allow public assistance ids. judge wynn: the question is not, why did you take it out?

you are the one being said to have intentionally discriminated. why did they take it out? thomas farr: it was reason for them to give most of the response only -- responsibility for the creation of ideas to the department of motor vehicles, which had offices all over the state for people to go get an idea. we have heard all this bashing of the provision of motor vehicles -- division of motor vehicles throughout the case. judge wynn: i will ask another question. in an acting the statute, did specificlature request ids? thomas farr: let me ask you a question. judge wynn: you do not ask me questions. [laughter] i understand. you and i have been together a lot. i understand where you are going. let's keep it where we are. i am simply asking the question, and the answer