ms. riggs: for shelby. it's a relevant point, it also goes to the knowledge that the legislature was enacting -- judge motz: are you making an argument that the legislature could not have requested the information legally? ms. riggs: no, no. post shelby though, they were the obligation post section five. they went through each one of the provisions. there are tons of election law provisions that get filed every year. the ones that got pulled into shelbyill 589 post disproportionately impact minority voters. judge motz: all of these provisions were in the hopper, just not combined in one legislation? >> i'm actually -- ms. riggs: i'm actually not aware there was an out of precinct build. i could be wrong on that. there were bills wanting to eliminate pre-, bills wanting to cut early voting. judge motz: where were they? how far have they been advanced? ms. riggs: none had been heard. they had been filed. judge motz: in the house? ms. riggs: correct. that is in the ja. there's a legislative amount of material

ms. riggs: absolutely. there's ample time for this court to remedy the flaws in house bill 589. out of stay and precinct are the law. none of the infrastructure has been dismantled. so there's just no problem with same-day and out of precinct. 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 educate voters about these changes. judge motz: ok. i understand ample time, but i'm looking for a little bit more specific information about time. ms. riggs: certainly. judge motz: we are now dealing with a longest day after the longest day of the year. but we're getting to shorter days. ms. riggs: the counties early voting plans are due july 29. that is not a hard and fast deadline by any stretch of the imagination. the state board of 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 problems. additionally, at

>> ms. riggs is the leading expert on that, but what we would say is that it starts in july -- >> that's all right. she's going to talk about it? >> yes. >> you can talk about whatever you want. [laughter] >> thank you. i just want to mention in my four seconds remaining that we also have a claim regarding la latino voters. and in addition, we made that claim through same types of evidence. it's not highlighted as much in the brief, but the evidence is in in a footnote. and the, the fact that the district court that are missing with regard to african-americans exists in a huge way with regard to latinos which is that their registration and turnout in north carolina is extensively lower than for either white or african-american. thank you. >> thank you. >> may it please the court, allison riggs for the plaintiff. i'll be discussing the remaining constitutional claims, anderson verdict, 14th amendment claims and 26th amendment claim ands answer any questions you have about implementation. >> maybe y

harris is going to focus on the results prong and ms. riggs is going to be breas -- addressing the plaintiff's constitutional claims and addressing any questions about implementation. >> maim, your brief reads like a closing argument which i might find persuasive if i were the trier of fact but that's not the case here. to me that's the core. >> certainly, yurns. under the pullman standard, if the district court applied the wrong legal standard, the findings aren't binding the there are critical errors in the district court's analysis of the intent claim that framed the analysis. we have to start with the fact that in passing hb 589, the north carolina legislature acted to block black north carolinians voting rights just as they were starting to make a difference. in north carolina the best predictor of voting behavior is not party registration, but race. so a proper intent analysis would have required the district court to expressly consider whether passage of h.b. 589 was motivated by what has been called the troubling blend of race and poli

hair is also going to be focusing on the results prong, and ms. riggss going to be addressing the plaintiff's constitutional claims and also any questions about implementation. >> ma'am, your brief reads like a closing argument, which i might find persuasive if i'm a trier of fact, but that's not the case here. if the inference is drawn by the district court, aren't they due due deference? >> well, your -- >> to me, that's the core of the case. >> certainly, your honor. under the pullman standard, if the district court applied the wrong legal standard, the facts aren't binding. so to start with the intent analysis, there are critical errors in the legal analysis in the district court's analysis of the united states intent claim that framed the analysis. we have to start with the fact that in passing h.b. 589, the north carolina legislature acted to block growing african-american political power just as black north carolinians had begun to experience real political gains. in looking at this claim, the district court failed to take can account of the fact

>> ms. riggs is the leading expert on that. but what we would say is that it starts in -- >> that's all right. she's going to talk about it? >> 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 briefs. but the evidence is in a footnote. and the facts that the district court said are missing with regard to african-americans exist in a huge way with regard to latinos, which is that their registration and turnout in north carolina is extensively lower than for either white or african-americans. thank you. >> thank you. >> may it please the court, allison riggs for the plaintiffs. i'll be discussing the remaining constitutional claims, anderson verdict 14th amendment claims and answer any questions about implementation. >> maybe you can answer that question. >> absolutely. there's ample time for this court to remedy the clause in house bill. out of precinc

ms. king. >> beautiful shot! >> match point for billie jean king. >> she beats bobby riggs in three straight sets. >> something broke that men had to acknowledge that just by dint of being male you weren't always better, because billie jean king kicked his ass. >> mrs. king trounced riggs in three straight sets last night. it wasn't much of a contest. billie jean savored her victory at courtside, and her fans across the country did the same. >> i like the fact that billie jean won. that the female won. >> well, the two men in my family left me alone with the match after we saw how it was going to go and watched "bonnie & clyde." but i loved every minute of it. >>> excuse me, do you agree with this women's liberation movement? >> no, i don't. >> why not? >> because i like my life the way it is. >> a woman's place is with a man on top of him in this world. >> there were a mess of housewives, grandmothers, mothers who felt as if they were not only being left out of this but denigrated by it. that the movement was saying their choices were stupid and dumb. >> having a happy husband and happy children makes us happy. >>