16 833 Objection

No.
16-833
In the Supreme Court of the United States

______________
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.,

Petitioners,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, et al.,
Respondents.
______________
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
______________
OBJECTION BY PETITIONER STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

TO THE NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERALS MOTION TO DISMISS
UNDER RULE 46.2 AND TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS REQUEST FOR
AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 46.1
______________
THOMAS A. FARR S. KYLE DUNCAN

PHILIP J. STRACH Counsel of Record
MICHAEL D. MCKNIGHT GENE C. SCHAERR
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ
SMOAK & STEWART, PC SCHAERR|DUNCAN LLP
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27609 Washington, DC 20006
(202) 714-9492
Kduncan@Schaerr-Duncan.com
Counsel for Petitioner State of North Carolina

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
REASONS FOR DENYING THE RULE 46.2 MOTION AND
THE RULE 46.1 REQUEST ........................................................................................................................... 8
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 15

ii
APPENDICES
A...... Feb. 21, 2017 Ogletree Letter to Governor / Attorney General (w/ Attachments)
B........ Pleadings showing Ogletree as counsel for State and State Board of Elections
C.................. Oct. 21, 2016 Redacted Retainer Agreement with Schaerr|Duncan LLP
D ...................................................... Feb. 21, 2017 Governor / Attorney General Letter
E.......................................... Feb. 21, 2017 Governor / Attorney General Press Release
F .................................... Transcript of Feb. 22, 2017 State Board of Elections Meeting
G ..................... July 21, 2015 Testimony of Sen. Josh Stein in NCNAACP v. McCrory
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
132 S. Ct. 1133 (2012) .............................................................................................. 10
North Carolina Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory,
831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 3
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory,
182 F. Supp. 3d 320 (M.D.N.C. 2016) ............................................................ 3, 13, 14
North Carolina v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP,
137 S. Ct. 27 (Aug. 31, 2016) ..................................................................................... 3
Statutes
52 U.S.C. 10301 ........................................................................................................... 3
N.C. 2013 Session Law 381 ........................................................................................... 3
N.C. Gen. Stat. 114-2.3 ............................................................................................... 4
N.C. Gen. Stat. 120-32.6 ........................................................................................... 10
N.C. Gen. Stat. 120-32.6(a) ................................................................................... 3, 10
N.C. Gen. Stat. 120-32.6(b) ............................................................................... 3, 4, 11
N.C. Gen. Stat. 120-32.6(c) ..................................................................................... 4, 9
N.C. Gen. Stat. 147-17 .......................................................................................... 4, 10
N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-72.2 ................................................................................................. 9
Rules
N.C. Rule of Prof. Responsibility 1.11 ......................................................................... 14
N.C. Rule of Prof. Responsibility 1.2 ............................................................... 12, 13, 15
N.C. Rule of Prof. Responsibility 1.4 ........................................................................... 15
S. Ct. R. 12.6 ...................................................................................................... 7, 12, 13
S. Ct. R. 46.1 .................................................................................................... 1, 2, 8, 15
S. Ct. R. 46.2 .................................................................................................. 1, 8, 11, 15
Treatises
STEPHEN M. SHAPIRO, KENNETH S. GELLER, ET AL., SUPREME COURT PRACTICE (10th
ed. 2013) ................................................................................................................... 10
iv
Secondary Materials
Craig Jarvis & Anne Blythe, NC Will Defend Voter ID Without Attorney General,
Raleigh News & Observer (Aug. 2, 2016) .................................................................. 5
v
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner State of North Carolina files this objection to the North Carolina
Attorney Generals motion to dismiss under Supreme Court Rule 46.2(a), and also to
the private respondents request that the Clerk enter an order of dismissal under
Supreme Court Rule 46.1.
The Attorney Generals motion is nothing less than a politically-motivated
attempt to hijack a certiorari petition in a major Voting Rights Act case, in violation
of the plain terms of North Carolina law and the canons of professional ethics.
When North Carolinas election reforms were challenged in 2013, the General
Assembly acted pursuant to express statutory authority to retain counsel to direct
the defense. Furthermore, not only did then-Attorney General Roy Cooper acquiesce
in that arrangement for years, but last year he withdrew from defense of the
challenged laws after the Fourth Circuit invalidated them. That left the defense of
those laws to the General Assemblys designated lead counsel, Schaerr|Duncan
LLP, who filed the certiorari petition pending before this Court.
Now the political winds have shifted. On January 1, 2017five days after the
petition was filedformer Attorney General Cooper took office as North Carolina
Governor. He was replaced as Attorney General by Josh Stein, who filed the present
motion to dismiss. General Steins attempt to take over representation of the State
is barred by North Carolina law authorizing the General Assembly, on behalf of the
State itself, to hire counsel to defend challenged State lawswhich it has done from
the beginning of this litigation up to the present. Indeed, that same North Carolina
law makes the General Assembly the Attorney Generals client as a matter of law,
and General Stein has not even consulted withmuch less obtained the consent
ofthe General Assembly, but has instead unilaterally filed motions and notices
with this Court asserting authority he manifestly lacks.
If that were not enough, when General Stein was a State Senator he testified
at the trial in this case, for the Plaintiffs, and against the validity of the very laws
the States certiorari petition seeks to vindicate. That thicket of conflicts of interest
ought to prevent General Stein from participating as an attorney in this case at all.
Much less should he be allowed to override the authority of his own client and
deprive this Court of the opportunity to review the Fourth Circuits decision
invalidating North Carolinas sensible election reform laws.
Finally, the private respondents have asked the Clerk to enter an order of
dismissal under Rule 46.1. That request is contrary to Rule 46.1, which requires a
written agreement to dismiss filed by all parties. S. Ct. R. 46.1 (emphasis added).
The United States has been a party throughout these proceedings, including in this
Court, but the private respondents request does not include the United States.
Consequently, the Clerk cannot grant private respondents request under Rule 46.1.
At a minimum, the Clerk should request the position of the United States through
the Solicitor Generals office, particularly since the United States brief in opposition
to the pending certiorari petition was filed one day before the current
administration took office on January 20, 2017.
2
BACKGROUND
1. The pending certiorari petition involves election reforms introduced by a
2013 North Carolina law (S.L. 2013-381), including a photo ID requirement.1 On
April 25, 2016, a federal district court upheld S.L. 2013-381 against challenges
under the federal Constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52
U.S.C. 10301 (VRA). North Carolina State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory, 182
F. Supp. 3d 320 (M.D.N.C. 2016) (NCNAACP). On July 29, 2016, the Fourth
Circuit reversed and enjoined all challenged provisions of S.L. 2013-381 as violating
both the Equal Protection Clause and the VRA. North Carolina Conf. of the NAACP
v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). On August 15, 2016, North Carolina asked
this Court to recall and stay the Fourth Circuits mandate, a request denied by an
equally divided vote on August 31, 2016. North Carolina v. North Carolina State
Conf. of the NAACP, 137 S. Ct. 27 (Aug. 31, 2016) (Mem.). After receiving two
extensions of time, North Carolina timely filed a certiorari petition on December 27,
2016, which has been distributed for the Courts conference on March 3, 2017.
2. North Carolina law authorizes the North Carolina General Assembly to
act on the States behalf and hire outside counsel where the validity or
constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly is challenged. N.C. Gen. Stat.
120-32.6(b). The law exempts the General Assembly from provisions limiting the
authority of other government entities to hire outside counsel. Id. 120-32.6(a)
(providing that N.C. Gen. Stat. 114-2.3 and 147-17(a)(c), regarding Use of

1 As relevant here, S.L. 2013-381 also reduced the early-voting period from 17 to 10 days, and
eliminated same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and pre-registration for 16-year-olds.
3
Private Counsel, shall not apply to the General Assembly). When acting pursuant
to this authority, the General Assembly is deemed to be a client of the Attorney
General for purposes of that action as a matter of law. Id. 120-32.6(b).
Furthermore, the General Assemblys leaders may jointly designate retained
counsel as lead counsel, who shall possess final decision-making authority with
respect to the representation; any other counsel for the General Assembly
including the Attorney Generalshall, consistent with the Rules of Professional
Conduct, cooperate with such designated lead counsel. Id. 120-32.6(c).
Pursuant to that authority, in 2013 the General Assembly retained counsel
from Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart (Ogletree) to defend S.L. 2013-
381. See App. A (letter and attached retainer). The Ogletree firm represented all
Defendants in proceedings in the district court, in the Fourth Circuit, and in this
Court, see App. B, with the one exception of then-North Carolina Governor Patrick
McCrory, who was represented by separate counsel. The North Carolina Attorney
Generals officeunder then-Attorney General Roy Cooperappeared in the lower
court proceedings and co-signed pleadings with the Ogletree firm. See App. B.
Indeed, when North Carolina previously sought a stay in this Court following the
Fourth Circuits 2014 decision in this case, Thomas Farr of the Ogletree firm
appeared as counsel of record for the State of North Carolina and the North
Carolina State Board of Elections (Board), even though General Cooper was at
that time still on the pleadings. App. B.
4
3. Following the Fourth Circuits decision invalidating S.L. 2013-381,
General Cooper expressly withdrew from the case, leaving any further
representation of the State on appeal to the General Assemblys counsel alone. See
App. A (letter and attached e-mails) (confirming that the Attorney Generals Office
will not be participating in further proceedings in the federal Voter ID cases in the
Fourth Circuit on in the Supreme Court and that private counsel should probably
move forward as [counsel] think[s] best without [the Attorney Generals Office]
weighing in). At the time, General Cooper publicly confirmed that North
Carolinas attorney general wont represent the state in appealing [the Fourth
Circuits ruling] and that [o]utside counsel for the governor and legislative leaders
who are already involved in the case can handle any appeals. Craig Jarvis & Anne
Blythe, NC Will Defend Voter ID Without Attorney General, Raleigh News &
Observer (Aug. 2, 2016), http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-
government/state-politics/article93228772.html.
4. Subsequently, the General Assembly retained Bancroft PLLC to seek a
stay from this Court, and then retained Schaerr|Duncan LLP for a certiorari
petition, which was filed on December 27, 2016. On both the stay application and
the certiorari petition, private counsel retained by the General Assembly (namely,
Bancroft PLLC and Schaerr|Duncan LLP) appeared as counsel of record for all
Petitionersexcept then-Governor McCrory, who continued to be represented by
separate counsel. Furthermore, Schaerr|Duncans retainer with the General
Assembly specifically designates S. Kyle Duncan as lead counsel for all North
5
Carolina Defendants, including the State of North Carolina and the Board. App. C.
The North Carolina Attorney General did not appear on either the stay application
or the certiorari petition.
5. On January 1, 2017, five days after North Carolinas certiorari petition
was filed, former Attorney General Cooper took office as the new Governor
(replacing former Governor McCrory) and former State Senator Josh Stein took
office as the new Attorney General (replacing former Attorney General Cooper).
On February 21, 2017, undersigned counsel received via e-mail a letter from
Governor Coopers general counsel and General Steins chief deputy stating that
effective immediately, the Petitioners in this matter shall be represented
exclusively by the [North Carolina] Department of Justice. App. D. That same
afternoon, the Ogletree firm sent a letter in response to Governor Cooper and
General Stein rejecting those officials authority under North Carolina law to take
over representation of the State in this matter. App. A.
Also on February 21, 2017, General Stein filed the present motion in this
Court. While confusingly captioned as a motion by Petitioners the State of North
Carolina and Governor Roy Cooper to Dismiss the Case, Mot. at 1 (emphasis
added), in reality the motion does not ask for anything of the sort. Rather, it asks
only that the North Carolina Petitionersspecified as the State of North
Carolina and Governor of North Carolina Roy Cooperbe dismissed as parties to
this case. Id. (emphasis added). The motion expressly concedes that it do[es] not
include petitioners the North Carolina State Board of Elections (Board) or any of
6
its members. Id. at 2. Nonetheless, Governor Cooper and General Stein issued a
press release that same day claiming they have formally withdr[awn] the
certiorari petition in this case. App. E.
Before sending the February 21 letter and filing the putative motion to
dismiss, neither Governor Cooper nor General Stein consulted with or notified the
leaders of the General Assembly or their counsel. See App. A (letter). Indeed, the
General Assemblys counsel were not even served with the motion. See Mot. at 4
(reflecting service only on respondents counsel). Instead, a copy was e-mailed to the
General Assemblys counsel late that afternoon.
6. On February 23, 2017, the Attorney General filed a notice in this Court
purporting to appear as substitute counsel for the Board and its members. Later
that same day, the Attorney General filed a notice under Rule 12.6 claiming the
Board has no interest in the outcome of the petition, that there remains no
petitioner with an interest in seeking this Courts review, and thus asking the
Court to dismiss the petition. General Steins notice failed to mention that the
Board, during open session at its February 22, 2017 meeting, considered a motion to
direct General Stein to withdraw the Board and its members as parties to the
pending certiorari petition in this case. App. F at 1. As the transcript of that
meeting shows, a majority of the Board rejected that motion by a vote of 3-to-2. Id.
7. On February 24, 2017, the Attorney General filed an additional pleading,
captioned as a supplemental motion to dismiss the case, which merely reiterates
the points already made in the previous filings of February 21 and 23, but adds that
7
General Stein, as counsel for all Petitioners, hereby moves to dismiss the
pending petition. Suppl. Mot. at 2. This motion again fails to mention that, two
days before, a majority of the Board rejected a motion to direct General Stein to
withdraw the Board as a party to the certiorari petition. App. F at 1.
8. Finally, also on February 24, 2017, counsel for the private respondents
but not counsel for the United Statesfiled a notice of non-opposition to General
Steins motion to dismiss, requesting that the Clerk enter an order of dismissal
pursuant to Rule 46.1. Private Respondents Notice at 1. Rule 46.1, however,
requires all parties to agree in writing to dismiss the case. S. Ct. R. 46.1
(emphasis added). Counsel for the United States has not yet filed anything agreeing
to General Steins or to the private respondents request for dismissal.
REASONS FOR DENYING THE RULE 46.2 MOTION AND

THE RULE 46.1 REQUEST
Supreme Court Rule 46.2 allows an adverse party to file an objection
showing that the moving party does not represent all petitioners. S. Ct. R. 46.2(a).
That is the case here: General Stein is barred both by North Carolina law and by
the canons of professional ethics from representing the State and the Board in this
matter, and his motion to dismiss should therefore be denied. Additionally, Rule
46.1 provides that the Clerk will enter an order of dismissal when all parties file a
written agreement that a case be dismissed. S. Ct. R. 46.1. All parties have not
done so, however: the United States, a party throughout these proceedings, has not
filed anything respecting General Steins motion and is not included in the private
respondents request. The Clerk therefore cannot enter an order of dismissal under
8
Rule 46.1 without first receiving the agreement of the United States through the
Solicitor Generals Office.
1. First, General Stein has no authority under North Carolina law to
dismiss the State of North Carolina as a party to the certiorari petition. As
explained above, North Carolina law expressly authorizes the General Assembly to
act on behalf of the State in retaining private counsel to defend challenged laws and
to designate that counsel as lead counsel with final decision-making authority.
N.C. Gen. Stat. 120-32.6(c). The General Assembly did so with respect to the
certiorari petition in this matter by retaining Schaerr|Duncan LLP (along with the
Ogletree firm) and designating S. Kyle Duncan as lead counsel to represent the
State of North Carolinatogether with all other Petitioners except the North
Carolina Governor. App. C. Indeed, following the Fourth Circuits decision, only the
General Assemblys private counsel remained as counsel for the State. See App. A
(attached e-mails) (confirming that North Carolina Attorney Generals Office will
not be participating in further proceedings in the federal Voter ID cases in the
Fourth Circuit or in the Supreme Court). Consequentlywhile General Stein is
free to withdraw the Governor as a party if Governor Cooper so wishes, and has
apparently done so through his various filingsGeneral Stein lacks authority
under North Carolina law to withdraw the State of North Carolina, a decision
reserved by operation of law to the General Assembly and its designated counsel.2

2 The General Assemblys authority to hire private counsel to defend challenged State laws
explains why the General Assembly had no need to intervene as a party in this case, although the
General Assembly does have the authority to intervene in litigation. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-72.2.
However, in the event the Court concludes that the Attorney General has the authority to withdraw
9
General Steins February 21, 2017 letter to the General Assemblys counsel
offers nothing to remedy that lack of authority. App. D. The letter purports to
replace the General Assemblys private counsel as to all Petitioners, including the
State, relying solely on section 147.17 of the North Carolina General Statutes,
which allows private representation of State entities only when representation by
the Attorney General is impracticable. See App. D at 2 (claiming no finding of
impracticability by the Attorney General pursuant to N.C.G.S. 147-17). But that
statute provides no basis for General Steins action: his letter neglects to note that
the statute authorizing the General Assembly to retain private counsel specifically
exempts the General Assembly from the limitations in section 147-17. See N.C. Gen.
Stat. 120-32.6(a) (providing that N.C. Gen. Stat. [] 147-17(a)-(c) shall not
apply to the General Assembly) (emphasis added). Thus, the Attorney Generals
February 21 letter only underscores that he lacks authority under North Carolina
law to supplant the General Assembly and its designated lead counsel as counsel for
the State on the pending certiorari petition.
2. Second, and more fundamentally, General Stein has no authority
under North Carolina law to dismiss this case against the wishes of the General
Assembly. As already explained, North Carolina law deems the General Assembly
the Attorney Generals client as a matter of law when the General Assembly hires

the pending certiorari petition as to the State (which it should not), the General Assembly is
simultaneously filing a conditional motion to be added as an additional petitioner with the right to
defend the challenged laws on certiorari. See, e.g., STEPHEN M. SHAPIRO, KENNETH S. GELLER, ET AL.,
SUPREME COURT PRACTICE at 867 (10th ed. 2013) (discussing motion to add additional petitioners or
respondents) (citing Nat. Fedn of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 1133 (2012)).
10
private counsel to direct the defense of challenged State laws. N.C. Gen. Stat. 120-
32.6(b). That is precisely what the General Assembly has done throughout this
caseand, with particular relevance here, when it retained the Schaerr|Duncan
firm and designated it as lead counsel for the State of North Carolina and the Board
on the pending certiorari petition. App. C. Insofar as he participates in the case at
all, General Stein would therefore be obligated by statute and the Rules of
Professional Responsibility to cooperate with such designated lead counsel. N.C.
Gen. Stat. 120-32.6(b) . Indeed, following the Fourth Circuits decision, only the
General Assemblys private counsel was left representing North Carolina in this
Court because then-Attorney General Cooper expressly withdrew from
representation and acquiesced in further appellate representation by the General
Assemblys private counsel. See App. A (letter and attached e-mails). Now, however,
the new Attorney General purports to supplant the General Assemblys designated
lead counsel and dismiss the case against the General Assemblys wishes, all
without even consulting the General Assemblywhich is his own client in this
matter by operation of law. That stunning attempt is foreclosed by the plain terms
of North Carolina law.
3. Third, it is unclear whether General Steins motion even seeks relief
authorized by Rule 46. While ostensibly filed under Rule 46.2(a)which authorizes
a motion to dismiss the casein reality the motion does not ask the Court to
dismiss the case at all. Instead, as already explained, the motion asks the Court
only to dismiss[ ] as parties to the case two petitioners (the State of North
11
Carolina and Governor Cooper), and it expressly excludes petitioner North Carolina
State Board of Elections and its members. Mot. at 1, 2 (emphasis added).
Consequently, the motion is not a motion to dismiss within the meaning of Rule
46 and could be denied on that ground alone.
General Stein has attempted to remedy this defect retroactively through his
February 23, 2017 notice of non-interest, which claims that the Board and its
members have no interest in the outcome of the petition. Notice at 2. But that
attempt is insufficient to bring the motion within Rule 46. General Steins assertion
of non-interest is based on one sentence in a February 22, 2017 letter stating that
the Board has not taken, and does not take, a position in this matter. Notice, App.
A. Whatever that cryptic statement means, it fails to demonstrate that the Board
has no interest in the outcome of the petition within the meaning of Rule 12.6.
To be sure, if the Board wishes to withdraw as a party from the certiorari
petition it has already joined, General Stein should inform the Court clearly to that
effect. He has not done so, and for good reason: in open session on February 22,
2017, a majority of the Board rejected by a vote of 3-to-2 a proposal to withdraw
from the pending certiorari petition. App. F. None of General Steins motions,
notices, or supplemental motions acknowledge this inconvenient fact. That alone
casts serious doubt on the veracity of General Steins stated belief that the Board
no longer has any interest in the outcome of the petition. S. Ct. R. 12.6. It also
raises grave questions about whether General Stein is acting in accordance with the
wishes of the Board (which he claims to represent) by seeking to have the petition
12
dismissed. See, e.g., N.C. Rule of Prof. Responsibility 1.2(a) ([A] lawyer shall abide
by a clients decisions concerning the objectives of representation, including a
clients decision whether to settle a matter.).
General Steins supplemental motion to dismiss merely reiterates the same
allegations in his previous filings. To be sure, the supplemental motionunlike the
original motionactually asks the Court to dismiss the petition. Suppl. Mot. at 2.
But the supplemental motion again represents that the Board has no interest in
the outcome of this case under Rule 12.6, while again failing to mention that the
Board, which General Stein purports to represent, specifically rejected a motion
that General Stein withdraw the Board from the petition only two days before. App.
F.3
4. Fourth, even assuming the Attorney General has any theoretical
authority to override the General Assembly and its private counsel (which he does
not), General Stein has a conflict of interest that should disqualify him from
representing the State or the Board in this case. During the trial, General Stein
then a North Carolina State Senatortestified on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
against the validity of the challenged laws. See, e.g., NCNAACP, 182 F. Supp. 3d at

3 Disagreement has arisen recently about whether General Stein or private counsel represent the
Board at present. See Notice, App. A. But there is no question that the Ogletree firm was retained by
the General Assembly in 2013 to represent the Board and its members (as well as the State), App. A;
that the Ogletree firm has done so alongside the Attorney Generals Office throughout this litigation,
App. B; and that the Board is a party to the certiorari petition on which S. Kyle Duncan of
Schaerr|Duncan LLP is counsel of record (and on which the Attorney General does not appear). Pet.
at iii. The present Board members, however, apparently disagree that the Board is represented by
private counsel. Notice, App. A. But that is of no significance here. Whether or not private counsel
continues to represent the Board, there is no question that private counsel represents the State by
virtue of its retention by the General Assembly, and that Schaerr|Duncan LLP has been designated
as lead counsel on the certiorari petition by the leaders of the General Assembly acting on behalf of
the State. App. C.
13
447 (describing testimony of Plaintiffs own witness, Senator Stein); App. G (Stein
testimony). Thus it is unsurprising that, as the newly elected Attorney General, he
now wishes to deprive this Court of an opportunity to review the Fourth Circuits
decision invalidating the law he himself testified against as Plaintiffs own
witness. NCNAACP, 182 F. Supp. 3d at 447.
The rules of professional responsibility prevent him from doing so, however.
Most obviously, the fact that General Stein testified as a witness against the very
laws addressed by the certiorari petition creates an obvious conflict of interest with
the General Assemblyhis own clientwhich enacted those laws and seeks to
vindicate them before this Court. See N.C. Rule of Prof. Responsibility 1.7(a)
(providing concurrent conflict of interest exists where representation of client may
be materially limited by a personal interest of the lawyer); id. Rule 1.11(d)
(providing Rule 1.7 applies to a lawyer currently serving as a public officer or
employee); see also, e.g., id. Rule 1.11(a) (prohibiting lawyer from represent[ing] a
client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and
substantially as a public officer); id. Rule 3.7 (providing [a] lawyer shall not act as
advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness); id. Rule
3.7 cmt. 1 (observing that [c]ombining the roles of advocate and witness can
prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of
interest between the lawyer and client). Given these palpable conflicts of interest,
the current Attorney General should have no role in this case. Much less should he
be able to override the wishes of the General Assemblyhis own clientwhich is
14
authorized to act on behalf of the State is seeking to vindicate in this Court election
reform measures Stein himself testified against at trial.4
5. Finally, the private respondents request for an entry of dismissal under
Rule 46.1 is contrary to this Courts rules and should therefore be denied. Rule 46.1
requires a written agreement to dismiss to be filed by all parties. S. Ct. R. 46.1
(emphasis added). The private respondents notice manifestly fails to include the
United States, who was a party throughout these proceedings. Before the Clerk
could proceed with private respondents request, it would at a minimum need to
receive the position of the United States through the Solicitor General. That would
be particularly salient in this case, given that the United States opposition to the
pending certiorari petition was filed on January 19, 2017one day before the
present administration took office.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Attorney Generals
motion under Rule 46.2. Additionally, the Clerk should deny the private
respondents request for an order of dismissal under Rule 46.1 or, in the alternative,
request the position of the United States through the Solicitor Generals Office.

4 See also, e.g., N.C. Rule of Prof. Responsibility 1.2(a) ([A] lawyer shall abide by a clients
decisions concerning the objectives of representation, including a clients decision whether to settle
a matter.); id. Rule 1.4(a) (A lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or
circumstance with respect to which the clients informed consent is required by these Rules [and]
reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the clients objectives are to be
accomplished[.]).
15
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Farr
Philip J. Strach
Michael D. McKnight
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK & STEWART, PC _____________________________
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 S. Kyle Duncan
Raleigh, NC 27609 Counsel of Record
Gene C. Schaerr
Stephen S. Schwartz
SCHAERR|DUNCAN LLP
1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 714-9492
Kduncan@Schaerr-Duncan.com
Counsel for Petitioner State of North Carolina
February 27, 2017
16
No. 16-833
In the Supreme Court of the United States

______________
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.,

Petitioners,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, et al.,
Respondents.
______________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
______________
I, S. Kyle Duncan, a member of the Supreme Court Bar, hereby certify that:
(1) this opposition was filed by delivering an original and 10 copies on February
27, 2017 to a third-party commercial carrier for next-day delivery to the Clerk;
and
(2) one copy of the same opposition was served by delivering it on February 27,
2017 to a third-party commercial carrier for next-day delivery on the following:
Daniel T. Donovan Noel J. Francisco

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP Acting Solicitor General
655 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200 United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20004 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
(202) 879-5000 Washington, DC 20530
ddonovan@kirkland.com Noel.Francisco@usdoj.gov
Grayson Kelly
Chief Deputy Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
(919) 716-6400
gkelley@ncdoj.gov
_____________________________
S. Kyle Duncan
Counsel of Record for Petitioner State of
North Carolina
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA STATE )

CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
1:13CV658
)
PATRICK LLOYD MCCRORY, in his )
official capacity as Governor of North )
Carolina, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF )

NORTH CAROLINA, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
and )
)
LOUIS M. DUKE, et al., )
1:13CV660
)
Plaintiffs-Intervenors, )
)
v. )
)
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 1:13CV861
)
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 94 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 6

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c)
Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully move
this Honorable Court to Dismiss all of Plaintiffs Complaints, including the claims of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the
reasons stated in Defendants contemporaneously filed Memorandum in Support of Their
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.1
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter an order
granting their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing each and every claim stated in the
Complaints in the above-captioned actions with prejudice, and granting Defendants such
further relief as may be just and appropriate.
1
Plaintiffs previously filed a motion asking the Court to extend the page limit for
memorandums in support of this motion and their motion for a preliminary injunction.
The parties disagreed on the number of pages that should be permitted. At a hearing on
May 9, 2014, undersigned counsel recall that the Court indicated that because of the
importance of this case, it would not unreasonably limit the length of memoranda in
support of these motions. Accordingly, Defendants have submitted a memorandum, the
length of which is consistent with their earlier position in connection with Plaintiffs
motion.

This the 19th day of May, 2014.
ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH
CAROLINA
By: /s/ Alexander McC. Peters

Alexander McC. Peters
Senior Deputy Attorney General
N.C. State Bar No. 13654
apeters@ncdoj.gov
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 716-6900
Facsimile: (919) 716-6763
Counsel for Defendants North Carolina and
State Board of Election Defendants.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
/s/ Thomas A. Farr

Thomas A. Farr
Phillip J. Strach
thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com
phil.strach@ogletreedeakins.com
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Telephone: (919) 787-9700
Facsimile: (919) 783-9412
Co-counsel for Defendants North Carolina
and State Board of Election Defendants.

BOWERS LAW OFFICE LLC
By: /s/ Karl S. Bowers, Jr.

Karl S. Bowers, Jr.*
Federal Bar #7716
P.O. Box 50549
Columbia, SC 29250
Telephone: (803) 260-4124
E-mail: butch@butchbowers.com
*appearing pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(d)
Counsel for Governor Patrick L. McCrory
By: /s/ Robert C. Stephens

Robert C. Stephens (State Bar #4150)
General Counsel
Office of the Governor of North Carolina
20301 Mail Service Center
Telephone: (919) 814-2027
Facsimile: (919) 733-2120
E-mail: bob.stephens@nc.gov

I, Thomas A. Farr, hereby certify that I have this day electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will provide
electronic notification of the same to the following:
Counsel for United States of America:
T. Christian Herren, Jr. Gill P. Beck

John A. Russ IV Special Assistant United States Attorney
Catherine Meza Office of the United States Attorney
David G. Cooper United States Courthouse
Spencer R. Fisher 100 Otis Street
Elizabeth M. Ryan Asheville, NC 28801
Jenigh Garrett
Attorneys, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Room 7254-NWB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Counsel for NCAAP Plaintiffs:
Penda D. Hair Adam Stein

Edward A. Hailes, Jr. TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN
Denise D. Liberman 312 West Franklin Street
Donita Judge Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Caitlin Swain
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT Thomas D. Yannucci
Suite 850 Daniel T. Donovan
1220 L Street, N.W. Susan M. Davies
Washington, DC 20005 K. Winn Allen
Uzoma Nkwonta
Irving Joyner Kim Knudson
P.O. Box 374 Anne Dechter
Cary, NC 27512 Bridget OConnor
Jodi Wu
Kim Rancour
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
655 Fifteenth St., N.W.

Counsel for League of Women Voter
Plaintiffs:
Anita S. Earls
Allison J. Riggs Laughlin McDonald
Clare R. Barnett ACLU Voting Rights Project
Southern Coalition for Social Justice 2700 International Tower
1415 Hwy. 54, Suite 101 229 Peachtree Street, NE
Durham, NC 27707 Atlanta, GA 30303
Dale Ho
Julie A. Ebenstein Christopher Brook
ACLU Voting Rights Project ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation
125 Broad Street PO Box 28004
New York, NY 10004 Raleigh, NC 27611-8004
Counsel for the Intervening Plaintiffs:
John M. Davaney Edwin M. Speas, Jr.

Marc E. Elias John W. OHale
Kevin J. Hamilton Caroline P. Mackie
Elisabeth Frost POYNER SPRUILL, LLP
PERKINS COIE, LLP 301 Fayetteville St., Suite 1900
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27601
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
This the 19th day of May, 2014.

/s/ Thomas A. Farr

Thomas A. Farr
17929666.1

Appeal: 16-1529 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/10/2016 Pg: 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FORM
BAR ADMISSION & ECF REGISTRATION: If you have not been admitted to practice before the Fourth Circuit,
you must complete and return an Application for Admission before filing this form. If you were admitted to practice
under a different name than you are now using, you must include your former name when completing this form so that we
can locate you on the attorney roll. Electronic filing by counsel is required in all Fourth Circuit cases. If you have not
registered as a Fourth Circuit ECF Filer, please complete the required steps at Register for eFiling.
16-1468(L)
THE CLERK WILL ENTER MY APPEARANCE IN APPEAL NO. ______________________________ as
[ ]Retained [ ]Court-appointed(CJA) [ ]Court-assigned(non-CJA) [ ]Federal Defender [ ]Pro Bono [ ]Government
State of North Carolina, Kim W. Strach, A. Grant Whitney, Maja Kricker,

COUNSEL FOR: _______________________________________________________________________
James Baker, Rhonda K. Amoroso, Joshua D. Malcolm, and N.C. State Bd. of Elections.
__________________________________________________________________________________ as the
(party name)
appellant(s) appellee(s) petitioner(s) respondent(s) amicus curiae intervenor(s) movant(s)
/s/ Thomas A. Farr

______________________________________
(signature)
Thomas A. Farr
________________________________________ (919) 789-3174
_______________
Name (printed or typed) Voice Phone
Ogletree Deakins, P.C.

________________________________________ (919) 783-9412
_______________
Firm Name (if applicable) Fax Number

________________________________________
Raleigh, NC 27609
________________________________________ tom.farr@ogletreedeakins.com
_________________________________
Address E-mail address (print or type)
May 10, 2016
I certify that on _________________ the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record
through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by serving a true and correct copy at the
addresses listed below:
/s/ Thomas A. Farr

______________________________ May 10, 2010
____________________________
Signature Date
01/19/2016 SCC Print Save Reset Form

RECORD NO. 16-1468(L)
In The
United States Court of Appeals
For The Fourth Circuit
___________________
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; ROSANELL EATON;

EMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH; BETHEL A. BAPTIST CHURCH; COVENANT
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; BARBEE'S CHAPEL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.;
ARMENTA EATON; CAROLYN COLEMAN; JOCELYN FERGUSON-KELLY; FAITH
JACKSON; MARY PERRY; MARIA TERESA UNGER PALMER,
Plaintiffs Appellants,
and
JOHN DOE 1; JANE DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JANE DOE 3; NEW
OXLEY HILL BAPTIST CHURCH; CLINTON TABERNACLE AME ZION CHURCH;
BAHEEYAH MADANY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official capacity as Governor of the state of North Carolina; KIM
WESTBROOK STRACH, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections;
JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections;
RHONDA K. AMOROSO, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections;
JOSHUA D. MALCOLM, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections;
PAUL J. FOLEY, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; MAJA
KRICKER, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; JAMES BAKER,
in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections,
Defendants Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

AT GREENSBORO
BRIEF OF APPELLEES
THE LEX GROUP 1108 East Main Street Suite 1400 Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 644-4419 (800) 856-4419 Fax: (804) 644-3660 www.thelexgroup.com
___________________
No. 16-1469
___________________
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP

RANDOLPH INSTITUTE; UNIFOUR ONESTOP COLLABORATIVE; COMMON CAUSE
NORTH CAROLINA; GOLDIE WELLS; KAY BRANDON; OCTAVIA RAINEY; SARA
STOHLER; HUGH STOHLER,
Plaintiffs,
CHARLES M. GRAY; ASGOD BARRANTES; MARY-WREN RITCHIE,
Intervenors/Plaintiffs,
and
LOUIS M. DUKE; JOSUE E. BERDUO; NANCY J. LUND; BRIAN M.

MILLER; BECKY HURLEY MOCK; LYNNE M. WALTER; EBONY N. WEST,
Intervenors/Plaintiffs Appellants,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity as a member of

the State Board of Elections; RHONDA K. AMOROSO, in her official capacity as a member of the
State Board of Elections; JOSHUA D. MALCOLM, in his official capacity as a member of the State
Board of Elections; PAUL J. FOLEY, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of
Elections; MAJA KRICKER, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections;
PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official capacity as Governor of the state of North Carolina,
___________________
No. 16-1474
___________________
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP

RANDOLPH INSTITUTE; UNIFOUR ONESTOP COLLABORATIVE; COMMON CAUSE
NORTH CAROLINA; GOLDIE WELLS; KAY BRANDON; OCTAVIA RAINEY; SARA
STOHLER; HUGH STOHLER.
Plaintiffs,
CHARLES M. GRAY; ASGOD BARRANTES; MARY-WREN RITCHIE,
Intervenors/Plaintiffs,
and
LOUIS M. DUKE; JOSUE E. BERDUO; NANCY J. LUND; BRIAN M.

MILLER; BECKY HURLEY MOCK; LYNNE M. WALTER; EBONY N. WEST,
Intervenors/Plaintiffs Appellants,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity as a member of

the State Board of Elections; RHONDA K. AMOROSO, in her official capacity as a member of the
State Board of Elections; JOSHUA D. MALCOLM, in his official capacity as a member of the State
Board of Elections; PAUL J. FOLEY, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of
Elections; MAJA KRICKER, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections;
PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official capacity as Governor of the state of North Carolina,
___________________
No. 16-1529
___________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;

KIM WESTBROOK STRACH,
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

AT GREENSBORO
BRIEF OF APPELLEES
Alexander McC. Peters L. Gray Geddie, Jr.

NORTH CAROLINA Thomas A. Farr
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Phillip J. Strach
Post Office Box 629 Michael D. McKnight
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
(919) 716-6900 SMOAK & STEWART, PC
(919) 787-9700
Counsel for Appellees Co-Counsel for Appellees

North Carolina and North Carolina and
State Board of Election State Board of Election
Karl S. Bowers, Jr. Robert C. Stephens

BOWERS L AW O FFICE LLC O FFICE OF THE G OVERNOR
Post Office Box 50549 OF NORTH C AROLINA
Columbia, South Carolina 29250 20301 Mail Service Center
(803) 260-4124 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
(919) 814-2027
Counsel for Governor Patrick L. McCrory Counsel for Governor Patrick L. McCrory
Appeal: 16-1468
16-1529 94
Doc: 65 06/09/2016
Filed: 05/10/2016 5 of 2
Pg: 1 75
81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6)257+()2857+&,5&8,7
',6&/2685(2)&25325$7($)),/,$7,216$1'27+(5,17(5(676

'LVFORVXUHV PXVW EH ILOHG RQ EHKDOI RI DOO SDUWLHV WR D FLYLO DJHQF\ EDQNUXSWF\ RU PDQGDPXV
FDVHH[FHSWWKDWDGLVFORVXUHVWDWHPHQWLVnotUHTXLUHGIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVIURPDQLQGLJHQW
SDUW\RUIURPDVWDWHRUORFDOJRYHUQPHQWLQDSURVHFDVH,QPDQGDPXVFDVHVDULVLQJIURPD
FLYLORUEDQNUXSWF\DFWLRQDOOSDUWLHVWRWKHDFWLRQLQWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWDUHFRQVLGHUHGSDUWLHVWR
WKHPDQGDPXVFDVH

&RUSRUDWH GHIHQGDQWV LQ D FULPLQDO RU SRVWFRQYLFWLRQ FDVH DQG FRUSRUDWH DPLFL FXULDH DUH
UHTXLUHGWRILOHGLVFORVXUHVWDWHPHQWV

,I FRXQVHO LV QRW D UHJLVWHUHG (&) ILOHU DQG GRHV QRW LQWHQG WR ILOH GRFXPHQWV RWKHU WKDQ WKH
UHTXLUHG GLVFORVXUH VWDWHPHQW FRXQVHO PD\ ILOH WKH GLVFORVXUH VWDWHPHQW LQ SDSHU UDWKHU WKDQ
HOHFWURQLFIRUP&RXQVHOKDVDFRQWLQXLQJGXW\WRXSGDWHWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQ

1RBBBBBBBBBB
16-1468L &DSWLRQBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
N.C. NAACP, et al. v. McCrory, et al.

3XUVXDQWWR)5$3DQG/RFDO5XOH

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
State of North Carolina, Kim W. Strach, Rhonda K. Amoroso, Joshua D. Malcolm, Maja Kricker,
QDPHRISDUW\DPLFXV

James Baker, and N.C. State Board of Elections.

ZKRLVBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBPDNHVWKHIROORZLQJGLVFORVXUH
appellees
DSSHOODQWDSSHOOHHSHWLWLRQHUUHVSRQGHQWDPLFXVLQWHUYHQRU

,VSDUW\DPLFXVDSXEOLFO\KHOGFRUSRUDWLRQRURWKHUSXEOLFO\KHOGHQWLW\" <(6 12

'RHVSDUW\DPLFXVKDYHDQ\SDUHQWFRUSRUDWLRQV" <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\DOOSDUHQWFRUSRUDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJDOOJHQHUDWLRQVRISDUHQWFRUSRUDWLRQV

,VRUPRUHRIWKHVWRFNRIDSDUW\DPLFXVRZQHGE\DSXEOLFO\KHOGFRUSRUDWLRQRU
RWKHUSXEOLFO\KHOGHQWLW\" <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\DOOVXFKRZQHUV

6&&

Appeal: 16-1468
16-1529 94
Doc: 65 06/09/2016
Filed: 05/10/2016 6 of 2
Pg: 2 75
,VWKHUHDQ\RWKHUSXEOLFO\KHOGFRUSRUDWLRQRURWKHUSXEOLFO\KHOGHQWLW\WKDWKDVDGLUHFW
ILQDQFLDOLQWHUHVWLQWKHRXWFRPHRIWKHOLWLJDWLRQ/RFDO5XOHE" <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\HQWLW\DQGQDWXUHRILQWHUHVW

,VSDUW\DWUDGHDVVRFLDWLRQ"DPLFLFXULDHGRQRWFRPSOHWHWKLVTXHVWLRQ <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\DQ\SXEOLFO\KHOGPHPEHUZKRVHVWRFNRUHTXLW\YDOXHFRXOGEHDIIHFWHG
VXEVWDQWLDOO\E\WKHRXWFRPHRIWKHSURFHHGLQJRUZKRVHFODLPVWKHWUDGHDVVRFLDWLRQLV
SXUVXLQJLQDUHSUHVHQWDWLYHFDSDFLW\RUVWDWHWKDWWKHUHLVQRVXFKPHPEHU

'RHVWKLVFDVHDULVHRXWRIDEDQNUXSWF\SURFHHGLQJ" <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\DQ\WUXVWHHDQGWKHPHPEHUVRIDQ\FUHGLWRUVFRPPLWWHH

6LJQDWXUHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
/s/ Thomas A. Farr 'DWHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
May 10, 2016

&RXQVHOIRUBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
N.C. Board of Elections appellees

**************************
,FHUWLI\WKDWRQBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBWKHIRUHJRLQJGRFXPHQWZDVVHUYHGRQDOOSDUWLHVRUWKHLU
May 10, 2016
FRXQVHORIUHFRUGWKURXJKWKH&0(&)V\VWHPLIWKH\DUHUHJLVWHUHGXVHUVRULIWKH\DUHQRWE\
VHUYLQJDWUXHDQGFRUUHFWFRS\DWWKHDGGUHVVHVOLVWHGEHORZ

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
/s/ Thomas A. Farr BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
5/10/2016
VLJQDWXUH GDWH

Appeal: 16-1468
16-1529 94
Doc: 68 06/09/2016
Filed: 05/10/2016 7 of 2
Pg: 1 75
81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6)257+()2857+&,5&8,7
',6&/2685(2)&25325$7($)),/,$7,216$1'27+(5,17(5(676

'LVFORVXUHV PXVW EH ILOHG RQ EHKDOI RI DOO SDUWLHV WR D FLYLO DJHQF\ EDQNUXSWF\ RU PDQGDPXV
FDVHH[FHSWWKDWDGLVFORVXUHVWDWHPHQWLVnotUHTXLUHGIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVIURPDQLQGLJHQW
SDUW\RUIURPDVWDWHRUORFDOJRYHUQPHQWLQDSURVHFDVH,QPDQGDPXVFDVHVDULVLQJIURPD
FLYLORUEDQNUXSWF\DFWLRQDOOSDUWLHVWRWKHDFWLRQLQWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWDUHFRQVLGHUHGSDUWLHVWR
WKHPDQGDPXVFDVH

&RUSRUDWH GHIHQGDQWV LQ D FULPLQDO RU SRVWFRQYLFWLRQ FDVH DQG FRUSRUDWH DPLFL FXULDH DUH
UHTXLUHGWRILOHGLVFORVXUHVWDWHPHQWV

,I FRXQVHO LV QRW D UHJLVWHUHG (&) ILOHU DQG GRHV QRW LQWHQG WR ILOH GRFXPHQWV RWKHU WKDQ WKH
UHTXLUHG GLVFORVXUH VWDWHPHQW FRXQVHO PD\ ILOH WKH GLVFORVXUH VWDWHPHQW LQ SDSHU UDWKHU WKDQ
HOHFWURQLFIRUP&RXQVHOKDVDFRQWLQXLQJGXW\WRXSGDWHWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQ

1RBBBBBBBBBB
16-1468L &DSWLRQBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
N.C. NAACP, et al. v. McCrory, et al.

3XUVXDQWWR)5$3DQG/RFDO5XOH

Patrick L. McCrory
QDPHRISDUW\DPLFXV


ZKRLVBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBPDNHVWKHIROORZLQJGLVFORVXUH
appellee
DSSHOODQWDSSHOOHHSHWLWLRQHUUHVSRQGHQWDPLFXVLQWHUYHQRU

,VSDUW\DPLFXVDSXEOLFO\KHOGFRUSRUDWLRQRURWKHUSXEOLFO\KHOGHQWLW\" <(6 12

'RHVSDUW\DPLFXVKDYHDQ\SDUHQWFRUSRUDWLRQV" <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\DOOSDUHQWFRUSRUDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJDOOJHQHUDWLRQVRISDUHQWFRUSRUDWLRQV

,VRUPRUHRIWKHVWRFNRIDSDUW\DPLFXVRZQHGE\DSXEOLFO\KHOGFRUSRUDWLRQRU
RWKHUSXEOLFO\KHOGHQWLW\" <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\DOOVXFKRZQHUV

6&&

Appeal: 16-1468
16-1529 94
Doc: 68 06/09/2016
Filed: 05/10/2016 8 of 2
Pg: 2 75
,VWKHUHDQ\RWKHUSXEOLFO\KHOGFRUSRUDWLRQRURWKHUSXEOLFO\KHOGHQWLW\WKDWKDVDGLUHFW
ILQDQFLDOLQWHUHVWLQWKHRXWFRPHRIWKHOLWLJDWLRQ/RFDO5XOHE" <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\HQWLW\DQGQDWXUHRILQWHUHVW

,VSDUW\DWUDGHDVVRFLDWLRQ"DPLFLFXULDHGRQRWFRPSOHWHWKLVTXHVWLRQ <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\DQ\SXEOLFO\KHOGPHPEHUZKRVHVWRFNRUHTXLW\YDOXHFRXOGEHDIIHFWHG
VXEVWDQWLDOO\E\WKHRXWFRPHRIWKHSURFHHGLQJRUZKRVHFODLPVWKHWUDGHDVVRFLDWLRQLV
SXUVXLQJLQDUHSUHVHQWDWLYHFDSDFLW\RUVWDWHWKDWWKHUHLVQRVXFKPHPEHU

'RHVWKLVFDVHDULVHRXWRIDEDQNUXSWF\SURFHHGLQJ" <(6 12
,I\HVLGHQWLI\DQ\WUXVWHHDQGWKHPHPEHUVRIDQ\FUHGLWRUVFRPPLWWHH

6LJQDWXUHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
/s/ Karl S. Bowers, Jr. 'DWHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
May 10, 2016

&RXQVHOIRUBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Patrick L. McCrory

**************************
,FHUWLI\WKDWRQBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBWKHIRUHJRLQJGRFXPHQWZDVVHUYHGRQDOOSDUWLHVRUWKHLU
May 10, 2016
FRXQVHORIUHFRUGWKURXJKWKH&0(&)V\VWHPLIWKH\DUHUHJLVWHUHGXVHUVRULIWKH\DUHQRWE\
VHUYLQJDWUXHDQGFRUUHFWFRS\DWWKHDGGUHVVHVOLVWHGEHORZ

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
/s/ Karl S. Bowers, Jr. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
5/10/2016
VLJQDWXUH GDWH

This the 9th day of June, 2016.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE
/s/ Alexander McC. Peters

Alexander McC. Peters
Senior Deputy Attorney General
apeters@ncdoj.gov
N.C. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 716-6900
Facsimile: (919) 716-6763
Counsel for Appellees North Carolina and
State Board of Election Appellees.

/s/ Thomas A. Farr

L. Gray Geddie, Jr.
S.C. State Bar No. 2397
Thomas A. Farr
Phillip J. Strach
Michael D. McKnight
thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com
michael.mcknight@ogletreedeakins.com
Telephone: (919) 787-9700
Facsimile: (919) 783-9412
Co-counsel for Appellees North Carolina
and State Board of Election Appellees.
57
BOWERS LAW OFFICE LLC
By: /s/ Karl S. Bowers, Jr.

Karl S. Bowers, Jr.*
Federal Bar #7716
P.O. Box 50549
Columbia, SC 29250
Telephone: (803) 260-4124
E-mail: butch@butchbowers.com
*appearing pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(d)
By: /s/ Robert C. Stephens

Robert C. Stephens (State Bar #4150)
General Counsel
Office of the Governor of North Carolina
20301 Mail Service Center
Telephone: (919) 814-2027
Facsimile: (919) 733-2120
E-mail: bob.stephens@nc.gov
58
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.

28.1(e)(2) or 32(a)(7)(B) because:
[ X ] this brief contains [13,836] words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or
[ ] this brief uses a monospaced typeface and contains [state the number
of] lines of text, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because:
[ X ] this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using

[Microsoft Word 2007] in [14pt Times New Roman]; or
[ ] this brief has been prepared in a monospaced typeface using [state

name and version of word processing program] with [state number of
characters per inch and name of type style].
Dated: June 9, 2016 /s/ Thomas A. Farr

Counsel for Appellees
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 9th day of June, 2016, I caused this Brief of
Appellees to be filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
System, which will send notice of such filing to all registered CM/ECF users.
I further certify that on this 9th day of June, 2016, I caused the required
copies of the Brief of Appellees to be hand filed with the Clerk of the Court.
/s/ Thomas A. Farr

Counsel for Appellees
NO. _____________
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
--------------------------------------------------
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL.,
Applicants,
v.
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL.;

Respondents,
and
LOUIS M. DUKE, ET AL.,

Intervenors/Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY FROM

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
--------------------------------------------------
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR RECALL AND STAY OF MANDATE

--------------------------------------------------
Roy Cooper *Thomas A. Farr

Attorney General Counsel of Record
Alexander McC. Peters Phillip J. Strach
Katherine A. Murphy Michael D. McKnight
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
Post Office Box 629 SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Raleigh, NC 27602 4208 Six Forks Rd, Suite 1100
apeters@ncdoj.gov Raleigh, NC 27609
kmurphy@ncdoj.gov (919) 787-9700
(919) 716-6900 thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com
michael.mcknight@ogletreedeakins.com
Karl S. Bowers, Jr. Robert C. Stephens

BOWERS LAW OFFICE LLC OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA
Post Office Box 50549 20301 Mail Service Center
Columbia, SC 29250 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
(803) 260-4124 (919) 814-2027
butch@butchbowers.com bob.stephens@nc.gov
Counsel for Applicants
THE LEX GROUPDC 1825 K Street, NW Suite 103 Washington, DC 20006

31
CONCLUSION
The Court should recall the mandate and stay execution of the judgment
below pending the timely filing' and disposition of a petition for certiorari.
Additionally, given the directive to. the district court to act C(as s\viftly as possible,'"
the need for certainty among North Carolina's electiol1S officials and the
representations Df Plaintiffs that they intend to file a response to this Emergency
Application, the Court should enter an interim stay pending receipt of a :response.
Respectfully Submitted,
~G_~
*Thomas A. Farr
Counsel 0/ Record -
Phillip J. Strach
Michael D. McKnight
OGLETREE, DEAKINS" NASH
SrvrOAK & STEWART" P.C.
(919) 787-9700
thomas .farr@ogletreedeakins.com
phil. strach@ogletreedeakins.com
michaeLtncknigbt@ogletreedeakins.com
Counsel for Defendants North Carolina and State Board of Election Defendants.
Roy Cooper
Attorney General
Alexander MeC. Peters
Katherine A . Murphy
N. C. DEPARTMENT QF ,J USTICE
P.O. B'ox 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919) 716-6900'
apeters@nccioj .gov
km urphy@ncdoj .gov
Counsel for Defendants lVorth Carolina and State Board of Election Defendants.
APPENDIX C
SCIIAERR
.DUNCl\N loU'
Andrew Tripp Bart Goodson

General Counsel General Counsel
Office of President Pro Tempore Phil Berger Office of Speaker Tim Moore
North Carolina Senate NOlth Carolina House of Representatives
16 West Jones Street, Room 2007 16 Wcst Jones Street, Room 2304
Raleigh, NC 27601 Raleigh, NC 27601
(9 19) 559-6987 (9 19) 733-345 1
andrew.tripp@ncleg.net bart.goodson@ncleg.net
October 21, 2016
Dear Andrew and Bart,
1. This letter ("agreement") confirms that Tim Moore, Speaker of the North C'lrolina
House and Phil Berger, President Pro Tempore of the Senate (collectively, the "Clients"),
wish to retain the firm of SchaerrlDuncan LLP, to represent them in the United States
Supreme Court by defending the validity of NOlth Carolina's omnibus election reform law,
North Carolina Session Laws 2013-381 and 2015-103 ("North Carolina election refOl'mlaw").
2. Scope of Representation: SchaerrlDuncan LLP will represent Clients, and their counsel,
designees (including but not limited other members), or agents acting in their official
capacities, in litigation in the U.S. Supreme Comt by defending the validity of NOlth Carolina
election reform law under the Voting Rights Act and the federal Constitution. Kyle Duncan
shall appear and act as lead counsel. He shall act on behalf of the North Carolina Defen,iants in
the litigation with the exception of Governor McCrory. We understand that Karl S. "Butch"
Bowers may continue to appear on behalf of the Governor by separate agreement. The
representation includes preparing and filing a petition for writ of celtiorari seeking review of
the U.S. Fomth Circuit's decision in North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v.
McCrory, Nos. 16-1468 et al. (4th Cir. July 29, 2016), as well as a reply in support of the
petition. If review is granted, the representation includes preparing and filing merits briefing,
as well as preparing and presenting argument.
3. Compensation: For this representation, Schaerr IDuncan LLP has agreed to a flat fee in
lieu of its usual compensation rates of and
......~.~...I!!I~.II!~. For purposes of this representation, the Clients agree to
direct the Legislative Services Office to compensate SchaerrlDuncan LLP on the following
terms:
SCIlAEHH I DUNCAN <.".

! 71 'i !\. ~~t.i'i-'._-~l ::~I\l!,P ~lU{\
( \V;\~.J;i\\;_},f.(HL j)l.~
\)\\'.
!(JOW;
hI) U linl t l"f G,_.' b;H;"j'j' n j 1;-1 '.;" n.l :1)1))
(:~o:t) 1(':,"? ]Of;n \ni'fiu'!
ti,O:~) llI:":h!Y~ (m(jhjl(:'~
SCHAERR
(
DUNCAN Lt.P
4 Expenses: The Clients also agree to direct the Legislative Services Office to pay any
reasonable travel expenses, court costs, or filing fees incurred by Schaerrl Duncan LLP in the
course of the litigation, in accordance with any applicable State guidelines.
5 Invoicing: Schaerrl Duncan LLP will invoice the Clients for all legal work, including
expenses incurred, on the following schedule. The Clients agree to direct the Legislative
Services Office to pay those invoices within 30 days of their date. Invoices will conform to any
applicable State guidelines.
6. Work outside scope of this agreement: In the event that additional work is required.
outside the scope of this agreement, the patties will enter into a separate agreement with
respect to compensation for that additional work.
7 Termination: The Clients may terminate SchaerrlDuncan LLP's representation at imy

time. Schaerr IDuncan LLP may terminate its representation of the Clients by giving the Clients
reasonable notice in accordance with applicable rules of professional responsibility.
FOR SCHAERRIDUNCAN LLP: FOR CLIENTS:

.c'- ) .....
/ . c.-')
_"... ~ (
'/jl~ .).c~_ ..
.~.
!fJvv,L?~-/"-~1 ~
S. Kyle Duncan
Andrew Tripp ~
Raleigh, North Cal' Iina
Washington, D.C. Dated: "2/ I ,
Dated: October 21. 2016
'-'-,:'5~~' ~,ij~,..~~S;~~L,..,<o.==--.
, Bart GOOdS0l0
Raleigh, NOl'th\Cat'olina
Dated: A\) ~""~lI~
(
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
Governor Cooper, AG Stein Take Steps to Withdraw from Voting Restrictions Case
Governor Cooper, AG Stein Take Steps to Withdraw

from Voting Restrictions Case
Raleigh
Feb 21, 2017
Today, Governor Roy Cooper and Attorney General Josh Stein have taken steps to
withdraw the states petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court of
State of North Carolina V. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the voting
restrictions law overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last year.
Last year, judges on the Fourth Circuit overturned North Carolinas 2013 voting
restrictions law after finding that it sought to target African Americans with almost
surgical precision in order to limit access to the ballot box. The previous
administration joined in petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case on
December 27th.
This morning, the Governors General Counsel and Chief Deputy Attorney General
jointly sent a letter discharging outside counsel in the case on behalf of the State.
Also today, the Governors Office and the NC Department of Justice formally withdrew
the State and Governors request for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fourth
Circuits decision.
After the Governors Office and N.C. Department of Justice withdraw, the State Board
of Elections, its individual members, and its Executive Director will remain in the case
for the time being.
We need to make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote, not harder, and I
will not continue to waste time and money appealing this unconstitutional law,
Governor Cooper said. Its time for North Carolina to stop fighting for this unfair,
unconstitutional law and work instead to improve equal access for voters.
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
3 NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE ) CASE NO. 1:13CV658

OF THE NAACP, et al., )
4 )
Plaintiffs, )
5 )
V. )
6 )
PATRICK LLOYD MCCRORY, in his )
7 Official capacity as Governor )
Of North Carolina, et al., )
8 )
Defendants. )
9 _______________________________
10 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH ) CASE NO. 1:13CV660

CAROLINA, et al., )
11 )
Plaintiffs, )
12 )
V. )
13 )
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.,)
14 )
Defendants. )
15 _______________________________
16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. 1:13CV861

)
17 Plaintiff, )
)
18 V. )
)
19 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.,) Winston-Salem, North Carolina
) July 21, 2015
20 Defendants. ) 9:09 a.m.
_______________________________
21
22 TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL/DAY SEVEN

BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER
23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenotype reporter.
25 Transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
NAACP, et al. v. NC, et al. - Trial Day 7 - 7/21/15

2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Plaintiff:

(NAACP) PENDA D. HAIR, ESQ.
3 DONITA JUDGE, ESQ.
DENISE D. LIEBERMAN, ESQ.
4 ADVANCEMENT PROJECT
1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850
5 Washington, DC 20005
6 DANIEL T. DONOVAN, ESQ.

BRIDGET K, O'CONNOR, ESQ.
7 MICHAEL A. GLICK, ESQ.
CHRISTOPHER J. MANER, ESQ.
8 JODI WU, ESQ.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP.
9 655 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200
10
IRVING JOYNER, ESQ.
11 N. C. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
P. O. Box 374
12 Cary, North Carolina 27512
13
14 (LWV) ALLISON JEAN RIGGS, ESQ.

ANITA S. EARLS, ESQ.
15 GEORGE E. EPPSTEINER, ESQ.
SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
16 1415 W. Highway 54, Suite 101
Durham, North Carolina 27707
17
JULIE A. EBENSTEIN, ESQ.
18 DALE E. HO, ESQ.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
19 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2400
20
CHRISTOPHER A. BROOK, ESQ.
21 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NC
P. O. Box 28004
22 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-8004
23
24
25

3
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 (USA) CATHERINE MEZA, ESQ.

JOHN A. RUSS, IV, ESQ.
3 DAVID G. COOPER, ESQ.
AVNER M. SHAPIRO, ESQ.
4 SPENCER R. FISHER, ESQ.
ELIZABETH M. RYAN, ESQ.
5 JENIGH J. GARRETT, ESQ.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
6 Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
8 GILL P. BECK, ESQ.

U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
9 100 Otis Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
10
11 (Intervenor
Plaintiff): JOSHUA L. KAUL, ESQ.
12 PERKINS COIE, LLP
1 E. Main Street, Suite 201
13 Madison, Wisconsin 53703
14 BRUCE V. SPIVA, ESQ.

AMANDA R. CALLAIS, ESQ.
15 PERKINS COIE, LLP.
700 13th Street, NW, Suite 600
17
JOHN W. O'HALE, ESQ.
18 POYNER SPRUILL, LLP
P. O Box 1801
19 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1801
20
21 For the Defendants:
22 (State of NC) ALEXANDER M. PETERS, ESQ.

KATHERINE A. MURPHY, ESQ.
23 N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 629
24 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
25

4
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 (State of NC) THOMAS A. FARR, ESQ.

PHILLIP J. STRACH, ESQ.
3 MICHAEL D. MCKNIGHT, ESQ.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART
4 P. O. Box 31608
5
(Governor) BUTCH BOWERS, ESQ.
6 BOWERS LAW OFFICE, LLC
1419 Pendleton Street
7 Columbia, South Carolina 29201
10 Court Reporter: BRIANA NESBIT, RPR

Official Court Reporter
11 P.O. Box 20991
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27120
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

5
1 INDEX
3 PLAINTIFFS' WITNESSES: PAGE:
5 THEODORE ALLEN, PH.D.
6 Direct Examination by Mr. Ho 28

Cross-Examination by Mr. Bowers 50
7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Farr 74
Redirect Examination by Mr. Ho 93
8 Recross-Examination by Mr. Bowers 105
Recross-Examination by Mr. Farr 106
9 Redirect Examination by Mr. Ho 110
Recross-Examination by Mr. Farr 111
10
11 EBONY N. WEST
12 Direct Examination by Ms. Callais 113

Cross-Examination by Mr. McKnight 130
13 Redirect Examination by Ms. Callais 135
14 ALLAN LICHTMAN, PH.D. (Continued)
15 Cross-Examination by Mr. Farr 137
16 SENATOR JOSHUA H. STEIN
17 Direct Examination by Mr. Fisher 164

Cross-Examination by Mr. Strach 192
18 Redirect Examination by Mr. Fisher 212
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Direct by Mr. Fisher -- Senator Stein 164
1 MR. DONOVAN: Well, but that gives you the basis.
2 Again, I go back to, in most cases, the reports don't come in.
3 That gives you -- so you can understand what the expert is
4 relying on. We are not saying that footnote is coming in, and
5 believe me, their experts have footnotes, too. Hearsay. And
6 both sides are not moving in those footnotes as substantive --
7 THE COURT: I am going to admit each of these
8 exhibits. This is a bench trial. To the extent there is a
9 source that appears to me to be unreliable, I will make my own
10 independent determination of that. All right.
11 MR. DONOVAN: Can Dr. Lichtman be excused, Your
12 Honor?
13 THE COURT: I believe so. Hold on just a minute.
14 You may step down, sir.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
16 MR. DONOVAN: Your Honor, the Plaintiffs call Senator
17 Josh Stein as our next witness.
18 SENATOR JOSHUA H. STEIN, PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS, at 2:56 a.m.,
19 being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. FISHER
22 Q Good afternoon, Senator Stein.
23 A Good afternoon.
24 Q Thank you for being with us. I understand the legislature
25 is very busy. How long have you been a member of the North

1 Carolina Senate?
2 A I was elected in 2008 and was sworn in in January of 2009.
3 Q And what district do you represent?
4 A I represent Senate District 16, which is about a third of
5 Raleigh, half of Cary, and all of Mooresville and western Wake
6 County.
7 Q When were you last re-elected?
8 A I was elected in 2014.
9 Q Do you recall the percentage of the vote that you gained
10 in that election?
11 A Just over two-thirds of the vote.
12 Q Do you serve on any committees in the Senate?
13 A I serve on a number of committees. I serve on the
14 Appropriation Subcommittee on General Government and
15 Information Technology. I serve on the Commerce Committee, the
16 Education Committee, the Finance Committee, the Judiciary I
17 Committee, the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate,
18 and I serve on a couple of other oversight committees.
19 Q And, Senator Stein, can you explain your educational
20 background?
21 A I graduated from Chapel Hill High School in 1984. I
22 attended and graduated from Dartmouth College in 1988. Then I
23 have a joint law and public policy degree from Harvard granted
24 in 1995.
25 Q And, Senator Stein, what is your professional background?

1 A I am a lawyer.
2 Q You submitted a declaration in this case prior to the
3 Court's PI hearing last summer; is that correct?
4 A I did.
5 MR. FISHER: I would like to hand up PX18A, and this
6 has been previously admitted. I am not handing it up for
7 admission of evidence, but only for the Court's reliance during
8 his testimony.
9 BY MR. FISHER
10 Q Is this a copy of the declaration that you submitted in
11 this matter, Senator Stein?
12 A It is.
13 Q And I don't want to cover all the same ground that's in
14 the declaration or all the same information the Court has
15 already heard from other legislators, but I do have a few
16 questions for you about the election law changes passed in 2013
17 by the General Assembly. Do you recall H.B. 589?
18 A I recall it very well.
19 Q Where did H.B. 589 originate?
20 A It originated in the House. That's why it's H.B. instead
21 of S.B.
22 Q What do you remember as H.B. 589 as it existed in the
23 House?
24 A In the House, it was exclusively a voter identification
25 requirement bill, about 16 -- 15, 16 pages.

1 Q And did the bill pass the House?
2 A It did.
3 Q And what happened after the bill passed the House?
4 A Well, in the House, it was subject to a number of
5 committee hearings and extensive debate. Then it came to the
6 Senate, where it sat for a few months.
7 Q What is your understanding of why it sat for a few months
8 in the Senate?
9 A It is my understanding that it sat because the Senate was
10 waiting to find out what the United States Supreme Court
11 determined --
12 MR. BOWERS: Objection, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Hold on just a minute, please. I am
14 going to sustain without further foundation.
15 BY MR. FISHER
16 Q And you are aware that the bill sat in the Senate; is that
17 correct?
18 A I am aware that it sat.
19 Q And do you have any understanding of why the bill sat in
20 the Senate?
21 A The Senate Rules Committee chairman said that --
22 MR. STRACH: Your Honor, hearsay. And we don't
23 believe that Senator Stein can testify or waive another
24 legislator's legislative immunity by testifying about
25 statements he or she may have made in Court.

1 MR. FISHER: Your Honor, we are talking about Senator
2 Stein's. We've laid the foundation. He was there. We are
3 talking about his personal experience in the Senate, and he's
4 explaining what happened in the Senate while he was there while
5 this bill was being considered or while -- in this case, while
6 it was sitting waiting to be considered.
7 THE COURT: It is still hearsay. Sustained.
8 BY MR. FISHER
9 Q You mentioned the Shelby County case; is that correct?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q And what is your understanding of the significance of
12 Shelby with regard to H.B. 589?
13 A Well, the Supreme Court in Shelby determined that the
14 criteria by which covered jurisdictions were identified under
15 Section 4 were invalid, and, therefore, North Carolina, which
16 previously for 40 counties was subject to the Section 5
17 preclearance requirements, were no longer subject to Section 5;
18 and, therefore, any election law changes would become law as
19 opposed to being submitted to the Department of Justice for
20 review.
21 Q I want to turn to the procedure for consideration of
22 H.B. 589 in the Senate. You were there for this; correct?
23 A I was.
24 Q Okay. And what committee was assigned to review H.B. 589
25 in the Senate?

1 A The Senate Rules and Operations Committee.
2 Q You mentioned earlier that you serve on this committee; is
3 that correct?
4 A I do.
5 Q Does the Rules Committee have technical expertise about
6 election law matters?
7 A Very abnormal for the Rules Committee to take an election
8 law bill. In the prior session, '11 and '12, the big bill that
9 was election law related was the voter identification law that
10 had been considered -- bill that had been considered that
11 session. It went through the Judiciary I Committee. In 2009,
12 there was a major elections bill that dealt with the
13 preregistration of high school students, among other issues.
14 That went through Judiciary Committee. The typical place for a
15 bill of this sort would be Judiciary I, not Rules and
16 Operations.
17 Q And do you recall a previous attempt by the General
18 Assembly to pass a photo voter ID bill in 2011?
19 A Yes, the one that I just referenced.
20 Q And do you recall to which committee that was assigned?
21 A The Judiciary I Committee in the Senate.
22 Q As a member of the Rules Committee, when was the first
23 time that you were able to review the Senate's version of
24 H.B. 589?
25 A It was on Monday night, I believe July 22nd, sometime

1 after 9:00 p.m., between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m.
2 Q Was this typical procedure in the Rules Committee?
3 A The typical procedure, both in Rules Committee and all
4 other committees, is that when -- a bill is noticed the day
5 before for a committee consideration. If there are changes to
6 that bill, there is a process in the North Carolina legislature
7 called a Proposed Committee Substitute, and that is where
8 whatever changes are made gets sent out a day before the
9 committee considers it so there is an opportunity to review.
10 So the fact that we got the PCSs there then, the day
11 before, is per the rules. However, such a dramatic rewrite of
12 a bill where a bill turns from a single issue, 16-page bill to
13 a multi-faceted 57-page bill is quite irregular.
14 Q You mentioned a dramatic rewrite. What did the bill that
15 you were presented with look like?
16 A It looked very much akin to the final law. There were
17 some changes along the way, but essentially it shrunk early
18 voting by a week and eliminated same-day registration. It
19 eliminated preregistration of high students. It eliminated
20 straight-ticket voting. It made a number of changes to
21 campaign finance laws. So it was essentially -- it was the
22 most dramatic rewrite of North Carolina election laws, I think,
23 in a generation.
24 Q And for a bill of this size, the bill that you just
25 described, is this typical procedure in the Rules Committee?

1 A No, not in Rules Committees nor any other committee.
2 Q What was the result of this procedure for you?
3 A Great frustration and alarm. I regularly check my email
4 late at night just to see what bills have been changed. We
5 don't know, when a bill is noticed in committee, whether it is
6 going to come out the way that it came to that committee,
7 whether it came from the House or from another Senate
8 committee, or whether there is going to be a Proposed Committee
9 Substitute. So as a rule, I try to, the night before, check my
10 computer before I go to bed to make sure that nothing has
11 happened.
12 When I opened up the email and realized that this was now
13 a 50-page bill that dramatically rewrites and restricted
14 people's opportunity to vote, I was alarmed. I studied it as
15 best I could. I actually did a post on Facebook to let the
16 world know because, otherwise, there is no way that any citizen
17 could have possibly have known what was in store in committee
18 the next day.
19 Q I think you just mentioned 9:00 p.m., is that correct,
20 when you saw the bill?
21 A After 9:00, yes.
22 Q Okay. Your other fellow senators on the Rules Committee,
23 are you aware that they are up on their computers at 9:00 p.m.
24 typically?
25 A My fellow senators are older and less computer facile than

1 I am as a mean, as a general rule.
2 Q And that's a tactful way of putting it. I understand why
3 you are a senator.
4 Now, what could you have done differently if you had had
5 more time?
6 A If I had more time, I could have -- one, more people, more
7 citizens could have known, and so there could have been greater
8 opportunity for public engagement, which when doing a law of
9 this import, size and scope, it is imperative that the people
10 have an opportunity to be heard since it was going to
11 dramatically affect their most fundamental political right,
12 their right to vote.
13 But I personally would have taken the time to do a better
14 job engaging the State Board of Elections, the Wake County
15 Board of Elections to get more data, to get more input. For
16 instance, the bill eliminated both straight-ticket voting and
17 shrunk early voting, the effect of which was to both compress
18 the voting period and to extend the amount of time each person
19 had to spend in the voting booth in order to cast their ballot.
20 And I wanted to know what analysis had been done by those
21 entities on voter -- electional administration and was not --
22 unfortunately, didn't have the opportunity to engage those
23 parties or, for that matter, really to engage not only citizens
24 but advocacy groups that had developed expertise in this area
25 over the course of time.

1 Q And in terms of the time that you needed to review the
2 bill, does it matter that H.B. 589 was, for the most part,
3 changing existing law or eliminating existing law versus
4 creating new provisions?
5 A I mean, it matters only in that if a provision were being
6 eliminated, we're eliminating same-day registration, in the
7 bill that may only take up a paragraph of language because it
8 doesn't take much to get rid of a part of the law, but in terms
9 of what its impact is throughout the general statutes, it can
10 have far reaching and, frankly, complex effects; and at first
11 blush, I didn't have that ability to understand it, and I don't
12 believe the legislature had adequate time to consider all those
13 ramifications.
14 Q And you mentioned the proceedings in the House prior to
15 the bill coming over to the Senate. Did what happened in the
16 North Carolina House prior to the bill moving over to the
17 Senate -- did that help inform your judgment about the Senate
18 version of the bill that you saw?
19 A It did. I think it brought into stark contrast the poor
20 process that occurred in the Senate. The House had a number of
21 committee hearings and a full deliberation in which, frankly,
22 the majority and minority party were able to work together to
23 amend the bill in a number of ways. And, frankly, although I
24 thought the bill as it came out of the House still went too far
25 in terms of having the impact of affecting the ability of

1 African-Americans and other minorities, young people and
2 seniors from voting, that it at least was not the most
3 stringent form of voter identification that any state had
4 considered, unlike the Senate version that ultimately became
5 law.
6 Q Prior to H.B. 589, the Senate version that you saw, do you
7 recall any debate in the North Carolina Senate concerning
8 restricting the early voting period?
9 A No.
10 Q Do you recall any debate in the North Carolina Senate
11 concerning eliminating same-day registration?
12 A No.
13 Q Do you recall any debate in the North Carolina Senate
14 concerning eliminating out-of-precinct provisional ballot?
15 A No.
16 Q Let's talk about your participation in the Rules Committee
17 hearing. So what happened in the Rules Committee hearing when
18 the bill was presented?
19 A What happened was that the bill sponsor, who was
20 Senator Rucho, or the bill manager, presented generally what he
21 understood the bill to do. And then as is typical in a long
22 technical detailed bill like this with many, many parts, staff
23 then presented what the import was briefly, what the import was
24 of each of those parts; and then the committee was opened up to
25 questions by members.

1 Q And did you bring anything with you that day?
2 A I did.
3 Q Okay. What did you bring?
4 A I had had some data on the -- on early voting and on
5 same-day registration, and I brought that with me.
6 Q And is that reflected on Exhibit A of Plaintiffs'
7 Exhibit 18, that declaration that you have in front of you?
8 A It is.
9 Q Is Exhibit A this chart that you bought with you to the
10 Rules Committee hearing?
11 A It is.
12 Q Where did you get that chart?
13 A The chart is derived from data by -- from -- of data by
14 the State Board of Elections, and so it is an Excel
15 spreadsheet, and it is branded the Southern Coalition for
16 Southern Justice. And what I don't remember, frankly, was
17 whether I got it from the Southern Coalition or I got it from
18 Democracy North Carolina, but those were two groups that I had
19 tried to reach out to the morning of the Rules Committee
20 meeting.
21 Q Okay. So you requested this the morning of the Rules
22 Committee hearing; is that right?
23 A Yes, the best of my recollection.
24 Q Do you often get information from the Southern Coalition
25 or from Democracy now?

1 A I do. More commonly from Democracy North Carolina. They
2 are just there more, and they deal with campaign finance issues
3 as well as voting rights issues, but certainly I meet with both
4 groups.
5 Q And have you found information from both of those groups
6 to be reliable?
7 A Very reliable, because it is all derived from public data
8 from the State Board of Elections or from the Department of
9 Motor Vehicles.
10 Q And can you just talk generally about what Exhibit A
11 shows?
12 A It shows a number of things. Most importantly, it shows
13 the extent of early voting and the occurrence of early voting
14 over the 17-day period and the demographic breakdown of voting
15 by day over that time. It also shows the utilization of
16 same-day registration over the period during which same-day
17 registration was authorized, again broken down by day and
18 demographically.
19 Q Okay. So if we bring up page 2 of Exhibit A -- and I am
20 going to hand up Plaintiffs' Exhibit 717, which is just page 2
21 of Exhibit A in color.
22 A Uh-huh.
23 Q Senator Stein, does this represent -- Plaintiffs'
24 Exhibit 171, does that represent page 2 of Exhibit A of your
25 declaration?

1 A It does.
2 Q What does that show?
3 A It shows over the 17 days of early voting, the total
4 amount of votes cast each day and, again, broken down by race.
5 And then it's demonstrated graphically the use by white North
6 Carolinians of early voting and by African-American North
7 Carolinians of early voting.
8 Q And, Senator Stein, this chart represents the early voting
9 period as it existed in 2012; is that right?
10 A Yes. It is of 2012 general election data, so correct.
11 Q Okay. I am going to bring one more thing up to you. It
12 is not a calculator. It's a Sharpie.
13 So, Senator Stein, could you take a look at Plaintiffs'
14 Exhibit 717. And I am going to ask you to make a line on that
15 chart and, while you are doing it, describe where you are
16 making that line, hold it up for us after you're done.
17 Can you make a line on that chart showing me the days of
18 early voting that H.B. 589 would have eliminated from the 2012
19 election early voting period?
20 A My handwriting is less than ideal, but it is between the
21 Wednesday and Thursday, the 24th and 25th. The first week is
22 no more.
23 Q Okay. Can you take a look at the monitor and see if that
24 represents the same line that you just drew on your version?
25 A It does.

1 Q Okay. So what do we see on the chart before the line that
2 you drew? And that would be representing the portion of early
3 voting eliminated by H.B. 589; correct?
4 A Correct. What we see -- well, we see two things. One is
5 the red-dotted horizontal line shows the average over the
6 period of African-American utilization of early voting, and it
7 is about -- it is 34 -- no, 29 percent, excuse me, 29 percent.
8 And what the first 7 days show, because the red line is above
9 that dotted line, that even though African-Americans vote
10 early, disproportionately did in November 2012, they voted at
11 an even greater rate than they did over the average period of
12 time of early voting in that first 7 days.
13 Q Okay. And the portion after the red line, which is the
14 portion of early voting retained by H.B. 589, what does that
15 portion of the graph show?
16 A It shows that over that period of time, that the
17 performance by whites exceeded what their overall performance
18 was in early vote and African-Americans voted at a lower rate
19 than they did over the overall course of early voting.
20 Q And is this information that you communicated to your
21 fellow senators?
22 A I did.
23 Q Okay. And what was the response of your fellow senators
24 to this information?
25 A There was not --

1 MR. STRACH: Your Honor, we are going to object to
2 this testimony just to the extent that it attempts to describe
3 anything outside of what's already been transcribed in the
4 legislative record.
5 THE COURT: Sustained. You can limit your comments
6 to what occurred on the floor of the Senate.
7 THE WITNESS: I can do that.
8 BY MR. FISHER
9 Q I can ask it again. What was the response on the record,
10 on the legislative record, of your fellow senators to this
11 information?
12 A There was really no -- there was no substantive response
13 other than that administratively it was -- 17 days was too long
14 and that there was inconsistency among counties in early
15 voting.
16 Q Any response to the disproportionate impact on
17 African-Americans?
18 A None.
19 Q Did you discuss in-person voting fraud during the Rules
20 Committee hearing?
21 A I did.
22 Q And what do you know, if anything, about the prevalence of
23 voter fraud in North Carolina?
24 A I had -- during the 2011 debate on voter identification
25 requirements, I had asked the State Board of Elections for

1 their data of in-person voter fraud, and they provided that
2 for -- from 2000 to 2010. And then in 2013, I asked them to
3 amend it giving the data from 2012, and what it showed was that
4 of 40 million votes cast in primary and general elections, in
5 just the even years, not the municipal elections, that there
6 were two instances of reported in-person voter fraud.
7 Q Now, over the last week, we've heard about a study by the
8 SBOE concerning voter ID possession rates. Were you aware of
9 that study?
10 A I was.
11 Q And what did that study show?
12 A It showed that African-Americans disproportionately who
13 were registered voters did not have a driver's license or a
14 state identification card. I believe the percentage was
15 34 percent; whereas, their voting percentage is 22, 23 percent.
16 Q Were your fellow senators aware of this study?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Did any members of the public testify at the Rules
19 Committee hearing?
20 A There were. There were about ten.
21 Q What did they say?
22 A They said a variety of things. I mean, they were
23 unanimously and vigorously opposed to the bill. No one spoke
24 in favor of the bill. Two of them spoke to the
25 disproportionate racial impact of --

1 MR. STRACH: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
2 THE COURT: If it's part of the public record.
3 MR. STRACH: We don't object if it's in the
4 legislative record. I am not recalling this offhand, but we
5 want to object to the extent it is not in the public
6 legislative record.
7 THE COURT: If you can limit your response to what
8 your recall in the legislative record. Ultimately, the record
9 is already before me. I know I've read it because I read it
10 several times a year ago. So, ultimately, I will be guided by
11 what's in the public record.
12 BY MR. FISHER
13 Q What did the Rules Committee ultimately do, Senator Stein?
14 A The Rules Committee ultimately reported favorably the
15 Proposed Committee Substitute as amended. That's the technical
16 term. What it meant is it voted it out to be referred to the
17 floor.
18 Q And what happens after a bill is voted out of the
19 committee?
20 A If it has a serial referral, it will go to the other
21 committee. This bill had no serial referral, so it went
22 straight to the floor.
23 Q Let's move to the proceedings on the Senate floor. Could
24 you describe your role in the Senate floor debates on H.B. 589?
25 A I was an active participant during the debates.

1 Q Did you propose any amendments?
2 A I proposed an amendment, yes.
3 Q And why did you propose this amendment?
4 A I was very concerned about the impact on North Carolinians
5 about this reduction in early voting, and Senator Rucho had
6 made a comment or two about counties being able to extend their
7 hours, but there was no requirement that they do so.
8 And so my amendment had the effect of requiring that
9 however many hours a county had in aggregate in 2010, they had
10 to have at least that many in aggregate -- over 17 days, they
11 had to have that many over 10 days in off-year elections; and
12 however many there were in 2012 in the Presidential years, they
13 had to have that number in a future Presidential year.
14 Q What ultimately happened with that amendment?
15 A It ultimately passed.
16 Q Okay. Were there any other amendments passed that had an
17 effect on that amendment?
18 A Yes. There was an amendment offered by Senator Rucho that
19 fixed some problems with the language as drafted, but it also
20 served to allow counties an out; whereas, my amendment didn't
21 have that. So in one way it improved the language; in another
22 way it weakened it.
23 Q Were any amendments offered that would have mitigated
24 H.B. 589's effect on minority voters for that purpose?
25 A They were a number of amendments offered that -- amendment

1 offered by Senator McKissick to require a 17-day early voting
2 period in a Presidential general year, so just that one
3 November period. That was defeated. An amendment offered by
4 Senator Kinnaird to have a -- put the sunset on this so that we
5 could see what the effect was and then it would go away after
6 time and then -- unless the legislature reconsidered it and
7 deemed it worthwhile.
8 There was an amendment by Senator Robinson to make
9 parallel the identification requirements of voting absentee,
10 which -- in which fraud occurs at a thousand times the rate as
11 it does in in-person, but have the in-person requirements match
12 those, which are less, and, frankly, is very similar to what
13 the legislature just passed a few weeks ago on voter
14 identification.
15 There was an amendment by Senator Bryant to retain
16 straight-ticket voting, and there was an amendment by
17 Senator Graham to preserve preregistration of high school
18 voters and to allow college identifications in voter ID.
19 And in each of those amendments, there was extended debate
20 on each, but Senator Robinson talked about the disparate racial
21 impact of voter ID. Senator Bryant talked about how
22 African-Americans utilized straight-ticket voting at a higher
23 rate than white voters.
24 And throughout, I addressed the racial impact of the voter
25 ID requirement, the same-day registration, the early voting,

1 and straight-ticket voting and the disparate impact on young
2 people for the same-day registration, the preregistration, and
3 the fact that the Senate, unlike the House, no longer permitted
4 college identifications as a suitable form of ID.
5 Q What else might happen to all those amendments that you've
6 described?
7 A All those amendments were defeated.
8 Q Did you inform the full Senate on the floor, as you did
9 the Rules Committee, of the impact that H.B. 589 would have on
10 voters?
11 A I did. I both did it in my statements and I also
12 submitted for the record -- the legislature, a couple years
13 ago, Your Honor, went from paper to electronic, and we have a
14 screen, a common screen which is only available to members
15 called the Dashboard. And on the Dashboard is the bill or if
16 there's an amendment that's being considered, whatever the
17 current item is, and you can also submit for the Dashboard any
18 documents to which you refer. So there's no longer paper
19 that's being circulated on the floor.
20 And I submitted four pages of my declaration, the pages
21 that showed the disproportionate racial impact of eliminating
22 early voting and the disproportionate racial impact of same-day
23 registration.
24 Q Okay. And you are referring to the pages from
25 Exhibit A --

1 A That's correct.
2 Q -- being put on Dashboard for the other senators to look
3 at; is that right?
4 A Correct. It's available to them for review. It's pulled
5 up when I am discussing it, but it's also there as a permanent
6 record for them to review.
7 Q Let's take a look at some of your statements on the first
8 day of the floor debates, July 24th, if we could.
9 A Okay.
10 Q Do you see the highlights portion there? And this is
11 page 18. Could you go ahead and read that portion for me?
12 A Yes. "The next page of that chart actually shows who
13 votes, and what you will see is that in the first seven days of
14 North Carolina, the experience has been that African-Americans
15 disproportionately vote on the first seven days of early
16 voting, which coincidentally are the days that you all are
17 stripping out of the early vote process."
18 Q Okay. Moving on to the next section.
19 THE COURT: Is this in the full Senate?
20 THE WITNESS: This is to the full Senate, sir.
21 "You all would be shocked to know that it's
22 African-Americans, Hispanic, younger, and first-time voters who
23 are disproportionately affected by reduction in early voting.
24 I am sure you all are shocked of that reality."
25 BY MR. FISHER

1 Q And these are your statements in addition to what you
2 presented on the Dashboard; is that correct?
3 A Correct. If you -- when you read the record, there are
4 multiple instances where my fellow senators who supported the
5 bill and opposed me would argue that what I said were just
6 facts, Stein facts. And I figured that if I gave them the
7 actual data, they didn't have to look at my words; they could
8 actually look at the data from which I made my assertions.
9 Q Did any of your fellow senators on the record deny that
10 African-Americans used the first week of early voting more
11 heavily on average than white voters?
12 A No.
13 Q Let's take a look at your statements from the next day of
14 floor debates, and that's July 25th. We'll start on page 30.
15 Go ahead and read that portion for me.
16 A "The bill ends same-day registration. In the last
17 election, 100,000 people did this. That is fantastic. Do you
18 know why we instituted registration before election? It was
19 done by Democrats in the late 1900s" -- I think I said 1800s.
20 I meant to if I didn't -- "to minimize the participation of
21 African-Americans in the election. By eliminating same-day
22 registration, you all are going back to the sorry old history
23 that we should not embrace."
24 Q And the next section.
25 A "It will disproportionately affect minorities. Minorities

1 take advantage of early vote and, in particular, the first week
2 of early vote more than the general population. They take
3 advantage of same-day registration, like college students do,
4 more than the general population. They disproportionately
5 don't have driver's licenses, and the biggest instance where
6 they do these things disproportionately, as Senator Bryant
7 talked about yesterday, was straight-party vote. You wrap all
8 these election changes into one."
9 Q Did any of your fellow senators on the record challenge
10 your assertion that African-Americans used same-day
11 registration more heavily on average than white voters?
12 A No.
13 Q You also mentioned college students and preregistration;
14 is that correct?
15 A I did.
16 Q Did you also discuss photo identification on the Senate
17 floor that day?
18 A I did.
19 Q Did you again note, as you did in the Rules Committee
20 hearing, that a disproportionate number of African-Americans
21 lacked a qualifying photo ID?
22 A I did. That was the quote I just gave.
23 Q Did any of your fellow senators on the record challenge
24 your assertion that African-Americans disproportionately lacked
25 photo identification in North Carolina?

1 A No, none.
2 Q So despite the evidence and facts that you've described,
3 did the Senate ultimately pass H.B. 589 and refer the bill over
4 to the House?
5 A It did.
6 Q And in doing so, did the North Carolina General Assembly
7 depart from its customary procedure in passing H.B. 589?
8 A Yes, in that when one considers this bill, the scope of
9 it, the seriousness of the rights affected, people's ability to
10 participate in their democracy, and that it went from a
11 committee to being enrolled, meaning that it passed both the
12 Senate and the House in a two-day period, I can think of no
13 other instances in my seven years of service where something
14 affecting such a fundamental right was rushed through with such
15 little deliberation.
16 At the end of the day, there were ten people -- ten North
17 Carolinians who got to speak for a total of 20 minutes in one
18 committee meeting before there was this dramatic rewrite of
19 North Carolina election laws that had been layered in over the
20 past 20 years with the sole purpose of redressing our
21 historical legacy of African-Americans not participating in
22 their democracy -- in our democracy to the extent the
23 population would merit. And as a result of those reforms,
24 we've had a dramatic improvement in performance -- these
25 reforms not only helped African-Americans, they helped all

1 North Carolinians.
2 So when North Carolina in 1988 was ranked 48th in the
3 nation in terms of the percentage of its people who voted in a
4 Presidential election at 45 percent to 24 years later being
5 ranked 11th with 65 percent of the state voting in that
6 Presidential election, white participation increased but
7 African-Americans participation increased even more, which
8 served the purpose of mitigating the legacy of Jim Crow. And
9 to see these reforms that had benefited our entire state
10 eviscerated in a two-day process in the General Assembly I
11 thought was outrageous.
12 Q I would like to ask you just a few questions about your
13 understanding of the reasoning behind the provisions of
14 H.B. 589. While you were participating in the debate on the
15 bill, did you become aware of stated reasons in support?
16 A The primary stated reason --
17 THE COURT: These are the reasons on the floor?
18 THE WITNESS: On the floor on the record, yes, sir.
19 THE COURT: All right.
20 THE WITNESS: -- were to promote the integrity of the
21 elections process, and that was the go-to explanation. And,
22 for instance, one of my colleagues, Senator Tillman, made an
23 argument about integrity, and I asked him, I said -- on the
24 floor, he yielded for my question. I said, Senator Tillman,
25 how does ending preregistration of high school students or

1 ending straight-ticket voting meet a practice that two and a
2 half million North Carolinians utilized -- how do either of
3 those eliminations enhance integrity? And he didn't have a
4 response to that.
5 Q Did any legislators on the record provide a rationale for
6 eliminating out-of-precinct provisional ballots?
7 A No. And that is a perfect example of how the rushed
8 process I think was abusive in that the only mention I recall
9 of out-of-precinct voting by anyone in the two days was by one
10 of the citizens, who spoke in the 20 minutes that the Rules
11 Committee chairman allowed, talked about the disproportionate
12 racial impact that the out-of-precinct voting elimination would
13 have on African-American voters. And after that, I don't even
14 remember it in the two days of floor debate. And I frankly
15 believe that if there were more time and more deliberation,
16 that issue would have been brought to the floor, and we, as
17 elected representatives, would have been able to give it
18 adequate consideration, and as it were, we did not.
19 Q Do you believe that protecting the integrity of elections
20 was the real reason for the bill?
21 A I don't.
22 Q Based on your participation in the legislative debate on
23 H.B. 589, were bill supporters in the Senate aware of your
24 concerns about the bill and similar concerns of other bill
25 opponents about the effect of H.B. 589 on African-American

1 voters?
2 MR. STRACH: Objection to speculation.
3 THE COURT: Sustained without any further foundation.
4 BY MR. FISHER
5 Q You presented evidence concerning the effect of H.B. 589
6 on African-American voters; is that correct?
7 A I did. I both presented evidence -- documentary evidence
8 as well as my advocacy, and it was for full consideration by
9 the Senate.
10 Q And other senators on the record mentioned
11 disproportionate impacts on African-Americans; is that correct?
12 A Senator Bryant talked about it as it related to
13 straight-ticket voting, Senator Robinson as it related to voter
14 identification, Senator Graham as it related to preregistration
15 and same-day registration, and Senator Parmon spoke
16 passionately on the bill as a whole and its racial impact, as
17 did Senator Nesbitt.
18 Q And the supporters of H.B. 589 were in the chamber and
19 heard those statements; is that right?
20 A Yes. They may not have all been in the chamber at all
21 moments; but, yes, the supporters could not have not -- they
22 could not have not heard us, if that is English.
23 MR. FISHER: Thank you, Senator Stein.
24 THE COURT: Do you know how long your cross is? I am
25 contemplating taking our afternoon break.

Cross by Mr. Strach -- Senator Stein 192
1 MR. STRACH: I would say more than 20 minutes.
2 THE COURT: Let's take -- do you have time to do
3 that?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do.
5 THE COURT: Let's take our 20-minute break, and then
6 we'll come back.
7 (The Court recessed at 3:35 p.m.)
8 (The Court was called to order at 3:57 p.m.)
9 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Strach.
10 MR. STRACH: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. STRACH
13 Q Good afternoon, Senator Stein. My name is Phil Strach,
14 one of the lawyers for the Defendants. I just have a few
15 questions for you. Senator Stein, you mentioned that the House
16 Bill 589, when it came from the House, I think it was maybe 16
17 pages or so; is that correct?
18 A I did.
19 Q And it went to about 57 pages when you got the PCS out of
20 the Senate; correct?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q Do you know how many provisions of that 57-page bill are
23 actually being challenged in this lawsuit?
24 A I don't know precisely.
25 Q Have you counted up the number of pages of that bill that

1 constitute the pieces actually being challenged in this
2 lawsuit?
3 A I have not.
4 Q Would it surprise you to know that it is only about 16 or
5 17 pages?
6 A It would not, because, as I mentioned, when you are
7 eliminating things like same-day registration, straight-ticket
8 voting, preregistration, to eliminate something, you just say
9 section so and so is abolished or is no more; and so to
10 eliminate things really doesn't take up many pages.
11 Q All right. Now, you agree with me, don't you, that in the
12 passage of House Bill 589, there were no formal rules that the
13 legislature violated; is that correct?
14 A I cannot think of any.
15 Q All right. And you yourself didn't raise any points of
16 order during the legislative process on House Bill 589, did
17 you?
18 A I do not believe that I did.
19 Q All right. The point of order is the -- would be the way
20 that you would bring to the attention of the majority a
21 possible violation of the rules; correct?
22 A It would be to bring it to any presiding officer, who
23 would then rule on that point of order, yes.
24 Q You mentioned in your direct testimony that you received
25 the PCS around 9:00 in the evening because you checked your

1 email; is that correct?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q And you said it was common for you to check your email to
4 make sure you hadn't gotten any important legislative matters
5 at that time of the night; correct?
6 A I try to, yes.
7 Q Isn't it true that you had gotten other important PCS
8 versions of other bills at that time of the night?
9 A I'm sure that I had.
10 Q And you said that the Rules Committee meeting would be the
11 next day; correct?
13 Q You stated that that didn't give you much time to marshal
14 help from outside groups and individuals; is that correct?
15 A Certainly not adequate or sufficient time, no.
16 Q Now, you agree with me that there are bills already
17 pending in the legislature to eliminate SDR; correct?
18 A I have no idea. The fact of the matter is is in any given
19 session there's probably 3,000 bills introduced. Only a small
20 fraction of those ever get heard in a committee, and of those
21 that get heard in the committee, a host of them get completely
22 rewritten at the time of the committee in form of a PCS; and so
23 it is not a productive use of time to read every idea that
24 every legislator has in the form of a bill. And so there may
25 have been a bill, but it was never discussed and I didn't know

1 of it.
2 Q Do you think that if there was a bill pending to eliminate
3 SDR that election advocacy groups would have read it and
4 started preparing for it?
5 A They may have.
6 Q All right. Isn't that why -- isn't it true that the
7 Exhibit A to your declaration -- would you agree with me that
8 was a fairly significant or substantial analysis of the bill by
9 likely Southern Coalition for Social Justice?
10 A It was certainly a helpful analysis, yes.
11 Q And you were able to obtain this between the time you got
12 the PCS and the Rules Committee meeting the next day; correct?
13 A Correct.
14 Q Now, regarding the information in Exhibit A -- would you
15 all mind pulling that back up on the screen, PX717.
16 Senator Stein, we've pulled PX717 back up on the computer
17 screen. I believe this was one page of the SCSJ information
18 that you brought with you to the Rules Committee meeting; is
19 that correct?
20 A It is.
21 Q And then you also brought this information with you to the
22 full Senate floor debate on H.B. 589; is that correct?
23 A It is correct.
24 Q And regarding this particular information from SCSJ, you
25 said that it was loaded on something called the Dashboard.

1 That was basically on a computer screen for each senator at
2 their desk?
3 A It is exactly what we have here for the witness. Each
4 member gets to choose their form of technology, whether it is a
5 computer or a tablet; but on that piece of hardware, there is
6 access to software which is called the Dashboard. It will show
7 the current item being discussed or the amendment or the bill,
8 or you can toggle and look at the calendar as a whole.
9 Q How many pages of information did you ask to be loaded
10 onto the Dashboard?
11 A For the graphs, it was four pages. It was the page
12 showing the utilization of same-day registration and the
13 demographic impact, and then same thing with early voting, the
14 utilization of early voting and the demographic.
15 I also submitted a law review article on the impact of
16 early voting on Florida, the reduction of early voting in
17 Florida and its disproportionate impact on African-Americans.
18 I don't remember how long that journal article was.
19 Q Would all that have been loaded into the Dashboard at the
20 same time?
21 A It would have been, and available to any member at any
22 time.
23 Q For a member to actually review that, would they have to
24 scroll through it page by page?
25 A For the law review article, yes. The graph came up, and

1 it was on their screen.
2 Q And was that just one graph per issue that came up on the
3 screen?
4 A It was.
5 Q So they would have to scroll through each graph to review
6 each graph; correct?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q And you have no idea whether each senator, in fact,
9 reviewed each one of those graphs during that debate, do you?
10 A I don't know whether each senator reviewed each graph.
11 Q All right. And during the actual debate on the Senate
12 floor, you did not read the information from these graphs to
13 your colleagues on the Senate floor, did you?
14 A I believe what I said was African-Americans vote at a
15 higher rate than the general population in the first week of
16 early voting, and that African-Americans would be
17 disproportionately affected by the elimination of same-day
18 registration and that African-Americans would be
19 disproportionately affected by the percentage who do not have
20 driver's licenses.
21 I know that Senator Robinson said that 34 percent of
22 African-American -- registered voters without licenses were
23 African-American, and I know that Senator Bryant said that
24 80 percent of African-Americans utilized straight-ticket voting
25 as compared to 45 percent of whites. And so the statistics

1 were out there and the general import was out there.
2 Q Okay. With respect to SDR and early voting, you
3 characterized the numbers as having a disproportionate impact
4 in your remarks to the Senate; but it is true, right, that you
5 did not give the senators the actual numbers?
6 A I did not give the actual numbers, I don't believe. I
7 talked about its general import and I put the graphs up there
8 so that the fact checkers among them could ascertain whether
9 what I was saying was true.
10 Q And you have no idea if they did that or not?
11 A I don't know. I mean, I know some did because it was on
12 the screen. Whether all of them, I can't speak.
13 Q All right. And, in fact, if they were, if they had
14 happened to look down at the screen and scroll through and come
15 across this particular document, for instance, PX717, the first
16 thing that would come out at them on this page would be the
17 graph in the middle, don't you think?
18 A I would think so.
19 Q All right. And isn't it true that one thing -- one item
20 of information that this graph demonstrates is that whites use
21 early voting in raw numbers much more than black voters?
22 A It's true. I actually made that point as it related -- I
23 actually made it on a partisan basis as it related to early
24 voting and same-day registration -- I mean and straight-ticket
25 voting, that these were utilized by whites and by Republicans,

1 just not at the same rate.
2 Q So you were making the point that Republicans would be
3 hurt by this bill as well?
4 A I was making the point that North Carolinians would be
5 hurt and that African-Americans would be hurt
6 disproportionately.
7 Q And you were making the point to the majority Republican
8 Senate caucus that Republicans would get hurt, too; is that
9 correct?
10 A I was trying to find a way that might dissuade them from
11 what I thought was their course.
12 Q My question was, was the answer -- was that -- was I
13 correct?
14 A Restate your question, if you don't mind.
15 Q You were trying to persuade the Republican Senate majority
16 that this H.B. 589 would also hurt Republicans; isn't that
17 correct?
18 A I did.
19 Q Now, Senator Stein, are you aware of the participation
20 rates for early voting by race in the 2014 election?
21 A I have not studied those numbers.
22 Q All right. Have you -- did you know that black voters
23 used early voting in the 2014 elections at a higher rate than
24 white voters?
25 A I did not know that, but nor am I surprised because they

1 had already shown a propensity to do early voting at a higher
2 rate, and so the fact that the number of days had shrunk
3 wouldn't necessarily result in African-Americans using it less.
4 It's just fewer African-Americans would have been afforded the
5 opportunity to take advantage of that.
6 Q So as it turned out, African-Americans as a group were not
7 negatively impacted by the loss of seven days of early voting;
8 is that correct?
9 A I have no idea.
10 Q With respect -- let's stay on early voting for a second.
11 You mentioned Senator Rucho's amendment that was suggested by
12 you to require what I will call the matching-hours requirement.
13 A Uh-huh.
14 Q Do you recall your testimony on that?
15 A I do.
16 Q And you also mentioned that there was a subsequent
17 amendment allowing a waiver process; is that correct?
18 A Not entirely accurate. On the first day of Senate voting,
19 I offered an amendment that was accepted that had the
20 matching-hours requirement. On the second day -- but there was
21 some technical drafting problems with that amendment. So we
22 needed to clean it up.
23 And in the course of doing that, on the second day of
24 Senate debate, that was offered by Senator Rucho, and it had a
25 couple of other provisions in it that I described in my direct

1 testimony.
2 Q And that's what I've just characterized as the waiver
3 process?
4 A Correct.
5 Q And isn't it true, Senator Stein, that you voted for
6 Senator Rucho's amendment that created the waiver process?
7 A I did.
8 Q Now, are you aware of a term that I understand is used in
9 the building called "gut and amend"?
10 A I am aware.
11 Q Can you describe what that process is?
12 A Gut and amend is when a bill that is being considered in a
13 committee, the substance of which is taken out, stripped out,
14 and other substance put in in its place in the form of a PCS,
15 and then it's considered by that committee.
16 Q All right. And oftentimes it's replaced with material and
17 language completely unrelated to what was there originally;
18 correct?
19 A It can be.
20 Q And isn't that a process that happens quite a bit in the
21 legislature?
22 A When it usually occurs is when it's toward the end of a
23 session and a chamber has already passed a substantive
24 provision on that bill, but, for whatever reason, the other
25 chamber isn't acting on it. And so if a Senate bill goes to

1 the House, it has to go through one or two House committees and
2 then come to the floor. It may be changed; in which case, it
3 comes back to the Senate, and the Senate has to vote to concur
4 or not concur. If they don't concur, it goes to conference.
5 So that whole process can change dramatically, and it
6 gives the other chamber a lot of power over the outcome of that
7 bill. So if -- a chamber which has already dealt with an issue
8 and has a strong view on that issue, what they will do to
9 hamstring the other chamber sometimes is they will take a House
10 bill, strip it out, put in substantive language that's already
11 been fully debated by that Senate, and then the Senate will
12 send it over. At that point, the House can either vote to
13 concur or to not concur. They don't have an opportunity to
14 amend it. It can go to conference where it can be negotiated.
15 So it's a way -- but it is generally done when a bill has
16 already been fully vetted by the chamber before it's done.
17 Q But it is not unusual through the gut-and-amend process
18 for a bill that originates in one chamber to be changed
19 substantially, if not completely, in the other chamber?
20 A I would say that it occurs not frequently, but it occurs.
21 Q All right. Does it occur too frequently for your taste?
22 A Yes, I can safely say that.
23 Q Are you familiar with a bill from the last legislative
24 session that was known as the Sharia Law bill?
25 A I am very familiar with the Sharia Law bill.

1 Q And was that a bill that was subjected to this
2 gut-and-amend process?
3 A It was.
4 Q Can you describe it to me?
5 A Yeah. It was a House bill having to do with the
6 application of Sharia Law in North Carolina courts, and I
7 believe that it went through the Rules Committee in a similarly
8 politicized fashion and came out keeping the Sharia Law
9 provision. So it wasn't stripped, but it was amended to
10 include a host of antiabortion restrictions.
11 Q So -- I'm sorry --
12 A I was just going to talk through the process. I didn't
13 mean to interrupt.
14 Q So the Sharia Law piece of it stayed in the bill, but it
15 added some, what some might argue, unrelated pieces of
16 legislation and put it all in as one big passage?
17 A It did. It did exactly that, and the Senate passed it and
18 it was ran through quickly. Fundamental difference between
19 that bill and this bill, even though they both affected
20 constitutional rights, is that that bill then went to the
21 House, where it was sent to a committee and deliberated, and,
22 in fact, after some time, what they did, the House, was they
23 gutted and amended a Senate bill and sent over a version back
24 to the Senate for consideration after there had been public
25 hearings on it. And that whole process took about a month from

1 the time it was first heard in Rules Committee until it was
2 enrolled; whereas, this bill, which affects the most
3 fundamental of rights, took two days.
4 Q Now, isn't it correct at the end of this process, though,
5 eventually it came back to the House on a concurrence vote?
6 A It did.
7 Q All right. And then didn't it pass on a motion to concur
8 at the very end of the session?
9 A No.
10 Q That's not your recollection?
11 A That's not what happened. What happened was the House
12 refused to take the House bill that we sent over, the Sharia
13 Law bill, and instead they took the substance of the
14 abortion -- antiabortion provisions and inserted it into a
15 motorcycle bill that was a Senate bill, and then the House sent
16 over to the Senate a motorcycle bill. So it became -- it was
17 sort of what they were calling the motorcycle abortion bill.
18 So what started as the Senate Sharia abortion bill became the
19 motorcycle abortion bill, and that's what became law.
20 Q All right. But in any event, the legislative history of
21 the bill is on the General Assembly's website and would speak
22 for itself?
23 A Absolutely, it is, yes; and if I'm wrong, I am happy to be
24 corrected.
25 Q In speaking of concurrence, when a bill originates, say,

1 in the House, goes to the Senate, gets changed, comes back to
2 the House, and in that example, the proper procedure is it has
3 to be voted on concurrence, either for or against, before
4 anything else can happen with the bill; is that correct?
5 A No, that's not correct. What can happen, and typically
6 happens, will be that the House -- if it's a substantive bill
7 affecting substantive rights that involves matters which have
8 not been properly deliberated, the House will typically refer
9 it to a committee for review and recommendation to the floor
10 for concurrence.
11 Q Can you give me an example of any bill this session where
12 that's been done?
13 MR. FISHER: Objection, relevance. We are talking
14 about H.B. 589 passed in 2013. I think that was the subject of
15 Senator Stein's direct testimony.
16 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 THE WITNESS: There is a bill that's happening today.
18 There was a House bill on regulatory reform that pertained to
19 one issue, and it came to the Senate and, coincidentally
20 enough, I think it was a 57-page bill the Senate came up with
21 and sent it back to the House, and the House did not vote to
22 concur. I don't know if they voted to concur. I don't think
23 they did. They sent it to a committee for review, and there is
24 a public hearing on that today.
25

1 BY MR. STRACH
2 Q So in addition to sending it to a committee, another
3 option is for the House, or whichever chamber receives the bill
4 back, to vote on a motion to concur or a motion not to concur;
5 isn't that correct?
6 A That is an option.
7 Q And if they vote -- it can't be sent to a conference
8 committee until it's been voted on concurrence; correct?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q And if a bill goes to a conference committee, a conference
11 committee is appointed by the House and the Senate; is that
12 right?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And then the conference committee typically meets; is that
15 right?
16 A No. Typically, a member or two of the conference
17 committee meets and negotiates something.
18 Q And they don't usually do that in public, do they?
19 A Often not, no.
20 Q So, basically, the bill is then negotiated in the
21 conference committee in secret, and a final version is brought
22 back to both chambers; is that correct?
24 Q And when it comes back to the chamber out of conference
25 committee, the only option that each chamber has is to vote it

1 up or down; is that correct?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q There is no opportunity for amendments and that sort of
4 thing; is that right?
5 A You are right.
6 Q Just in the same way when House Bill 589 came back to the
7 House on a concurrence vote, there was also no opportunity for
8 amendment; is that correct?
9 A That's correct. House Bill 589 could not be amended, but
10 the House had in its opportunity to send it for a committee for
11 discussion or to do what they did on the abortion bill, which
12 is to take the pieces they like, put it in a Senate bill, and
13 send it back. But as I said -- maybe I didn't say, but the
14 House took the 589 voter restriction law up the very same day
15 Senate passed third reading. So that's why it only took two
16 days for it to become enrolled from the first committee
17 meeting.
18 Q Were you in the -- you were not in the legislature in
19 2005; is that correct?
20 A I was not.
21 Q Are you familiar with the bill passed in the legislature
22 in 2005 reconfirming out-of-precinct voting?
23 A I was not -- I am not familiar. I am sorry.
24 Q Do you know any background about that at all?
25 A I don't.

1 Q You were not in the legislature in 2003 either; correct?
2 A Correct.
3 Q Do you have any background or information on the 2003
4 redistricting plan that was passed in the special session that
5 year?
6 A Just what I read in the newspapers.
7 Q We don't want to hear about what you read in the
8 newspapers.
9 In speaking of out-of-precinct voting, during the Senate
10 debate on 589 that's on the floor of the Senate, as I
11 recollect -- and you may have testified to this already --
12 there was no debate on the out-of-precinct provision at all; is
13 that correct?
14 A I don't recall any debate.
15 Q And so the -- none of the -- your colleagues in the
16 Democratic Caucus on the floor raised any complaints, at least
17 on the floor, about out-of-precinct voting; is that correct?
18 A I am embarrassed to admit, but it slipped by us.
19 Q Are you familiar with the process that the State Board of
20 Elections uses to verify registrations through the mail?
21 A Generally. Not expert, but, yes, I am generally aware.
22 Q What is your understanding of the mail verification
23 process?
24 A That if you register to vote, they will send a letter to
25 you confirming your registration. If you don't -- if it comes

1 back to them, they will send a second letter, and then after
2 that, my understanding is they will take you off the rolls.
3 Q All right. Are you familiar with any reports that the
4 State Board of Elections did on mail verification?
5 A No.
6 Q Are you familiar with a bill from the 2013 session, Senate
7 Bill 666?
8 A I am not.
9 Q Does that ring a bell?
10 A If you give me the title or its import, maybe I will
11 remember.
12 Q It had to do with tax exemption for parents of college
13 students who voted in their college town. Do you recall that?
14 A I do recall that. I think it was Senator Cook.
15 Q Yes.
16 A Yes, I recall that.
17 Q Do you recall what committee that bill was referred to?
18 A I assume Rules, because Rules is primarily where bills go
19 to die. My understanding was that that was not a popular bill,
20 and the leadership realized early on that that was not one they
21 wanted to move.
22 Q It was an elections bill that went to Rules; correct?
23 A To die.
24 Q And it was a bill that you did not expect to be passed?
25 A I did not expect it to be passed.

1 Q When a bill is heard in a committee, Senator Stein, is the
2 chairman of that committee required to let members of public
3 speak?
4 A It is typical. What will happen in a committee is that
5 the -- this is the typical form. The bill sponsor will speak
6 briefly. Staff will give whatever additional comments they
7 have. The committee will debate and ask questions, and then
8 the committee chairman will ask for public comment. I don't
9 know that there is a rule that requires that, although it is
10 certainly the course -- standard course of business.
11 Q Isn't it in the chair's discretion whether to allow anyone
12 but a General Assembly member to speak?
13 A The chair has a great deal of discretion.
14 Q And in the case of House Bill 589, the chairman of the
15 Rules Committee exercised his discretion to allow members of
16 the public to speak, didn't he?
17 A He did. Ten people, two minutes each.
18 Q Now, to the extent that you were concerned about the
19 cutback to early voting, do you recall remarking during the
20 legislative debate on the Senate floor that you thought your
21 amendment would mitigate that concern?
22 A I did. And by "mitigate," I meant to partially
23 ameliorate. I believed that the amendment would at least
24 create a floor under which counties could not go. I believed,
25 however, that it remained negatively impactful on

1 African-Americans when you consider, one, there is just the
2 fact that there are fewer days; therefore, there are fewer
3 opportunities for people to cast their ballot. And, two, it
4 eliminated one of the two Sundays and one of the three
5 Saturdays, and, in fact, that first Sunday is the date at which
6 the highest percentage of African-Americans vote. Well over
7 40 percent of all voters that Sunday are African-Americans.
8 Q But you haven't checked the numbers from the 2014
9 elections to see whether your prediction came true on that?
10 A I did not check the numbers.
11 Q Do you recall, Senator Stein, that in order for a waiver
12 to be accepted, it has to get the unanimous support of the
13 county board of elections?
14 A Yes, I negotiated that piece.
15 Q Regarding the early voting piece, Senator Stein, first of
16 all, are you aware of whether or not the number of early voting
17 sites increased as a result of the matching-hours requirement
18 that you proposed?
19 A I am unaware.
20 Q Okay. And are you aware that under the prior law a
21 majority of the State Board of Elections could overrule the
22 site selection for early voting sites of the county boards?
23 A Before 589 or after 589?
24 Q Before 589.
25 A I don't recall that.

Redirect by Mr. Fisher -- Senator Stein 212
1 Q All right. Senator Stein, is it -- you are a candidate
2 for Attorney General of North Carolina?
3 A I am not currently a candidate for Attorney General.
4 Q Have you indicated to the media that you are going to run
5 for that position?
6 A I have indicated to the media that I am strongly
7 considering running for that position.
8 Q All right. And just for the record, you are registered as
9 a Democrat; is that correct?
10 A I am a Democrat.
11 MR. STRACH: Thank you, Your Honor. I have no
12 further questions.
13 THE COURT: Any other from the Defendants? Any
14 redirect?
15 MR. FISHER: Very quickly, Your Honor.
16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. FISHER
18 Q Senator Stein, you were asked about the data that you
19 provided on Dashboard. That data included data on same-day
20 registration even if you didn't read out the numbers?
22 Q In your experience during legislative sessions, do your
23 colleagues look at the materials that are provided on the
24 Dashboard?
25 A Yes.

Redirect by Mr. Fisher -- Senator Stein 213
1 MR. STRACH: Objection, speculation.
2 MR. FISHER: He opened the door, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's common. When someone puts up
5 a document, it is different enough that people will review it,
6 yes.
7 MR. FISHER: Thank you, Senator Stein.
8 I would like to move into evidence Exhibit 717, the
9 exhibit that Senator Stein marked during his testimony.
10 MR. STRACH: No objection.
11 THE COURT: It's admitted.
12 Anything further on redirect?
13 MR. FISHER: That's it, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Did you have any further questions?
15 MR. STRACH: No, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Senator, you may step down.
17 THE WITNESS: I appreciate it, Your Honor.
18 MR. DONOVAN: Your Honor, next we were going to play
19 a video of a witness, name is Tawanda Pitt. For the record, it
20 is 4 minutes designated by Plaintiffs, and 3 minutes designated
21 by Defendants.
22 THE COURT: All right. Is this offered by all
23 Plaintiffs?
24 MR. DONOVAN: Yes. If we can have one moment, we'll
25 hand up the transcript, Your Honor.

16 833 Objection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16 833 Objection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

16 833 Objection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.,

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

OBJECTION BY PETITIONER STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

THOMAS A. FARR S. KYLE DUNCAN

Counsel for Petitioner State of North Carolina

D ...................................................... Feb. 21, 2017 Governor / Attorney General Letter

E.......................................... Feb. 21, 2017 Governor / Attorney General Press Release

F .................................... Transcript of Feb. 22, 2017 State Board of Elections Meeting

Supreme Court Rule 46.1.

The Attorney Generals motion is nothing less than a politically-motivated

Assembly acted pursuant to express statutory authority to retain counsel to direct

those laws to the General Assemblys designated lead counsel, Schaerr|Duncan

with this Court asserting authority he manifestly lacks.

invalidating North Carolinas sensible election reform laws.

administration took office on January 20, 2017.

2013 North Carolina law (S.L. 2013-381), including a photo ID requirement.1 On

2. North Carolina law authorizes the North Carolina General Assembly to

constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly is challenged. N.C. Gen. Stat.

authority of other government entities to hire outside counsel. Id. 120-32.6(a)

to this authority, the General Assembly is deemed to be a client of the Attorney

General for purposes of that action as a matter of law. Id. 120-32.6(b).

Furthermore, the General Assemblys leaders may jointly designate retained

including the Attorney Generalshall, consistent with the Rules of Professional

Conduct, cooperate with such designated lead counsel. Id. 120-32.6(c).

Pursuant to that authority, in 2013 the General Assembly retained counsel

Generals officeunder then-Attorney General Roy Cooperappeared in the lower

that time still on the pleadings. App. B.

Observer (Aug. 2, 2016), http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-

4. Subsequently, the General Assembly retained Bancroft PLLC to seek a

Petitionersexcept then-Governor McCrory, who continued to be represented by

separate counsel. Furthermore, Schaerr|Duncans retainer with the General

or the certiorari petition.

5. On January 1, 2017, five days after North Carolinas certiorari petition

effective immediately, the Petitioners in this matter shall be represented

exclusively by the [North Carolina] Department of Justice. App. D. That same

over representation of the State in this matter. App. A.

Court. While confusingly captioned as a motion by Petitioners the State of North

only that the North Carolina Petitionersspecified as the State of North

Carolina and Governor of North Carolina Roy Cooperbe dismissed as parties to

certiorari petition in this case. App. E.

General Assemblys counsel late that afternoon.

pending certiorari petition in this case. App. F at 1. As the transcript of that

7. On February 24, 2017, the Attorney General filed an additional pleading,

captioned as a supplemental motion to dismiss the case, which merely reiterates

withdraw the Board as a party to the certiorari petition. App. F at 1.

pursuant to Rule 46.1. Private Respondents Notice at 1. Rule 46.1, however,

to General Steins or to the private respondents request for dismissal.

REASONS FOR DENYING THE RULE 46.2 MOTION AND

Solicitor Generals Office.

1. First, General Stein has no authority under North Carolina law to

dismiss the State of North Carolina as a party to the certiorari petition. As

to designate that counsel as lead counsel with final decision-making authority.

not be participating in further proceedings in the federal Voter ID cases in the

Fourth Circuit or in the Supreme Court). Consequentlywhile General Stein is

apparently done so through his various filingsGeneral Stein lacks authority

which allows private representation of State entities only when representation by

the Attorney General is impracticable. See App. D at 2 (claiming no finding of