IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE ) OF THE NAACP; EMMANUEL BAPTIST ) CHURCH; COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN ) CHURCH; BARBEE’S CHAPEL MISSIONARY ) BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.; ROSANELL ) EATON; ARMENTA EATON; CAROLYN ) COLEMAN; JOCELYN FERGUSON-KELLY; ) FAITH JACKSON; MARY PERRY; and ) MARIA TERESA UNGER PALMER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV658 ) PATRICK LLOYD MCCRORY, in his ) official capacity as Governor of ) North Carolina; KIM WESTBROOK ) STRACH, in her official capacity ) as Executive Director of the ) North Carolina State Board of ) Elections; RHONDA K. AMOROSO, ) in her official capacity as ) Secretary of the North Carolina ) State Board of Elections; JOSHUA ) D. MALCOLM, in his official ) capacity as a member of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections; ) JAMES BAKER, in his official ) capacity as a member of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections; ) and MAJA KRICKER, in her official ) capacity as a member of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH ) CAROLINA; A. PHILIP RANDOLPH ) INSTITUTE; UNIFOUR ONESTOP ) COLLABOARATIVE; COMMON CAUSE NORTH ) CAROLINA; GOLDIE WELLS; KAY ) BRANDON; OCTAVIA RAINEY; SARA ) STOHLER; and HUGH STOHLER, ) Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 429 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 485 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) and ) ) LOUIS M. DUKE; ASGOD BARRANTES; ) JOSUE E. BERDUO; CHARLES M. GRAY; ) NANCY J. LUND; BRIAN M. MILLER; ) BECKY HURLEY MOCK; MARY-WREN ) RITCHIE; LYNNE M. WALTER; and ) EBONY N. WEST, ) ) Plaintiff-Intervenors, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV660 ) THE 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; and PATRICK L. ) MCCRORY, in his official capacity ) as the Governor of the State of ) North Carolina, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV861 ) THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ) THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD ) OF ELECTIONS; and KIM W. STRACH, ) Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 429 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 485 in her official capacity as ) Executive Director of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 429 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 485 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FINDINGS OF FACT.......................................... 4 A. North Carolina Voting Laws........................... 4 1. Voter ID........................................ 4 2. Early Voting.................................... 5 3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting............. 10 4. SDR............................................ 13 5. Pre-registration............................... 15 B. Post-2011 Legislation............................... 16 1. Introduction of HB 589......................... 17 2. Revision of HB 589............................. 21 3. Enactment of HB 836............................ 34 C. Procedural History.................................. 43 D. Evidence of Voter Experience Under Current Law...... 50 1. Voter ID....................................... 51 a. Voter Education about the Voter-ID Requirement Prior to the Reasonable Impediment Exception...................... 51 b. Voter Education After Enactment of the Reasonable Impediment Exception........... 56 c. Voters’ Experience in Acquiring Qualifying ID........................................ 68 d. Evidence of North Carolina Voters Without ID .......................................... 82 e. Availability of the Reasonable Impediment Exception................................. 95 2. Change in the Early-Voting Schedule........... 125 3. Elimination of SDR............................ 152 Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 429 Filed 04/25/16 Page 4 of 485 4. Elimination of OOP Provisional Voting......... 176 5. Elimination of Pre-Registration............... 184 6. Other Challenged Provisions................... 190 7. 2014 Data..................................... 194 E. Testimony of Other Experts......................... 197 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW...................................... 197 A. Section 2 of the VRA............................... 197 1. The Law of Vote Denial and Abridgement Claims. 197 2. The Totality of the Circumstances & Gingles... 219 a. The Success of the Prior Practices in Fostering Minority Political Participation ......................................... 220 b. History of Official Discrimination....... 227 c. Racially-Polarized Voting................ 235 d. Enhancing the Opportunity for Discrimination ......................................... 237 e. Candidate Slating Process................ 238 f. Continuing Effects of Discrimination Hindering Participation.................. 238 g. Racial Appeals in Campaigning............ 257 h. Minority Electoral Success............... 259 i. Responsiveness of Elected Officials...... 261 j. Tenuousness of the State’s Justifications 263 i. Voter ID............................ 264 ii. Early Voting........................ 276 iii. SDR................................. 281 iv. OOP Voting.......................... 308 ii Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 429 Filed 04/25/16 Page 5 of 485 v. Pre-Registration.................... 317 3. Equality of Opportunity and Social and Historical Conditions.................................... 322 a. Voter ID................................. 325 b. Early Voting............................. 339 c. SDR...................................... 342 d. OOP Voting............................... 356 e. Pre-registration......................... 366 f. Cumulative Effect........................ 369 4. Discriminatory Result: Conclusion............. 373 5. Discriminatory Intent......................... 377 6. Additional Problems with the § 2 Results Claim 412 B. “Traditional” Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment Claims............................................. 426 C. Anderson-Burdick Claim............................. 426 1. Voter ID...................................... 432 2. Early Voting.................................. 435 3. SDR........................................... 439 4. OOP........................................... 443 5. Pre-registration.............................. 448 6. CBOE Discretion............................... 452 7. Poll Observers and Challengers................ 453 8. Cumulative Effect of Provisions............... 454 D. Twenty-Sixth Amendment Claim....................... 456 E. Remedy............................................. 465 III. CONCLUSION.............................................. 467 iii Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 429 Filed 04/25/16 Page 6 of 485 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge. In these related cases, Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing various provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2013-381 (“SL 2013-381”), an omnibus election-reform law, as amended by Session Law 2015-103 (“SL 2015-103”).1 Plaintiffs are the United States of America (the “United States”) in case 1:13CV861, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and several organizations and individual plaintiffs (the “NAACP Plaintiffs”) in case 1:13CV658, and the League of Women Voters of North Carolina along with several organizations and individuals (the “League Plaintiffs”) in case 1:13CV660. Additionally, the court allowed a group of “young voters” and others (the “Intervenor Plaintiffs”) to intervene in case 1:13CV660. (Doc. 62 in case 1:13CV660.) Considered together, Plaintiffs raise claims under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973). (Doc. 365 in case 1:13CV861; Doc. 384 in case 1:13CV658; Docs. 1 & 63 in case 1:13CV660.) The United 1 The parties sometimes refer to the challenged law as “House Bill 589,” its original designation by the North Carolina General Assembly. The final product, as a duly-enacted law passed by both chambers of the General Assembly and signed by the governor, will be referred to as Session Law 2013-381. Prior to passage, the bill will be referred to as HB 589. Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 429 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 485 States also moves for the appointment of federal observers to monitor future elections in North Carolina pursuant to § 3(a) of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10302(a) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(a)). (Doc. 365 at 33.)2 Defendants are the State of North Carolina, Governor Patrick L. McCrory, the State Board of Elections (“SBOE”), and several State officials acting in their official capacities. The record is extensive. The court held a four-day evidentiary hearing and argument beginning July 7, 2014, on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, which evidence is now part of the trial record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). Fifteen days of trial on the merits were conducted from July 13 through 31, 2015. An additional six days of trial on the voter photo identification (“ID”) provisions of the law were conducted from January 25 through February 1, 2016. The court has considered testimony