IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Transcription

1 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, EMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH, NEW OXLEY HILL BAPTIST CHURCH, BETHEL A. BAPTIST CHURCH, COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, CLINTON TABERNACLE AME ZION CHURCH, BARBEE S CHAPEL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., ROSANELL EATON, ARMENTA EATON, CAROLYN COLEMAN, BAHEEYAH MADANY, JOCELYN FERGUSON- KELLY, FAITH JACKSON, MARY PERRY, and MARIA TERESA UNGER PALMER Plaintiffs, v. PATRICK LLOYD MCCRORY, in his official capacity as the Governor of North Carolina, KIM WESTBROOK STRACH, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity as Chairman 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, PAUL J. FOLEY, 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. DECLARATION OF HENRY M. MICHAUX, J.R. Case No.: 1:13-CV JA0159

2 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 18 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA, A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, UNIFOUR ONESTOP COLLABORATIVE, COMMON CAUSE NORTH CAROLINA, GOLDIE WELLS, KAY BRANDON, OCTAVIA RAINEY, SARA STOHLER, and HUGH STOHLER, Plaintiffs, v. 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 LLOYD MCCRORY, in his official capacity as the Governor of North Carolina, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; and KIM W. STRACH, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, Defendants. Case No.: 1:13-CV-660 Case No.: 1:13-CV JA0160

3 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 18 Declaration of Henry M. Michaux, Jr. I, Henry M. Michaux, Jr., hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an African American citizen of the United States, a resident of Durham County, a registered voter, and the elected representative for North Carolina House District 31, which currently encompasses portions of Durham County and includes portions of the city of Durham, N.C. 2. I have served in the North Carolina House of Representatives ("the House" for nearly thirty-five years. I was serving in the House when House Bill 589 (2013 ("HB 589" was passed by the General Assembly. I was the first African American to serve as Assistant District Attorney in North Carolina, and I was also the first African American in the South to serve as a United States Attorney. 3. Based on data that I have seen from the State Board of Elections and that was presented to the General Assembly on the number of voters that vote during the first week of early voting, that use same-day registration, that lack an acceptable form of photo-id, and that vote out of precinct, there is no question in my mind that HB 589 will have a devastating impact on the right of North Carolinians to vote, particularly among the African American community. Background 4. After graduating from North Carolina Central University in 1952, I served in the United States Army Medical Corps from 1952 to1954 and in the Army Reserves from 1954 until Thereafter, I received a law degree from North Carolina Central University in After graduating from law school, I served as an Assistant District Attorney in North Carolina for 8 years before being elected to the House in I served in the legislature until 1977, at which time I was appointed as the United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina. I served as the U.S. Attorney for four years until 1981 when I decided to run for Congress. 3 JA0161

4 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 4 of 18 Although I lost the Congressional race in 1982, I was elected again to the North Carolina House of Representatives in For the past thirty years, I have represented what is now District District 31 contains a broad cross-section of different communities. District 31 has always included a large African-American and Latino population, with minorities making up approximately 49% of the district population. In Durham County, African Americans comprise nearly 39% and Latinos approximately 13.4% of the total population. 6. District 31 also features an economically diverse population, with both affluent and low-income populations living together in one community. Durham is known as the city of Medicine, with more than 300 medical and health-related companies and medical practices. However, approximately 18% of Durham residents live below the poverty line. 7. My service as a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives since 1972 and my active participation in the 2013 legislative debates surrounding HB 589 enable me to speak on the legislative intent, legislative process, and impact of HB 589. Pre-HB 589 Election Laws in North Carolina 8. In 1996, North Carolina was ranked 43rd in voter participation nationwide during presidential elections. It was a bipartisan goal of the General Assembly to increase voter participation across the entire state of North Carolina by removing barriers to voting. We achieved that goal with great success through a series of measures, including the implementation of early voting, the counting of provisional ballots cast out-of precinct, same-day registration, and preregistration for 16 and 17 year olds. 9. In 1995, I introduced a bill, HB 27, to generally rewrite the absentee ballot laws, removing the excuse requirement from both one-stop and mail absentee voting and allowing the county boards of elections, with State Board of Elections approval, to designate multiple early 4 JA0162

5 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 5 of 18 voting sites. I introduced this bill because I thought it was a good way to begin expanding voter participation for all North Carolinians. Even though the bill had a Republican co-sponsor, it ultimately failed. 10. In 1999, however, the General Assembly successfully enacted more voter-friendly early voting with SB 568 (Session Law This bill was introduced by Sen. Ellie Kinnaird. The bill applied no-excuse early voting to the general election in even-numbered years only, and it permitted multiple early voting sites in the same county if the county board of election unanimously approved a site plan. The State Board of Election also had to approve the plan, but the State Board's approval did not have to be unanimous. 11. In 2001, the General Assembly passed HB 831 (codified in N.C. Gen. Stat , which provided for 17 days of early voting, authorized early voting on weekends, and required counties to offer early voting on the last Saturday before an election. In 2003, the General Assembly implemented out-of-precinct provisional voting through HB 842 (codified in N.C. Gen. Stat Together these legislative measures made it easier for all voters to participate in elections. These measures, however, had a disproportionate impact on increasing the participation of African American voters. In Durham County alone, participation among African Americans eligibile to vote increased dramatically between 2000 and The General Assembly built upon the legislative accomplishments of the late 1990s and early 2000s in subsequent years. In 2007, the General Assembly authorized same-day registration through HB 91 (codified in N.C. Gen. Stat I was a co-sponsor of the bill. Then in 2009, the General Assembly passed HB 908 (codified in N.C. Gen. Stat which allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote such that their names would automatically be placed on the voter rolls when they turned 18. JA0163

6 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 6 of Together with the election provisions passed in the early 2000s, the counting of out of precinct provisional ballots, same-day registration, and pre-registration for 16- and 17- year-olds all increased voter participation. In the 2012 election, North Carolina was ranked 11 th in voter participation, meaning that North Carolina transformed from one of the worst states in terms of voter participation into one of the country's best. But again, while the above mentioned legislative measures increased voter participation across all demographics, the measures disproportionately increased participation among minority voters. In Durham County alone, voting participation among African Americans increased by more than 25% between 2000 and 2012 even exceeding the percentage of turnout among white voters in Durham in Out of Precinct Provisional Ballots 14. In 2005, the legislature also passed SB 133 entitled "Reconfirming Provisional Voting" (Session Law , which reaffirmed the General Assembly's intent that provisional ballots cast outside the voter's precinct on election day be counted. 15. SB 133 was a direct response to the James v. Bartlett case. In that case, two local candidates who had lost in the 2004 election challenged North Carolina's practice of allowing voters to vote provisional ballots outside their precinct of residence. The North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the State's election laws required voters to cast a ballot within their precinct of residence, and that the State Board of Elections had acted without statutory authority to allow voters to vote provisional ballots outside their precinct. The court said there was no evidence of legislative intent to authorize the counting of out-of-precinct provisional ballots. 16. In 2005, Senator Dan Clodfelter introduced S.B. 133 because he, and other legislators including me, wanted to make clear that the legislature had in fact intended for out of 6 JA0164

7 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 7 of 18 precinct provisional ballots to be counted when it codified the practice of provisional voting as part of a general rewrite of the statutes on voting procedures in 2001 and when it enacted legislation in 2003 to implement the Help America Vote Act. 17. Several legislative findings were expressly referencad in the text of S.B. 133, including the finding that of those voters who happened to vote a provisional ballot outside of their precinct of residence on election day during the 2004 general election, a disproportionately high percentage were African-American voters. HB 589 Legislative Process 18. HB 589 was filed in the House on April 4, At that point, HB 589 was about a 12-page bill limited to requiring photo identification to vote in person starting in 2016 (the "limited bill". 19. The original version of HB 589 or limited bill underwent nearly four weeks of consideration by the House. The House Elections Committee had the opportunity to comment on the limited bill, as well as the opportunity to offer amendments. Two public hearings were held on the bill, during which constituents who opposed and supported the limited bill were given an opportunity to be heard. 20. HB 589 was passed by the House on April 24, 2013, at which point it was a 16- page bill. This limited, mostly photo-id version of HB 589 then moved to the North Carolina Senate ("the Senate" for consideration. We heard very little about the bill and how it would proceed in the Senate for the next two months. There was no way for members of the House such as myself to know what changes the Senate would make to HB 589 or when we would have the opportunity to review such changes. As far as I know, not a single minority legislator was invited or permitted to participate in the the drafting of HB JA0165

8 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 8 of For two months there was no Senate action relating to HB 589. Then, immediately after the United States Supreme Court invalidated Section Four of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder on June 25, 2013, North Carolina Senator Tom Apodaca almounced later that day that, "Now we can go with the full bill." 22. The Senate introduced its "full bill" version of HB 589 on July 23, The Senate version of the bill contained more than 40 additional pages worth of changes to North Carolina's election laws and was essentially a new bill. It appeared to combine other bills that had previously failed in the legislature without much, if any, consideration 23. The "full bill" version of HB 589 accepted far fewer forms of photo identification than the version adopted by the House on April 24, It eliminated the use of all student IDs to vote, as well as all state, county, and city government-issued employee IDs and made its list of acceptable IDs exclusive. It introduced numerous non-photo identification provisions for the first time, including, but not limited to, eliminating one week of early voting, same day registration, pre-registration programs for 16- and 17-year-olds, the counting of "out of precinct" provisional ballots, and straight-ticket voting. 24. The "full bill" version of HB 589 passed the Senate on July 25, 2013, just two days after it was introduced, and was received by the House that same day. It was 56 pages long by that point. 25. The House voted to concur in the "full bill" version of HB 589 the day it was received from the Senate, July 25, Because the revised bill went through the concurrence process when it was received from the Senate, HB 589 was not referred to any House committees for a full vetting of the significant changes to the bill. There was also no opportunity to offer amendments to the full bill or for public comment, in contrast to the legislative process 8 JA0166

9 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 9 of 18 that was followed with the limited, photo-id only version of the bill. Because the repackaged version of HB 589 was not fully vetted in committee or through a public hearing, the House had very little data on the costs of the "full bill" before we voted on it. To this day, we have no idea how much it will cost North Carolina to implement HB 589 although I suspect the costs will be significant. 26. Once we finally received the "full bill" version of HB 589, each and every member of the House Democratic Caucus indicated that they wanted to speak on the bill's sweeping changes to state election laws an unprecedent event. Despite the fact that over 40 members of the House wished to speak in opposition to the "full bill" version of HB 589, the House Speaker allocated only 100 minutes. This worked out to less than two and a half minutes per legislator. It was impossible to have a full and frank debate in less than two hours on a final bill that was four times as long as the original version and that featured many new provisions that would detrimentally affect hundreds of thousands of voters. 27. Because the limited time provided for discussion of the "full bill" was entirely inadequate, I made a motion pursuant to the House Rules to go into the Committee of the Whole to more fully discuss the significant changes made by the Senate to the original, limited bill. This approach would have given all members of the House the opportunity to openly discuss these changes, to offer amendments to the legislation, or to call witnesses. Representative Tim Moore a primary sponsor of HB 589 stated three times that such a hearing would be a "waste of time," because the entire House had already been convened and he urged members to vote against my motion. This blurred the distinction I was seeking to draw between a committee process involving the whole House and the concurrence process that was foisted upon us. The majority ultimately defeated my motion. JA0167

10 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 10 of Even though we had only 100 minutes to speak on the bill, opponents of the "full bill" version of HB 589, including Representatives Rick Glazier, Deb McManus, Alma Adams, and Pricey Harrison, emphasized the disproportionate burden provisions of the bill would have on African American and Latino voters. There was no rebuttal from supporters of the "full bill" version of HB 589 regarding the impact on minorities. They gave no indication that they cared to examine any evidence showing that these sweeping changes to our election laws would suppress voting among African Americans, Latinos, the elderly, and young voters. I believe that the whole idea behind the law was to suppress the votes of these groups of voters, and there is no doubt in my mind that the bill supporters understood that HB 589 would have a disproportionate negative impact on African American and Latino voters. 29. During the truncated House debate of the "full bill" on July 25, 2013, I explained to supporters of the bill the historical significance of in person voting. I explained how African Americans fought and died for the right to vote. I knew these people who gave their lives for the fundamental right to vote. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a close friend of mine. When we talked, one thing Dr. King would say to me is "Mickey, you know, we need economic power more than any other group in American society, but the only way that we can gain that power is to sit in the seats of the halls of power, and that is by elections." 30. Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, African American voters in North Carolina lived through an era of terror inflicted upon them by their own neighbors. When African Americans tried to vote, many were vilified or even lynched. When they tried to register people to vote, they were vilified, run out of town, or even lynched. A number of devices were employed in North Carolina to discriminate against African American citizens with respect to exercising the right to vote, including a poll tax, a literacy test, a proscription against single-shot 10 JA0168

11 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 11 of 18 voting, and the implementation of designated seat plans for multi-member districts. By 1956, a lot of African Americans became sick and tired of being sick and tired of the way folks were treated. The modern Civil Rights Movement began about that time, and although public accommodations were the initial focus of the movement, voting rights were always lurking in the background. 31. When the Civil Rights Movement began, African Americans began to push for equal voting rights. I got out there myself and traversed the back roads of North Carolina with John Lewis, John Edwards, and Ben Ruffin, and we went around the eastern part of the state, in the middle of the night, trying to talk black citizens into going out and registering to vote. And every time we did, we were rebuffed, because they were scared. These black citizens knew if they tried to register to vote, they would lose whatever sustenance that they had or be run out of town. 32. We have come a long way since then. In 1965, when the Voting Rights Act was passed, that gave us a great deal of hope. Slowly, African Americans were elected to the North Carolina legislature, city councils, and as city mayors. In 1968, Henry Frye became the first African American elected to the North Carolina General Assembly in the twentieth century. By 1975, five other African Americans were elected to the General Assembly, including me. Today, there are more than 30 African Americans serving in the state legislature. Had it not been for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, I would not be sitting in the North Carolina legislature today. With the Voting Rights Act, this country ran from disgrace to amazing grace. African Americans have made significant and hard-fought progress in voting since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of JA0169

12 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 12 of It is only against this historical backdrop that the sanctity and importance of voting to the African American community can be understood. HB 589 turns back the clock and re-enacts barriers to voting, especially for African Americans. The Impact of HB 589: Elimination of One Week of Early Voting 34. The introduction of a no-excuse 17-day early voting period, which could include evenings and weekends, greatly improved voting and access to the franchise in North Carolina.. The elimination of a week of that period will disproportionately impact many voters, particularly my African-American, low-income, and student constituents. These demographic groups in particular have come to rely on early voting to cast a ballot. 35. African-American voters in particular attach a great deal of significance to inperson voting. As I explained above and on the floor of the North Carolina House of Representatives, within the past 50 years, black citizens fought and died for the right to vote. In person voting is the ultimate demonstration of this hard-won fight of black citizens to obtain the right to vote after a history of denial in the state of North Carolina. The significance of in-person voting to the African American community was on clear display in recent elections. During the 2008 election, for example, thousands of black voters flooded early voting. Likewise, during the 2010 election, African Americans made up nearly half of all early votes cast during the first week of early voting. And in 2012, black voter participation during early voting was tremendous. 36. Cutting a week from early voting also means eliminating a weekend of early voting. African American, low income, and young voters in particular rely on weekends in the early voting period to cast their ballot. In 2012, thousands of African American voters in 12 JA0170

13 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 13 of 18 counties across North Carolina voted on one of the two Sundays in early voting. Durham County saw some of the highest voter turnout during Sunday voting of all counties in the State. 37. I also remember long lines being a problem before the advent of no-excuse early voting. On election day, I personally observed significantly long lines at predominantly African- American precincts at the Durham County Library, Hillside High-School, and Pearsontown Elementary polling places. The long lines experienced during the 1996 Senate race between Harvey Gantt and Jesse Helms is a well-known example. The lines were so long at the Durham County Library polling place that I sought out a State judge to issue an order to extend voting hours beyond the original closing time of 7:30 p.m. to meet voter demand. 38. Data showing the rates at which African American voters used early voting in the 2000s, which was presented to the legislature before the vote to approve HB 589, demonstrates that cutting a week of early voting will disproportionately impact African American voters. 39. Also before the legislature was evidence that shortening the early voting period by one week will lead to longer lines. I remember that, although the House did not debate the subject, during the public hearing in the House on the original photo-id version of HB 589 an election official from Florida named Ion Sancho testified about the impact that trimming early voting by a week had on elections in Florida. Sancho testified that reducing early voting from fourteen to eight days for the 2012 general election in Florida was "a nightmare," and that it led to long lines and "a huge overflow on election day." 40. But those who voted for the law disregarded this data and testimony; they had already made up their minds that they were cutting the early voting period by one week. The Impact of HB 589: Same Day Registration 13 JA0171

14 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 14 of I have no doubt that legislators who supported HB 589 and the elimination of same-day registration at the very least knew from experience that same-day registration had been key to increasing voter participation in the African American community. 42. The elimination of same-day registration will have a devastating impact on transient communities that are well represented in District 31, including African American, lowincome, and student communities. 43. Same-day registration has positively impacted political participation among students in District 31. Election season is the time of year when students attending college in Durham arrive on campus. Student voters living in my district are often voting for the first time. Casting an absentee ballot or updating their voter registration early might not be at the forefront of their minds well in advance of an election. Same-day registration made it far easier for those students to exercise their right to vote. 44. The argument by proponents of HB 589 that same-day registration needed to be eliminated because there is not enough time to confirm new voter registrations during the early voting period is ridiculous. There has always been plenty of time during the early voting period to confirm registrations. But even if more time were needed, the solution is to push back the canvas a few days to accommodate same-day registration, not to erect a new barrier to voting like the elimination of same-day registration. Impact of HB 589: Photo ID Requirement 45. Initially, supporters of photo-id argued that voter fraud was a problem in North Carolina. I remember one Republican cited some 25 to 30 cases of voter fraud in Buncombe County to demonstrate how rampant the problem was in the State. I called the State Board of Elections to investigate this claim. I found out from Gary Bartlett, the Director of the State 14 JA0172

15 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 15 of 18 Board at that time, that every one of those complaints was investigated and that the State Board had determined that no fraud had taken place. Simply put, there is no voter fraud requiring photo I.D. in North Carolina as supporters of HB 589 have themselves conceded. 46. The reason that there is no significant voter fraud is probably in part due to one of the laws that I helped pass in A key feature of North Carolina's elections laws is voter attestation with a felony penalty for lying. The law says that voters have to attest to who they are by signing their name when they vote, and they can be charged with a felony if they lie. This simple procedure works. It has been working for a decade. But even before the voter attestation requirement was passed in 2003, voter fraud was never a problem in North Carolina. We have had elections for 237 years in North Carolina without a photo-id requirement. Only after increasing turnout among African-Americans, Latinos, and young voters that fundamentally changed the electorate in the State did the false claim and distortion about fraud begin. 47. During the April 2013 hearings in the House on the original photo-id version of the bill, I offered a solution to a photo-id requirement that included a photograph component but that would not have prevented a single North Carolinian from voting. I called it a "registration ID" requirement. When prospective voters went to register for the first time, they would take a photograph with them in addition to the various other forms of identification required to register. If they did not have a DMV-issued ID, they would submit a photo of themselves which would be digitized and saved in their registration file. When the voter went to the polls to cast a ballot, the poll worker could retrieve the voter's photograph to verify that the voter was who he or she said, thus eliminating the possibility of voter impersonation. This proposal was unsucessful. 48. A photo-id requirement is yet another impediment to voting for African American citizens in North Carolina. My constituents in Durham County, in particular, will be 15 JA0173

16 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 16 of 18 disproportionately impacted by HB 589's photo-id requirement. In Durham County, nearly 10% of registered voters do not appear to have a state-issued driver's license or other photo identification, which is roughly twice the percentage of all North Carolinians who lack the photo identification that is acceptable under HB 589. Because Durham has one of the highest percentages of African American populations of all counties in the State, registered African American voters in Durham will be disproportionately impacted by HB 589's photo-id requirement. 49. Proponents of a photo-id requirement argue that a photo-id is required to board an airplane or to cash a check, so voting should be no different. But what those people fail to understand is that citizens do not have a constitutional right to board a plane or cash a check; those activites are private in nature, not constitutionally-guaranteed. 50. And when you look at what certain voters have to do to acquire an ID, it does not matter that the photo ID provision of HB 589 is not effective until Some voters still will not be able to get a photo ID because, for example, they lack the underlying documentation like a birth certificate that is required to get an acceptable photo ID, or they do not have access to transportation to get to the DMV to acquire an ID. The Impact of HB 589: Elimination of Pre-Registration 51. Pre-registration was an important tool for informing a future electorate and educating them about the importance and value of exercising their fundamental right to vote in an election. Preregistration was instrumental in getting young North Carolinians involved in election process early in their lives. 52. To this day, not a single supporter of H.B. 589 has articulated to me a reason for eliminating preregistration. 16 JA0174

17 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 17 of 18 The Impact of HB 589: Out of Precinct Voting 53. Out of precinct voting has never caused harm to voting in North Carolina. Instead, throwing out ballots cast out of precinct will harm a lot of qualified, eligible voters. There are multiple reasons why someone might show up at a precinct other than his precinct of residence on election day. For example, a registered voter who moves within the same county before an election might show up at his old precinct to vote, not knowing that he is assigned to a different precinct as a result of having moved. There is no reason why we should not count these ballots for the races the voters are eligible to vote by virtue of having a valid registration in the county. 54. The invalidation of previously valid out of precinct ballots will disproportionately impact transient communities that are well represented in District 31, particularly low-income communities and young voters. These voters are less likely to be familiar with their voting place than people who have lived at the same address for years or decades. 55. The redrawing of boundary lines and the increase in precinct splitting that resulted from the recent redistricting will only increase confusion among voters as to where they are required to vote on election day. But just when confusion among voters is expected to increase, HB 589 eliminates the solution provided by the counting out of precinct provisional ballots. Numerous votes that would previously have been counted cast disproportionately by African American voters will now be discarded. 56. This declaration is not intended to capture all of my knowledge or experiences that may be related to this matter. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on a-, JA0175

18 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 18 of 18 Henry M. Michaux, Jr. 18 JA0176