Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 39

Transcription

1 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 39 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, BAHEEY AH 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 JOSH STEIN Case No.: 1:13-CV JA0177

2 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 39 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 ofthe 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 ofthe North Carolina State Board of Elections, Defendants Case No.: 1:13-CV-660 Case No.: 1:13-CV JA0178

3 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 39 Declaration of Senator Josh Stein I, Josh Stein, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am a U.S. citizen, resident of Wake County, a registered voter, and the elected representative for North Carolina Senate District 16, which encompasses parts of western Wake County that includes west Raleigh, northern Cary, and Morrisville. 2. In 2008, I was elected to District 16 in the North Carolina Senate ("the Senate", where I have served for the past five years. I am currently the minority whip and a member of the Commerce, Education, Health Care, Finance, Judiciary I, and Rules and Operations of the Senate ("Rules" Committees. 3. I was serving in the Senate when House Bill 589 (2013 ("HB 589" was passed by the General Assembly. HB 589 was passed without an opportunity for the Senate to have a full or deliberate debate on the bill. The members of the Senate received a draft of the 57-page version of HB 589 only 16 hours before the Rules Committee took it up. While this fact alone may not have been a violation of any procedural rules, it was irregular for a bill of this magnitude and was abusive of the legislative process. This lack of proper consideration of the bill is particularly problematic given the bill's subject matter; as I stated in my speech on the floor of the Senate, "[t]o impinge on people's right to vote is to limit their liberty and to undermine their government." HB 589 does precisely that. Background 4. I have spent nearly my entire professional life in North Carolina working in public service in one form or another. After graduating from Dartmouth College in 1988, Harvard Law School in 1995 and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government in 1995, I returned to North Carolina to work with the Self-Help Credit Union, helping to transform 3 JA0179

4 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 4 of 39 abandoned drug houses into affordable single-family homes. After two years working in the United States Senate in Washington, D.C., I returned to North Carolina at the end of 2000 and served as the Deputy Attorney General for Consumer Protection in the North Carolina Attorney General's office for eight years. 5. I have been a candidate for office in the elections of 2008, 2010, 2012, and I also taught federal and North Carolina election law at Campbell University Law School in 2010 and Prior to running for office in 2008, I participated in North Carolina elections in a number of different capacities. In 1998, I served as campaign manager and legal counsel for the John Edwards for U.S. Senate Campaign Committee. I also volunteered to work with a state superior court judicial campaign in 2006, during which I participated in door-to-door campaigning and poll working. 6. My service as a member of the North Carolina Senate since 2009, my active participation in the 2013 Senate debate of HB 589, and my participation in the electoral process enable me to speak on the legislative intent, legislative process, and impact ofhb 589. Pre-HB 589 Election Laws in North Carolina 7. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, North Carolina passed a number of legislative measures to facilitate eligible voters' participation in elections. Proponents of these measures believed that barriers should not be erected to deny eligible citizens the fundamental right to vote and in fact, barriers to voting should be removed. 8. Early voting is a key example of the bipartisan effort to eliminate barriers for citizens to cast their votes. No excuse in-person early voting occurring at multiple voting sites was first passed by the General Assembly in No excuse in-person early voting has been expanded over the years, with bipartisan support, to provide more access to voters in all 4 JA0180

5 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 5 of 39 elections. Early voting has been extremely successful. In fact, according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, more than 2.5 million people participated in early voting in Same day registration represents another successful effort to eliminate barriers for citizens in North Carolina from exercising the fundamental right to vote. A registration requirement was first instituted in the late 1800s in North Carolina specifically to minimize participation of African Americans in elections. North Carolina took steps to reduce the number of days prior to Election Day that North Carolinians had to register in order to vote over the course of many years. With same-day registration, we took the last step to bring down the barrier of advanced registration. Same-day registration was created so that individuals who wanted to vote did not have to go through a two-step process in order to vote and has been a resounding success. As I stated in my speech during the Senate floor debate opposing the retrogressive changes in HB 589, nearly 100,000 voters registered and voted using same-day registration in Pre-registration of 16- and 17-year-olds, a measure enacted during my first year in the General Assembly, was intended to get young voters excited about participating in North Carolina's future, and I was proud to vote for the law. Pre-registration was arranged to coincide with civics classes that high school students are required to take in North Carolina public schools. Students would be given pre-registration information in class and then were mailed their voter registration confirmation once they turned 18. According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, North Carolina registered approximately 50,000 young people through preregistration in Early voting, same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and pre-registration have enabled more and more North Carolinians to exercise their right to vote. These measures 5 JA0181

6 have helped to increase voter participation rates in North Carolina across the board. In a comparison among states nationwide of voter-participation rates of registered voters who cast a ballot for President, North Carolina's ranking jumped from 37th in 2000 to 11th in The fact that President Obama was a candidate for President of the United States in 2008 and 2012 undoubtedly played a role in increasing participation among African Americans in North Carolina. However, early voting, same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and preregistration also all contributed to increasing the participation of voters, including African American voters, in North Carolina elections. In fact, many of these measures made it possible for African Americans who were inspired to vote in 2008 and 2012 to actually cast a vote. In my home county of Wake alone, participation among African Americans registered to vote increased dramatically in recent years. HB 589 Legislative Process: Senate Rules Committee 12. The North Carolina House of Representatives ("the House" passed HB 589 on April 24, At that time, the only major provision of HB 589 was a photo identification requirement for voting. The bill made no changes to the dates allowed for early voting, the availability of same-day registration, pre-registration of 16- and 17-year-olds, or the validity of out-of-precinct voting. 13. After the House passed its version of HB 589, called the Voter Information Verification Act (VIVA, the bill sat in the Senate for three months. At the time, the United States Supreme Court was considering a challenge to the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. I recall that immediately after the Supreme Court struck down Section Four of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County, North Carolina Senator Tom Apodaca stated to the press that, "now we can go with the full bill." The Shelby 6 JA0182

7 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 7 of 39 County decision apparently emboldened the Republican leadership in the Senate, about a month later, to introduce an omnibus version of HB 589-one that (i included a much stricter version of voter identification than did the original version of HB-589, (ii eliminated a week of early voting, (iii eliminated same-day registration, (iv eliminated the counting of out-of-precinct ballots, and (v eliminated pre-registration of 16- and 17-year-olds-without federal scrutiny of its retrogressive impact on racial and language-minority voters. 14. Before a bill may be considered by the full Senate as a general matter, a committee must first vet the bill and report it favorably. The proponents of HB 589 chose the Rules Committee to initially vet the bill. The purpose of the Rules Committee-which is called the Rules and Operations of the Senate Committee-is to vet and consider proposed modifications to the rules of the Senate. The Rules Committee does not have an expertise in election laws, which are usually debated and evaluated by the Judiciary I Committee. I believe that proponents of HB 589 chose the Rules Committee to consider the bill because the Rules Committee has a reputation of quickly passing politically sensitive bills. 15. Under the rules of procedure in the Senate, the Committee Chair must have distributed a copy of the proposed bill to all members of the committee one day before the scheduled hearing. The Rules Committee was scheduled to discuss HB 589 on July 23, Members of the Rules Committee, of which I am a member, did not receive a copy of the 57- page omnibus version of HB 589 until after 9 p.m. the night before the Committee was scheduled to discuss the bill. Although the late delivery of the bill was technically permitted, it represents a poor process. It is typical that when a significant bill is delivered the night prior to the day of a committee, the bill will be explained to the Committee and the Committee will deliberate, but not vote on it that day. Instead, the Committee will take the bill up in a future 7 JA0183

8 meeting on another day. This did not happen with HB 589. Members of the Rules Committee were asked to review and debate the 57-page bill within 16 hours of receiving and reviewing it for the first time. Neither my fellow committee members nor I were able to give proper consideration to every portion of the bill within the inadequate time provided by the Rules Committee. 16. Despite having insufficient time to examine the 57-page bill, I came to the Rules Committee debate with several points to emphasize. I also came to the Committee debate with statistics from the North Carolina State Board of Elections that had been assembled by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, attached as Exhibit A. I began my remarks by emphasizing that, according to the State Board of Elections, approximately 900,000 North Carolinians voted during the first week of early voting in I noted for the Rules Committee that polling showed that 78% of voters in North Carolina support the current early voting system and that 56% of voters in North Carolina had voted early. I asked Senator Bob Rucho, the bill manager, why, given those statistics, the legislature would want to eliminate a week of early voting. Senator Rucho stated that the rationale for eliminating one week of early voting was to reduce costs of early voting. But, as I noted in my response to Senator Rucho, reducing one week of early voting requires counties to open more polling places if they want to try to accommodate the same number of voters during a compressed time period. This eliminates any costs saved from eliminating a week of early voting, and as I noted during the Rules Committee hearing, will actually increase the cost of early voting. 17. Another troubling issue that I raised before the Rules Committee is that the rationales that were offered by legislators in support of other provisions of HB 589 were baseless. The key rationale offered by legislators who supported HB 589's photo identification 8 JA0184

9 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 9 of 39 requirement was that it was required to "restore integrity in the election process" and was necessary to combat election fraud. But there is no evidence that in person voter fraud is a real issue in North Carolina. In 2011, because another voter photo identification bill was being considered in the General Assembly, I requested data from the State Board of Elections regarding instances of voter fraud that it referred to the district attorney's office from 2000 through The State Board of Elections sent me a memorandum, dated January 21,2011 and attached as Exhibit B, showing that there had been only one instance of voter impersonation referred to the district attorney over the course of a decade of elections in North Carolina. In 2013, the State Board of Elections updated this research for me. See Exhibit C. The data from the State Board of Elections, attached as Exhibit D, showed that out of nearly 40 million votes cast in person in North Carolina's past seven even-year elections, including primary and general elections, there have been only two cases referred for in-person voter fraud, the only type of voter fraud that a photo identification requirement addresses. I presented this evidence to the Rules Committee and asked Senator Rucho what evidence the proponents of HB 589 had of inperson voter fraud that would compel the need for a photo identification requirement. Senator Rucho could provide no evidence of any in-person voter fraud, aside from stating that he heard about cases that were never reported. In comparison, there have been 47 cases of absentee fraud. Yet the legislation did not require photo identification for absentee voters. 18. Senator Rucho also stated in the Rules Committee hearing that "you can't live in this society without an identification" because you need one to "go into buildings," "cash checks," or "to get on an airplane." While it may be true that one needs a photo identification to conduct some of these activities, entering buildings, cashing checks, and traveling on airplanes are not activities that constitute constitutional rights, like the right to vote. He also failed to 9 JA0185

10 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 10 of 39 appreciate that not everyone flies on airplanes, has a checking account, or enters buildings with security and that doing these things are not requisites for voting. 19. Senator Rucho also baldly asserted that "everyone has a photo ID." The notion that everyone has photo identification is just wrong and he knew it. I noted in my comments in the Rules Committee hearing that the State Board of Elections conducted a study and found that there are more than 300,000 North Carolinians who are registered to vote but who do not have valid driver's license. Of those 300,000 registered voters, 138,000 actually voted in 2012, as shown in Exhibit E. Others may have voted in other elections. At a minimum, at least 138,000 North Carolinians may be impacted by the photo identification requirement to address a problem that is practically non-existent. The fact that these figures were cited numerous times in the press, during the public hearings on HB 589, and on the floor of the legislature prior to the passage of HB 589 belies the notion that Senator Rucho or any other legislator could have sincerely believed that "everyone has a photo ID." 20. In addition to the lack of time we were given to consider the bill prior to and during the July 23 hearing, the Rules Committee reserved minimal time for the public to comment on the bill. To my memory, only about 10 to 12 citizens were permitted to speak about the bill for approximately 2 to 3 minutes each. Incidentally, all of those who spoke were opposed to HB 589. No one from the State Board of Elections nor from a county board of elections testified about the impact HB 589 would have on voters, which would be expected for an election related bill of this magnitude. Had the committee had more time to review the bill before the committee meeting, I would have asked board of elections' representatives to attend and comment. I asked the proponents of HB 589 in the Rules Committee whether they had studied the impact the bill would have on North Carolina voters or on the administration of 10 JA0186

11 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 11 of 39 elections statewide. The proponents provided no evidence that they had conducted any such studies. HB 589 Legislative Process: Senate Floor Debate 21. After HB 589 was voted out of the Rules Committee, the bill was debated by the entire Senate the next day, on July 24, During the July 24, 2013, Senate floor debate I introduced an amendment that addressed the elimination of one week of early voting. The amendment requires each county to have the same number of early voting hours during the shorter, ten-day period in presidential election years that the county held during the two-and-a-half-week early voting period in Likewise, the amendment requires each county to have the same number of early voting hours during the ten-day period in non-presidential election years that the county held during the seventeen-day early voting period in I introduced this amendment because I believed that it might mitigate the impact that eliminating one week of early voting might have on voters. I stated on the record that the minimum hours requirement would not eliminate the harm that the elimination of one week of early voting would have on voters because it could not make up for the elimination of one weekend of early voting and the fewer number of days for early voting. This is especially true because the minimum hours amendment was further amended on the second day of the debate by Senator Rucho. Senator Rucho's amendment allows county boards to apply for an exemption from the minimum hours requirement if the all members of the county board agree and the State Board of Elections approves. To my knowledge, 38 counties have already applied for, and received, approval to avoid the minimum hours requirement for the May 2014 primary election. 11 JA0187

12 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 12 of On July 24, I highlighted in my speech on the Senate floor the impact that HB 589 would have on voters in North Carolina. In my speech, I focused on a number of provisions, including the photo identification provision, the provision that eliminates one week of early voting, and the provision that eliminates same day registration. 24. Photo Identification Provision: In my speech on the Senate floor, I restated the evidence I presented during the Rules Committee hearing that there is no evidence that in-person voter fraud is a problem in North Carolina. I stated for all members of the Senate that out of nearly 40 million votes cast in North Carolina's past seven even-year general elections and six primary elections, there have been only two cases referred to a District Attorney for in-person voter fraud. I stated on the Senate floor that the instances of absentee fraud is approximately a factor of 17 compared to in-person voter fraud. But upon further review of the statistics that I had in front of me during the Senate floor debate, the instances of absentee voter fraud occurs more than 1000 times more frequently than impersonation voter fraud. See Exhibit D. But the proponents of HB 589 did not require equivalence in the requirements to vote by absentee and the requirements to vote in person. In fact, proponents of the bill in the Senate voted against an amendment, Amendment 9, that would have done just that. 25. I also re-emphasized during the Senate floor debate that according to North Carolina's own State Board of Elections, which cross-checked its database with the DMV's, there are more than 300,000 registered voters who do not possess a valid driver's license. Of those 300,000, approximately 138,000 voted in the 2012 election. I also highlighted that of those registered voters who did not possess a valid drivers' license, 34% were minorities. This means that tens of thousands of actual North Carolina voters, and a disproportionate number of minority voters, now have to overcome additional hurdles to participate in elections in the future. Based 12 JA0188

13 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 13 of 39 on the evidence I presented to the Senate, legislators were aware of the negative impact HB 589 would have on North Carolinian voters generally, and minority voters in particular, and the inaccuracy of their allegations related to voter fraud or the prevention of voter fraud. I believe that the goal of HB 589 was to add barriers to voter participation so that at each barrier, voters (specifically minority voters will drop out of or be prevented from participating in elections. 26. During the debate, the proponents of HB 589 often referred to the state of Georgia's experience with photo identification as proof that it would not hinder voter participation in North Carolina. According to the proponents of HB 589, voter participation in Georgia increased after the introduction of a photo identification requirement. However, as I noted during the debate on the Senate floor on July 25th, under Georgia's state law, photo identification issued by 50 Georgia universities, colleges, and community colleges are acceptable forms of identification to vote. Georgia's state law also permits valid photo identification issued by any state, photo identification issue to state employees, and local municipal identification. HB 589 does not permit such identifications. I also noted that in 2006, prior to when Georgia passed its photo identification law, Georgia had a governor's race with an incumbent governor and included no U.S. Senate race. In 2010, however, the first election after Georgia'S photo identification law, Georgia had an open governor's race and a contested race for a U.S. Senate seat. My purpose in raising these points was to note that voter turnout is affected by multiple factors, and that while the photo identification requirement may have impeded voter turnout of certain voters between 2006 and 2010, other factors could have more than offset it. Likely, voter participation in Georgia would have increased even more from 2006 to 2010 had Georgia not imposed a photo identification requirement. 13 JA0189

14 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 14 of Elimination of One Week of Early Voting Provision: HB 589 shortens early voting by one week, the week during which minority voters disproportionately use early voting. In the 2012 election, approximately 900,000 North Carolinians voted during the first week of early voting. Of those 900,000 voters, 34% were minority voters. Even more stark was the disparity of voters who cast ballots on the first Sunday of early voting. Over 25,000 North Carolinians voted on the first Sunday of early voting during the 2012 election-and of those 25,000, 43% were African American voters. See Exhibit A. These statistics emphasize the disproportionate impact elimination of the first week of early voting would have on minority voters. The proponents of the bill nonetheless refused to restore the first week of early voting or to restore the first weekend of early voting. 28. Same-Day Registration: HB 589 completely eliminates same-day registration. The proponents of HB 589 argued that the majority of states do not allow same-day registration and that North Carolina was the exception in allowing same-day registration. But North Carolina is unlike the majority of states in that same-day registration was a legislative measure adopted to remedy North Carolina's unfortunate history of using election laws to minimize participation of African Americans. I emphasized during my speech on the Senate floor that in 2012, nearly 100,000 people registered and voted using same-day registration. Of those 100,000, 34% were minority voters. Again, I presented these statistics to the Senate to emphasize the disproportionate impact eliminating same-day registration would have on minority voters who had disproportionately taken advantage of same day registration. The Senate refused to remove the elimination of same-day registration from HB Pre-Registration of 16- and 17-year-olds. HB 589 also completely eliminates the pre-registration of 16- and 17-year-olds. The only reason offered by the proponents of HB JA0190

15 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 15 of 39 regarding the purpose of eliminating pre-registration of teenagers was given by Senator Rucho during the Rules Committee hearing and during the floor debate. Senator Rucho stated during the Senate floor debate that his son was confused by the pre-registration process. As I stated in response, his son's experience is a sorry reason to keep young people from registering to vote. That one person was confused by the process is not a legitimate rationale for eliminating a process by which approximately 50,000 young North Carolinians register to vote each year as part of a civics class in which we encourage young people to participate in their democracy. 30. Out of Precinct Voting. Perhaps one of the most troubling issues with HB 589 is the total absence of rationale given for certain provisions of HB 589 during either the Rules Committee debate or during the debate on the Senate floor. I cannot recall any rationale offered for why the legislators wanted to eliminate the counting of out-of-precinct ballots. 31. I presented legislators who sponsored and supported HB 589 with the facts that I have restated above, and none of them addressed the disproportionate impact HB 589 would have on minority voters with any evidence or reason-based response. They offered no facts and no amendments in response. Instead, the proponents ofhb 589 offered platitudes about the need to ensure the integrity of elections and anecdotal stories about the alleged "success" of Georgia's photo identification law. 32. When all the provisions ofhb 589 and their impacts are taken together, the intent of the bill is clear-to make it more difficult for minorities, young people, and seniors to vote. 33. This declaration is not intended to capture all of my knowledge or experiences that may be related to this matter. 15 JA0191

16 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 16 of 39 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on fvl ~--+-_I 2014 ~ 16 JA0192

17 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 17 of 39 10/18 10/19 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/01 11/02 11/03 Total Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total Votes Total One-Stop Votes Total Accepted One-Stop Early Votes: 2,556,228 This line graph tracks the day by day totals for accepted One-Stop early votes. The general trend is a steady increase throughout the early voting period with a spike on the last two early voting days before election day. One-Stop early vote totals for both Sundays and the first two Saturdays are much lower since not all counties participated on those days. Sunday early voting accounts for the lowest participation rates among county Boards of Election. 10/18 Thu 10/19 Fri 10/20 Sat 10/21 Sun 10/22 Mon 10/23 Tue 10/24 Wed 10/25 Thu 10/26 Fri Date 10/27 Sat 10/28 Sun 10/29 Mon 10/30 Tue 10/31 Wed 11/01 Thu 11/02 Fri 11/03 Sat Data Source: ftp:// One-Stop Turnout Stein Declaration Exhibit A, p. 1 of 8 JA0193

18 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 18 of 39 10/18 10/19 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/01 11/02 11/03 Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total Asian African American Native American Other Two or More Races Undesignated White TOTAL /18 10/19 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/01 11/02 11/03 Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total Asian 0.55% 0.61% 1.37% 1.70% 0.54% 0.58% 0.58% 0.63% 0.67% 1.31% 2.16% 0.67% 0.72% 0.75% 0.75% 0.87% 1.25% 0.79% African American 37.00% 32.11% 35.52% 43.44% 33.37% 31.17% 28.40% 26.79% 25.52% 29.53% 36.09% 26.31% 24.81% 24.85% 24.11% 25.13% 32.25% 28.89% Native American 0.44% 0.42% 0.32% 0.65% 0.30% 0.35% 0.46% 0.45% 0.44% 0.33% 0.24% 0.34% 0.33% 0.57% 0.51% 0.52% 0.51% 0.43% Other 1.06% 1.15% 1.81% 2.07% 1.02% 1.13% 1.14% 1.12% 1.23% 1.80% 2.34% 1.20% 1.26% 1.27% 1.36% 1.53% 2.01% 1.35% Two or More Races 0.48% 0.44% 0.59% 0.67% 0.46% 0.44% 0.44% 0.42% 0.43% 0.50% 0.71% 0.44% 0.45% 0.49% 0.52% 0.59% 0.77% 0.51% Undesignated 1.87% 1.67% 2.38% 2.82% 1.77% 1.87% 1.94% 1.98% 2.02% 2.52% 3.19% 2.05% 2.10% 2.27% 2.43% 2.67% 3.28% 2.23% White 58.61% 63.60% 58.02% 48.64% 62.53% 64.47% 67.04% 68.61% 69.69% 64.01% 55.26% 68.98% 70.33% 69.78% 70.32% 68.69% 59.93% 65.80% White Early Turnout % This line graph tracks the day by day percentages for AA Early Turnout White White One-Stop Accepted Ballots % accepted One-Stop early votes broken down by race African American AA One-Stop Accepted Ballots % The dotted lines show the overall share of accepted ballots across all days to highlight which days either 80% exceed or fall short of the average. The general trend shows a pronounced decline in White voter participation on the weekends, with weekday turnout typically meeting or slightly exceeding the average. 60% The exact opposite is true for African American voters, who show pronounced peaks in participation on the weekends, with weekday turnout typically meeting or slightly falling short of the average. Composition One-Stop Voters 40% 20% 0% 10/18 Thu 10/19 Fri 10/20 Sat 10/21 Sun 10/22 Mon 10/23 Tue 10/24 Wed 10/25 Thu 10/26 Fri Date 10/27 Sat 10/28 Sun 10/29 Mon 10/30 Tue 10/31 Wed 11/01 Thu 11/02 Fri 11/03 Sat Data Source: ftp:// One-Stop Turnout by Race Stein Declaration Exhibit A, p. 2 of 8 JA0194

19 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 19 of 39 10/21 Sun 10/28 Sun Alexander Anson Buncombe Catawba Craven Cumberland Durham Forsyth Guilford Hoke Johnston Lenoir Mecklenburg Pamlico Pitt Richmond Robeson Rowan Sampson Union Vance Wake Wayne Wilson Total This table shows the list of counties that participated in Sunday One-Stop early voting, including vote totals for each day. Only 24 counties participated in Sunday One-Stop early voting, and of those that did, not all participated in both Sundays during the early voting period. Overall, Sunday One-Stop early voting accounts for just under 2.5% of all early votes cast in the 2012 General Election. Total Sunday OneStop Ballots: Total OneStop Ballots: % of Total OneStop Ballots: % Section 5 County Data Source: ftp:// Sunday One-Stop Turnout by County Stein Declaration Exhibit A, p. 3 of 8 JA0195

20 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 20 of 39 10/21 Sun 10/28 Sun Asian African American Native American Other Two or More Races Undesignated White Total /21 Sun 10/28 Sun Asian 1.70% 2.16% African American 43.44% 36.09% Native American 0.65% 0.24% Other 2.07% 2.34% Two or More Races 0.67% 0.71% Undesignated 2.82% 3.19% White 48.64% 55.26% Composition One-Stop Sunday Voters 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% White African American 48.64% 43.44% White One-Stop Accepted Ballots: 65.8% African American One-Stop Accepted Ballots: 28.9% 55.26% 36.09% This bar graph shows the overall percent of accepted ballots for Sunday One-Stop early voting broken down by race. While the total number of White voters exceeded African American voters on both Sundays, African American voters turned out well above their average when compared to the entire early voting period. 0% 10/21 Sun Date 10/28 Sun Data Source: ftp:// Sunday One-Stop Turnout by Race Stein Declaration Exhibit A, p. 4 of 8 JA0196

21 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 21 of 39 10/18 10/19 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/01 11/02 11/03 Total Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total Votes Total Same Day Registrations Total Accepted Same Day New Registrations: 96,730 This line graph tracks the day by day totals for accepted new registrations during the One-Stop early voting period. The general trend is a steady increase of new registrations throughout the early voting period with a spike on the last two early voting days before election day. One-Stop new registration totals for both Sundays and the first two Saturdays are much lower since not all counties participated on those days. 10/18 Thu 10/19 Fri 10/20 Sat 10/21 Sun 10/22 Mon 10/23 Tue 10/24 Wed 10/25 Thu 10/26 Fri Date 10/27 Sat 10/28 Sun 10/29 Mon 10/30 Tue 10/31 Wed 11/01 Thu 11/02 Fri 11/03 Sat Data Source: ftp:// Same Day Registration Turnout Stein Declaration Exhibit A, p. 5 of 8 JA0197

22 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 22 of 39 10/18 10/19 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/01 11/02 11/03 Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total Asian African American Native American Other Two or More Races Undesignated White TOTAL /18 10/19 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/01 11/02 11/03 Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total Asian 2.08% 2.65% 3.02% 5.77% 1.98% 2.30% 2.23% 2.04% 2.13% 3.36% 5.58% 2.18% 2.04% 2.35% 2.06% 2.20% 3.03% 2.43% African American 36.94% 33.18% 35.99% 40.09% 39.65% 37.15% 34.69% 35.11% 32.82% 30.93% 37.91% 32.38% 32.41% 33.41% 31.89% 30.56% 36.79% 33.92% Native American 1.02% 0.83% 0.80% 0.74% 0.50% 0.88% 0.87% 1.12% 1.00% 0.45% 0.30% 0.86% 0.63% 1.13% 0.68% 0.74% 0.84% 0.82% Other 1.81% 2.18% 2.65% 2.96% 2.11% 2.25% 2.06% 2.11% 2.08% 2.18% 2.64% 1.98% 2.26% 1.85% 2.32% 2.49% 2.53% 2.25% Two or More Races 1.66% 1.43% 1.60% 1.04% 1.40% 1.53% 1.54% 1.57% 1.32% 1.92% 2.41% 1.59% 1.47% 1.64% 1.53% 1.56% 1.91% 1.61% Undesignated 5.63% 4.71% 4.07% 8.28% 3.96% 5.18% 4.51% 4.36% 3.81% 3.11% 3.32% 3.53% 3.80% 3.31% 4.48% 3.82% 3.41% 4.00% White 50.87% 55.03% 51.85% 41.12% 50.41% 50.71% 54.10% 53.70% 56.83% 58.04% 47.85% 57.50% 57.39% 56.31% 57.05% 58.64% 51.48% 54.97% Composition Same Day Registrations 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% White African American This line graph tracks the day by day percentages for accepted new registrations during the One-Stop early voting period broken down by race. The general trend shows a slight decline in new registrations for White voters on Sundays, with weekday percentages being relatively consistent. African American voters showed relatively consistent new registration percentages throughout the entire early voting period with slight increases around the weekends. 0% 10/18 Thu 10/19 Fri 10/20 Sat 10/21 Sun 10/22 Mon 10/23 Tue 10/24 Wed 10/25 Thu 10/26 Fri Date 10/27 Sat 10/28 Sun 10/29 Mon 10/30 Tue 10/31 Wed 11/01 Thu 11/02 Fri 11/03 Sat Data Source: ftp:// Same Day Registration Turnout by Race Stein Declaration Exhibit A, p. 6 of 8 JA0198

23 NC_DRIVERS_LICENSE OTHER Asian African American Native American Other Two or More Races Undesignated White TOTAL BANK_STATEMENT BANK_STATEMENT 1.91% 28.74% 0.48% 2.45% 1.66% 3.86% 60.90% GOVERNMENT_CHECK 1.26% 32.70% 1.89% 2.52% 1.26% 7.55% 52.83% NC_DRIVERS_LICENSE 2.47% 30.56% 0.80% 2.20% 1.34% 3.97% 58.66% OTHER Asian African American Native American Other Two or More Races Undesignated White White SDR 100% AA SDR GOVERNMENT_CHECK White African American White SDR - 55% PAYCHECK PHOTO_ID PAYCHECK PHOTO_ID 1.48% 37.52% 0.62% 2.34% 2.40% 3.69% 51.97% 2.88% 52.58% 1.42% 2.13% 1.89% 3.66% 35.44% AA SDR 33.9% 60% UTILITY_BILL UNKNOWN 2.51% 41.52% 0.72% 2.34% 2.38% 3.91% 46.62% 80% Composition by ID Type UNKNOWN % 53.67% 2.82% 0.56% 1.13% 3.39% 36.72% TOTAL UTILITY_BILL TOTAL 2.18% 33.23% 0.66% 2.47% 2.05% 4.57% 54.85% 2.43% 33.92% 0.82% 2.25% 1.61% 4.00% 54.97% This line graph shows the percent of new registrations during the One-Stop early voting period broken down by race and type of ID used to prove identity. The dotted lines show the overall percent of accepted new registrations to highlight which types of ID are more or less likely used by White and African American Voters. The general trends show that African American voters are far more likely to use a non DMV issued photo ID than White voters, and are slightly more likely to show a paycheck or ID labeled as other. 40% 20% 0% ID Type Data Source: ftp:// Same Day Registration ID Type by Race Stein Declaration Exhibit A, p. 7 of 8 JA0199 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 23 of 39

24 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 24 of 39 ABS_1STOP ABS_MAIL ABSENTEE CURBSIDE ELIG_NV IN_PERSON LEGACY PROV TRANSFER TOTAL Asian African American Native American Two or More Races Other Undesignated White Total ABS_1STOP ABS_MAIL ABSENTEE CURBSIDE ELIG_NV IN_PERSON LEGACY PROV TRANSFER TOTAL Asian 0.79% 0.92% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00% 0.74% 0.00% 0.82% 0.37% 0.78% African American 28.90% 8.66% 33.33% 28.60% 0.00% 16.16% 0.00% 31.56% 19.91% 23.08% Native American 0.43% 0.27% 0.00% 0.79% 0.00% 0.88% 0.09% 2.52% 0.35% 0.60% Two or More Races 0.51% 0.44% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.47% 0.09% 1.16% 0.89% 0.49% Other 1.35% 1.19% 0.00% 0.49% 0.00% 1.65% 0.00% 2.27% 1.81% 1.46% Undesignated 2.22% 2.12% 0.00% 1.25% 0.00% 2.02% 0.85% 8.36% 2.77% 2.17% White 65.80% 86.40% 66.67% 68.56% % 78.08% 98.96% 53.30% 73.89% 71.42% White Turnout % AA Turnout White White Total Ballots % African American AA Total Ballots % 80% Cpmposition by Vote Type 60% 40% This line graph shows the percent of total votes cast during the 2012 General Election broken down by race and type of ballot. The dotted lines show the overall share of ballots cast by race to highlight which types of ballots are more or less likely to be cast by White and African American voters. The general trends show that African American voters are considerably less likely to use absentee by mail ballots than White voters, and are slightly less likely to vote on election day than White voters. African American voters are also slightly more likely than White voters to use One-Stop early voting, as well as curbside voting. The most divergent trend involves provisional ballots where White voters account for 71.4% of all ballots cast, but only 53.3% of all provisional ballots. This shows that minority voters are far more likely to cast a provisional vote than are White voters. 20% 0% ABS_1STOP ABS_MAIL CURBSIDE IN_PERSON PROV Vote Type Data Source: ftp:// Ballot Type by Race Stein Declaration Exhibit A, p. 8 of 8 JA0200

25 Stein Declaration Exhibit B, p. 1 of 4 JA0201 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 25 of 39

26 Stein Declaration Exhibit B, p. 2 of 4 JA0202 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 26 of 39

27 Stein Declaration Exhibit B, p. 3 of 4 JA0203 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 27 of 39

28 Stein Declaration Exhibit B, p. 4 of 4 JA0204 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 28 of 39

29 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 29 of 39 Documented Cases of Voter Fraud in North Carolina Voter fraud may take various forms: double voting; impersonation; voting when ineligible (non- U.S. citizen or currently serving an active felony sentence voter registration issues or matters related to absentee voting. The State Board of Elections, to the greatest extent permitted by resources, investigates all allegations of voter fraud. Most allegations prove to be unfounded, lack criminal intent, or cannot be substantiated; however, in those cases where there is reasonable suspicion of voter fraud, the matter is turned over to the appropriate district attorney s office. We have made a careful review of our files and the table below shows the number of voter fraud matters by type, that after investigation, our office believed merited a referral to the district attorney s office. Voter Fraud Type Voting - Double Voting - Felons Non-citizen voter registration/voting Voting - Absentee Fraud Voting - Vote Buying/Selling Voting - Impersonation 1 1 Voting - Illegal voter assistance 1 Misrepresentation of election law 1 Voter Registration - Fraudulent forms Voter Registration - Residency 2 1 Voter Registration - Failure to deliver 1 1 The majority of these incidents occurred in the 2008 General Election. 2 The majority of the referrals in 2009 concluded investigations from the 2008 General Election. 3 As of March 11, 2013, these matters are still pending investigation. NC SBOE March 11, 2013 Stein Declaration Exhibit C, p. 1 of 1 JA0205

30 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 30 of 39 Stein Declaration Exhibit D, p. 1 of 1 JA0206

31 Stein Declaration Exhibit E, p. 1 of 9 JA0207 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 31 of 39

32 Stein Declaration Exhibit E, p. 2 of 9 JA0208 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 32 of 39

33 Stein Declaration Exhibit E, p. 3 of 9 JA0209 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 33 of 39

34 Stein Declaration Exhibit E, p. 4 of 9 JA0210 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 34 of 39

35 Stein Declaration Exhibit E, p. 5 of 9 JA0211 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 35 of 39

36 Stein Declaration Exhibit E, p. 6 of 9 JA0212 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 36 of 39

37 Stein Declaration Exhibit E, p. 7 of 9 JA0213 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 37 of 39

38 Stein Declaration Exhibit E, p. 8 of 9 JA0214 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 38 of 39

39 Stein Declaration Exhibit E, p. 9 of 9 JA0215 Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document Filed 05/19/14 Page 39 of 39