Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Motion and Brief North Carolina Amicus

Motion and Brief North Carolina Amicus

Motion and Brief North Carolina Amicus

Page 1: Motion and Brief North Carolina Amicus

Category:

Number of Pages:52

Date Created:June 18, 2014

Date Uploaded to the Library:June 27, 2014

Tags:Voter Fraud, Amicus, carolina, north, motion, Illegal Immigration, Obama, Supreme Court


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT NORTH CAROLINA
 
UNITED STATES AMERICA,  
Plaintiff,  Case No. 1:13-cv-861 (TDS-JEP)  

THE STATE NORTH CAROLINA; THE 
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD 
ELECTIONS; and KIM STRACH, her 
official capacity, 
Defendants.) 
______________________________________________
 
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF SUPPORT DEFENDANTS, AND REQUEST PARTICIPATE ORAL ARGUMENT 
Judicial Watch, Inc. (Judicial Watch), the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF), and Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill (Merrill) (collectively proposed amici) and through undersigned counsel respectfully move for leave file the attached amicus curiae brief support Defendants and Opposition Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 96) the above-captioned case.  Undersigned counsel Chris Fedeli has contacted counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants the above-captioned case, and both have indicated they not oppose this motion for leave file amicus curiae brief. accordance with Local Rule 7.5(b), this Motion being filed within the time permitted for Responses Preliminary Injunction Motions.  Proposed amici also request 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 
leave participate oral argument. support this Motion, proposed amici1 state follows: Pursuant 7.5(d), party partys counsel authored either this brief the 

NATURE THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT 
Plaintiff the United States has moved for preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants this matter from enforcing those provisions North Carolina law contained 589 that: eliminate same-day registration; reduce the number days early voting; and require provisional ballots cast the proper precinct, the grounds that such provisions violate Section the Voting Rights Act, U.S.C.  1973. The United States also has requested the appointment federal observers pursuant Section 3(a) the Voting Rights Act, U.S.C.  1973a(a).  Proposed amici wish submit the attached amicus curiae brief opposition Plaintiffs motion and support Defendants. 

STATEMENT FACTS 
Proposed amici adopt, and respectfully refer the Court to, the statement facts contained Defendants Memorandum Support Their Motion for Judgment the Pleadings Pursuant Fed. Civ. 12(c) (ECF No. 95, 5-15).  
proposed amicus curiae brief whole part, and party person other than proposed amici contributed money towards the preparation and submission either this brief the proposed amicus curiae brief.  Pursuant 7.5(e), AEF filing 
corporate disclosure statement simultaneously herewith, and Judicial Watchs corporate 
disclosure statement previously filed this case remains accurate.  ECF No. 29.  
Filed 06/18/14 Page 

QUESTION PRESENTED 
Whether this Court should grant this motion for leave file amicus curiae brief, and grant proposed amicis request for leave participate oral argument. 

ARGUMENT 
The proposed amicis interest this case ensure that North Carolinas elections are conducted with integrity and ensure that all citizens have confidence the legitimacy election results. Amici are concerned that the relief requested Plaintiff this case, granted, would have chilling effect voter confidence the integrity elections, both North Carolina and nationwide. North Carolina compelled reinstate same-day registration, extend the early voting period week, and permit out-of-precinct provisional ballots  and these things the absence any ability verify the identity voters the use photo  many North Carolina citizens could have their votes diluted unlawful ballots cast the names false duplicate registrations. Furthermore, Plaintiffs requested injunction will undermine the confidence integrity elections among citizens. the Supreme Court has noted, public confidence the integrity the electoral process encourages citizen participation the democratic process.  Crawford al. Marion County Election Board, 553 181, 197 (2008).  Conversely, lack integrity undermines confidence the electoral system and discourages citizen participation democracy. 
Judicial Watch non-partisan, public interest organization headquartered Washington, D.C.  Founded 1994, Judicial Watch seeks promote accountability, 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 
transparency and integrity government, and fidelity the rule law. furtherance these goals, Judicial Watch regularly files amicus curiae briefs and prosecutes lawsuits matters believes are public importance.  
Judicial Watch engaged multi-year legal effort ensure states and counties are conducting elections with integrity required federal law, effort Judicial Watch commenced 20122 and has continued thorough 2014.3 behalf its members, Judicial Watch has recently been engaged litigation against the State Indiana over election integrity,4 and favorably settled similar lawsuit against the State Ohio.5 During this process, Judicial Watch has developed knowledge, expertise, and insight into federal election laws and the careful balance they strike between ballot access and election integrity. Judicial Watch has previously appeared this case proposed intervener.  See ECF No. 50. See Press Release, 2012 Election Integrity Project: Judicial Watch Announces Legal Campaign Force Clean Voter Registration Rolls, Feb. 2012, available 
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/2012-election-integrity-projectjudicial-watch-announces-legal-campaign-to-force-clean-up-of-voter-registration-rolls/. See Stephen Dinan, States, D.C. are told clean voter rolls sued; Judicial Watch counters Obama, The Washington Times, March 24, 2014, available 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/24/states-dc-are-told-to-clean-upvoter-rolls-or-be-s/?page=all. See Eric Bradner, Lawsuit seeks force Indiana purge voting rolls deceased, those who have moved, Evansville Courier-Press, July 21, 2012, available 
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jul/21/30pt-hed3-10-inches-of-story-goesherep/. See Sam Howard, Husted, voting rights groups settle 'Motor Voter' Act case, Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 13, 2014, available http://www.cleveland.com/open/ index.ssf/2014/01/husted_voting_rights_groups_se.html. 
AEF nonprofit charitable and educational foundation based Englewood, New Jersey.  Founded 1964, AEF dedicated promoting education diverse areas study.  AEF regularly files amicus curiae briefs means advance its purpose and has appeared amicus curiae federal courts numerous occasions.  
AEF regularly participates election law matters before federal courts.  AEF was granted leave appear amicus two recent election integrity cases Tennessee and Virginia.6 AEF has also filed amicus briefs related election law cases advocating broad protection citizens rights participate elections and have their votes counted ballot initiative and referendum measures.7 Finally, AEF has regularly See Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation, Democratic Party Virginia Virginia State Board Elections, Case No. 1:13-01218 (filed with U.S District Court for the Eastern District Virginia October 16, 2013), available http://alliededucationalfoundation.org/legalbriefs/2013%20Briefs/ Democratic%20Party%20of%20VA%20v%20VA%20State%20Board%20of%20 Elections%202013.PDF; Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation, Lincoln Davis and Tennessee Democratic Party Tre Hargett, Case No. 2:12-00023 (filed with U.S District Court for the Middle District Tennessee June 2012), available http://www.scribd.com/doc/97003369/JW-Tennessee-Brief. See Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation, Citizens Charge Husted, Case No. 2:13-935 (filed with U.S District Court for the Southern District Ohio March 10, 2014), available http://alliededucational foundation.org/legalbriefs/2014%20Briefs/Citizens%20in%20Charge%20v%20 Husted.PDF; see also Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation, Hollingsworth Perry, Case No. 12-144 (filed with U.S. Supreme Court January 29, 2013), available http://www.scribd.com/doc/122824908/Prop-8-JW-AEFAmicus-Brief. 
participated federal cases involving so-called benign racial discrimination laws,8 including case involving disparate impact racial test similar the one issue here.9 
Ms. Merrill registered voter and resident North Carolina. 2012, she was Republican candidate for County Commissioner Buncombe County, race which she narrowly lost votes.  Ms. Merrill alleges that this loss was due same-day registration during early voting and improperly cast ballots. Merrill Decl., ECF No. 26-2 5-6,  19-20.  Merrill running for Buncombe County Commissioner again 2014 and wants ensure that future North Carolina elections are conducted with integrity, that election results can easily and reliably verified accurate. 
Based her direct experience with the electoral process North Carolina, Ms. Merrill concerned that ruling from this Court reversing the repeal same-day registration during early voting (or enjoining the enforcement North Carolinas Photo law) would create the risk unverifiable (and therefore unchallengeable) adverse election results.  Merrill also registered voter the State North Carolina, and See Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation, Fisher University Texas Austin, Case No. 11-345 (filed with U.S. Supreme Court May 29, 2012), available http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ Final-11-345-JudicialWatch-Brief.pdf; see also Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation, Schuette Coalition Defend Affirmative Action, Case No. 12-682 (filed with U.S. Supreme Court July 2013), available 
http://alliededucationalfoundation.org/legalbriefs/2013%20Briefs/shuette%20v%20 coalition%20(1).PDF. See Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation, American Insurance Association Department Housing and Urban Development, Case No. 1:13-966 (filed with U.S District Court for the District Columbia January 30, 2014), available http://www.cfpbmonitor.com/files/2014/02/Amicus.pdf. 
such she faces the same concerns all North Carolina citizens that lack election integrity could lead fraud, and the dilution cancelling out her vote. Crawford Marion County Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949, 952 (7th Cir. 2007), affd 553 U.S. 181 (2008). Merrill has previously appeared this case proposed intervener.  See ECF No. 50. 
The extent, any, which amicus curiae should permitted participate pending action solely within the broad discretion the district court.  Waste Mgmt., Inc. City York, 162 F.R.D. 34, (M.D. Pa. 1995); see Hoptowit Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982). While there rule governing the appearance amici district court, the courts have recognized they have broad discretion whether permit non-party participate amicus curiae. explained then-Judge Alito, [e]ven when party well represented, amicus may provide important assistance the court. Neonatology Assocs., P.A. Commissioner Internal Revenue, 293 F.3d 128, 132 (3rd Cir. 2002).  Indeed, the federal courts regularly permit parties with various interests appear amici, reasoning that restrictive policy with respect granting leave file may create least the perception viewpoint discrimination. Id. 133; see also United States Alkaabi, 223 Supp. 2d. 583, 592 (D.N.J. 2002).  
REQUEST FOR LEAVE PARTICIPATE ORAL ARGUMENT 
Proposed amici respectfully request leave the Court for ten minutes time 
July 2014, present arguments opposing Plaintiffs motion for preliminary 
injunction. 
Filed 06/18/14 Page Christopher Coates Christopher Coates South Carolina Bar No. 80853 Gene Johnson Gene Johnson North Carolina Bar No. 15917  
LAW OFFICE CHRISTOPHER COATES  JOHNSON LAW FIRM, P.A.  
934 Compass Point Charleston, South Carolina 29412  P.O. Box 1288 Arden, North Carolina 28704  
Telephone:(843) 609-7080 Email: curriecoates@gmail.com Appearing Pursuant Local Rule 83.1(d)  Telephone: (828) 650-0859 Facsimile: (828) 650-0913 Email: gbj@johnsonlawnc.com Chris Fedeli Chris Fedeli Bar No. 472919  
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.  
425 Third Street,  
Washington, 20024 Telephone: (202) 646-5172 Facsimile: (202) 646-5199 Email: cfedeli@judicialwatch.org Appearing Pursuant Local Rule 83.1(d)  

CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Judicial Watch, AEF, and Ms. Merrill, through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request the Court grant them leave file the attached amicus curiae brief and participate the oral argument regarding the motion for preliminary injunction. Dated: June 18, 2014 Respectfully submitted: 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 

CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 18th day June, 2014, transmitted the foregoing document the parties means electronic filing pursuant the ECF system. Chris Fedeli 
Chris Fedeli 
Filed 06/18/14 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT NORTH CAROLINA
 
UNITED STATES AMERICA,  
Plaintiff,  Case No. 1:13-cv-861 (TDS-JEP)  

THE STATE NORTH CAROLINA; THE 
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD 
ELECTIONS; and KIM STRACH, her 
official capacity, 
Defendants.) 
______________________________________________
 

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF SUPPORT DEFENDANTS AND 
OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135
Judicial Watch, Inc., Allied Educational Foundation, and Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill respectfully submit this amicus curiae brief support Defendants and opposition Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction.  This brief addresses particular issues federal election law which amici have knowledge and expertise. set forth below, amici will show (1) that increase turnout, including minority turnout, primary elections held last month contradicts all the predictions made Plaintiffs, (2) that defining the injury required for Section vote denial claim the way Plaintiffs request contrary existing law and would render the statute unmanageable enforce, and (3) that Plaintiffs approach assessing the tenuousness the policy reasons for the enactment 589 contrary controlling Supreme Court case law that acknowledges the substantial nature the interests North Carolina sought address. 
Background Facts 
Amici adopt, and respectfully refer the Court to, the statement facts contained 
Defendants Memorandum Support Their Motion for Judgment the Pleadings 
Pursuant Fed. Civ. 12(c) (ECF No. 95) 5-15. addition, amici note that recent primary election was held North Carolina May 2014. discussed detail point below, data published North Carolina establish that black turnout increased significantly that election when compared the last off-year primary held May 2010, which took place before 589 was enacted. 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135
ARGUMENT	 The Increase Black Turnout the Recent Primary Elections Compared the Last Such Elections Shows That Injunctive Relief Not Warranted. May 2014, thirteen days before the filing the instant motion for preliminary injunction, the State North Carolina held primary elections for federal and state offices, including statewide primaries for the office U.S. Senator.  The North Carolina State Board Elections (NCSBE) posted turnout data for these elections its website soon after the elections, which data subsequently was updated. also posted turnout data for the last off-year primary held May 2010. 
This data was analyzed Dr. Steven Camarota, expert retained amici.1 confirms that the May 2010 election makes for good comparison with the May 2014 election because both were primary elections held May non-presidential 
year.  Camarota Decl., Ex. describes the result natural experiment, because the May 2014 election the first and only election occur after 589 
repealed same-day registration and out-of-precinct ballots and restricted early voting.  Id. 
The results this analysis  which may reproduced using the publicly available data files  show that black turnout increased 2014 every meaningful measure.  Black share the total electorate increased.  Id. Table  The percentage black registered voters voting increased. Id.; Table  Using Census Bureau estimates, Attached hereto the Declaration Steven Camarota, Ph.D., which amici respectfully request the Court consider.  Exhibit that declaration report 
turnout the May 2014 primary elections, entitled Estimating the Impact 589: Black Turnout Before and After 589 was Implemented. 
Dr. Camarota found increase turnout among blacks voting age.  Id. Table Finally, while turnout increased across the board May 2014, and while white turnout increased 13.7%, black turnout increased much faster  astonishing 29.5%.  Id. Table Dr. Camarota concludes that a comparison the May 2010 primary and the May 2014 primary indicates that the new law will not negatively impact black participation the election process North Carolina. Id. 
These results are devastating Plaintiffs case, because they contradict all their experts bases for asserting harm.  Instead real-world test the effects 589, Plaintiffs have relied elaborate analyses its probable effects; and their experts have not been shy about predicting dramatic and dire consequences. just one example, Dr. Charles Stewart opined that 915,426 North Carolina voters (204,959 black and 710,467 white) would have been burdened the off-year elections 2010 the changes 589 makes same-day registration, early voting, and out-of-precinct voting.  ECF No. 101-2 12,  (figures for black voters); 13,  (for whites). calculates that close million North Carolina voters (769,492 black and 1,172,119 white) would have been burdened those changes 2012.  Id. 11,  19; 12,  22. 
Given such testimony, might expect turnout not just decline following the implementation 589, but crash. May 2014, however, both total turnout and black turnout significantly increased.  This outcome not merely another piece evidence for the Court consider.  Rather, fundamentally undermines Plaintiffs entire case showing that all the various models, hypotheses, correlations, and conjectures presented almost 900 pages expert reports are unreliable, because they predicted the 
opposite what happened.2 
These facts also doom Plaintiffs request for injunction.  Plaintiffs are unlikely succeed the merits claim asserting either discriminatory effect intent the 
challenged provisions 589 not, fact, cause any discernible disadvantage 
minority voters.  Far from suffering irreparable harm, both black and white voters will, 
the recent primary elections indicate, simply adapt the new rules and continue turn 
out vote.  Finally, the absence any such harm, consideration based 
balance the equities the public interest will weigh favor preliminary relief.  
Because the only real-world test that have belies the Plaintiffs predictions 
harm resulting from 589, their request for injunction should denied. worth observing just how extraordinary Plaintiffs motion is, that seeks enjoin validly enacted state law the basis highly speculative predictions about future events.  Compare, e.g., Stewart Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843, 877-79 (6th Cir. 2006) (discussing preliminary injunction the context known failings voting machines used past elections). 589 has only been effect since January 2014, and Plaintiffs have direct evidence any negative impact minority voters.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs have relied entirely expert prognostications about what will happen. help make forecasts about one the most unpredictable phenomena American life  popular election  Plaintiffs experts have propounded multiple regression analyses regarding voter preferences; counterfactual simulations voting methods; models predicting likely wait times; and astonishing formula that predicts how long people willingly will stand line vote (ECF No. 101-9 9).  Common sense suggests that, given the opacity the human behaviors that the experts sought understand, should cautious about accepting their conclusions. turned out, the May 2014, primary elections showed that these conclusions were wrong. 
II. Plaintiffs Misapprehend the Nature Injury Necessary Establish 
Section Results Claim. Introduction. 
Along with intentional discrimination, Section proscribes voting practices that operate, designedly otherwise, deny abridge voting rights contravention the statute. U.S. Charleston Cnty., 365 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2004).  The United States has asserted such results claim.  ECF No.  68-79, 98. discussed below, such claim requires Plaintiffs show that challenged voting practice caused members protected group experience less opportunity than other members the electorate participate the political process and elect representatives their choice. U.S.C.  1973(b).  Implicit the statutory language, and the jurisprudence interpreting Section results claims, requirement that any injury sufficiently serious beyond the reasonable control voter. their lawsuit, Plaintiffs claim that 589, which eliminates same-day registration, shortens the number early voting days (while keeping the number hours the same), and curtails the ability cast ballot precinct other than ones own  and which does for all North Carolina voters  violates Section inflicting disproportionate and unwarranted harm black voters. making this claim, Plaintiffs are applying Section novel way.  Specifically, Plaintiffs lawsuit seeks redefine the harm proscribed Section include changes electoral laws that voters could adapt simply altering their own voting behavior. This approach contrasts with the traditional way Section has been used, which proscribe electoral practices that 
significantly burden disadvantage voters the basis their race. Plaintiffs claims are accepted valid application the law, then any 
electoral practice that racial group voters prefers and that has any differential impact different races will subject Section challenge. Ultimately, Plaintiffs theory would authorize courts use Section results claims vehicle advance, not maximize, the political fortunes particular minorities. one foreseeable consequence, jurisdictions might simply conclude that unwise make any changes their existing electoral laws for fear that any subsequent change would lead Section litigation.   
Plaintiffs approach Section wrong and should rejected. Results Claim Under Section Requires Plaintiff Prove that Challenged Practice Caused Significant Injury. 
Section the Voting Rights Act proscribes the denial abridgement the right any citizen the United States vote account race color . 
U.S.C.  1973(a). provides that violation established if, based the totality circumstances, shown that the political processes leading nomination election the State political subdivision are not equally open participation members class citizens protected [against such denial abridgement] that its members have less opportunity than other members the electorate participate the political process and elect representatives their choice. U.S.C.  1973(b). the language the statute makes clear, the particular result that prohibits 
really consists two elements, both which must established.  The plain text  1973(b) and the cases applying require  plaintiffs prove both unequal access and inability elect representatives their choice. Mark Wandering Medicine 
McCulloch, 906 Supp. 1083, 1088, 1090 (D. Mont. 2012), vac. moot other 
grds., 544 Appx. 699 (9th Cir. 2013); citing, inter alia, Chisom Roemer, 501 U.S. 
380, 397-8 (1991) (plaintiffs burden show that its members had less opportunity participate the political processes and elect legislators their choice) 
(emphasis added Chisom), citing White Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 766 (1973).3 
These statutory requirements should apply both vote denial claims well 
traditional vote dilution claims.	 Traditional Section Vote Dilution Claims Have Always Required Proof That Challenged Practice Caused Significant Injury. traditional vote dilution cases brought pursuant the jurisprudence developed Thornburg Gingles, 478 U.S. (1986) and its progeny, the injury suffered 
Plaintiffs make attempt address the second element showing that the challenged voting procedures will deprive black voters the opportunity elect their candidates choice. Plaintiffs failure this regard fatal their Section claim and their motion for injunction because this element required the statute. related vein, telling that, while Plaintiffs rely number the Senate Factors show likelihood success the merits, they not rely Senate Factor the extent which members the minority group have been elected public office the jurisdiction. Thornburg Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 36-7 (1986); see ECF No. 113 44-54; ECF No. 98-1 20-28.  According the Fourth Circuit, Senate Factor one the two most important factors the inquiry into the totality the circumstances.  Charleston Cnty., 365  F.3d 345 (vote dilution case); see http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0404.pdf (in 2002 North Carolina had substantial number black elected officials). 
minority voters both significant and real. 
Consider, for example, standard challenge at-large system for electing city council.  Elections held under the at-large electoral system allow even relatively small majority voters elect all the city council members.  Electoral dominance assured the majority usually votes bloc against well-defined racial minority. the majority white and the minority black, even sizable minority may never have realistic chance choose even single city council member  regardless how they turn out vote any other measures they take. such case, both the causation and the injury are clear. The electoral system, operating the context polarized voting patterns, denies black voters equal opportunity participate the political process and elect their representatives choice.  Stated simply, those voters have practical ability elect their preferred city council member. See Gingles, 478 U.S. (The theoretical basis for claim is that, where minority and majority voters consistently prefer different candidates, the majority, virtue its numerical superiority, will regularly defeat the choices minority voters.); U.S. Blaine Cnty., 363 F.3d 897, 912 n.21 (9th Cir. 2004) (evidence racial bloc voting provides the requisite causal link between the voting procedure and the discriminatory result). 
Amici respectfully submit that the seriousness the injury that forms the basis for Section vote dilution claim should inform this Courts analysis what should required establish vote denial claim like the one issue here.	 Vote Denial Claims Brought Under Section Should Require Proof That Challenged Practice Caused Significant Injury. number courts appeal, including the Fourth Circuit, have emphasized that results-based vote denial claim under Section requires proof that challenged practice caused the particular harm described the text the statute. discussing causation, these courts repeatedly have stressed that not enough for plaintiff merely show that challenged practice had disproportionate impact particular race.  See Irby Virginia State Bd. Elections, 889 F.2d 1352, 1358 (4th Cir.1989) (Section challenge appointed school board system rejected despite significant [racial] disparity between the population and the school boards, because there was causal link between the appointed system and black under-representation.); Gonzalez Ariz., 677 F.3d 383, 406 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), affd sub nom., Arizona Inter Tribal Council Ariz., Inc., 133 Ct. 2247 (2013) (even though Latinos had suffered history discrimination socioeconomic disparities [and] racially polarized voting,  there was no proof causal relationship between [the challenged] Proposition 200 and any alleged discriminatory impact Latinos.);4 Smith Salt River Project Agric. Improvement Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 595 (9th Cir.1997) (a bare statistical showing disproportionate impact racial minority does not satisfy the  results inquiry), citing Ortiz City Philadelphia Office the City Comm'rs, F.3d 306, 308 (3rd Cir.1994) (although African-American and Latino voters are purged 
The private plaintiffs reliance panel decision Gonzalez misplaced given that was superseded the subsequent banc ruling.  ECF No. 98-1 28. 
disproportionately higher rates than their white counterparts, Section claim was not established where plaintiff failed prove that the purge statute caused minority voters removed disparate rates.); Wesley Collins, 791 F.2d 1255, 1261-62 (6th Cir. 1986) (It well-settled, however, that showing disproportionate racial impact alone does not establish per violation the Voting Rights Act.). 
These cases agree that Section plaintiffs must show causal connection between the challenged voting practice and the prohibited discriminatory result. Oritz, F.3d 312.  This prohibited discriminatory result exists where members protected class have less opportunity than other members the electorate participate the political process and elect representatives their choice. U.S.C.  1973(b).  Indeed, large part the reason that disproportionate racial impact, without more, generally insufficient establish Section results claim precisely because viable claim must entail injury consequence that serious enough meet the standard set forth the statute. 
The Section vote denial cases cited Plaintiffs bear this out.5 See Brooks Gant, Civ. 12-5003 *23 (D.S.D. Sept. 27, 2012) (because county had courthouse, its Native American voters had travel hours another county for early voting, which was substantially different from the voting opportunities afforded the residents other counties and the majority white voters); Spirit Lake Tribe Benson Cnty., Civil File No. 2:10-cv-095 (D.N.D. Oct. 21, 2010) (closure polling sites 
See cases cited ECF No. 113 22; ECF No. 98-1 16-17. single county with large Native American population); Brown Dean, 555 Supp. 502, 504 (D.R.I. 1982) (temporarily constraining move single polling site that would make considerably more difficult vote and would substantial deterrent voting the members the plaintiff class). These three cases are distinguishable from the current case because they involved significant physical time burdens associated with travel distant polling site. 
Two cases relied upon Plaintiffs concerned the use some counties punch card machines known actually disenfranchise voters causing ballots discarded.  Stewart Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843, 847, 851, 879 (6th Cir. 2006) (remanding for further findings but seeming support claim involving the use many, but not all, counties punch card machines that did not warn about disqualifying overvotes where African Americans overvoted far higher rates); Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918-19 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (upholding the denial injunction but acknowledging possibility success the merits where some counties used punch card machines and minority voters disproportionately reside punch-card counties and punch-card machines discard minority votes higher rate). These cases are distinguishable because the punch card machines arbitrarily disenfranchised minority voters. 
Operation PUSH Allain, 674 Supp. 1245, 1248-50 (N.D. Miss. 1987), affd sub nom. Operation PUSH Mabus, 932 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1991) involved complex dual registration system requiring that voters already registered vote county must, they lived city certain size, register again eligible vote city elections. This system, which had been instituted previous incarnations for the express purpose disenfranchising black voters, was found disproportionately affect black voters trying vote municipal elections.  Id. 1250, 1255.6 This case does not involve any kind dual registration procedure. 
One vote denial case cited Plaintiffs that does support more forgiving definition what may constitute the denial equal opportunity to participate the political process and elect representatives choice the recent decision Frank Walker, Case No. 11-CV-01128, Case No. 12-CV-00185 (E.D. Wis., Apr. 29, 2014). Although that case concerned photo requirement that not the subject this motion for preliminary injunction, the decision does contravene amicis position here how significant injury must support vote denial claim. The district court made clear that would have issued its ruling [e]ven the burden obtaining qualifying proves minimal for the vast majority Blacks and Latinos who will need obtain one order vote . Id. *108. 
The decision contrary the law this circuit.  The Frank decision held that Section protects against voting practice that creates barrier voting that more likely appear the path voter that voter member minority group and 
Harris Graddick, 593 Supp. 128 (M.D. Ala. 1984), cited the United States, did not involve voters but concerned the racially unbalanced appointment Alabama poll officials. Note that Obama for Am. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 425 (6th Cir. 2012), cited ECF No. 98-1 57, concerned Equal Protection challenge early voting system that treated overseas and military voters differently from other voters, and did not involve Section claim. 
that has disproportionate impact.  Id. *93. voting procedure that may appear the path simply not the same one that actually causes denial the equal opportunity participate and elect representatives choice. set forth detail above, the Fourth Circuit and other circuits cited require showing that the challenged practice caused result prohibited the statute.  See Irby, 889 F.2d 1358;  Smith, 109 F.3d 595 (a bare statistical showing disproportionate impact racial minority does not satisfy the  results inquiry). Frank does not require such causal connection, and therefore should not considered persuasive authority this Court. The Slight Inconveniences Imposed 589 Should not Give Rise Section Results Claim. 
The injuries that have given rise Section results claims are different kind from the inconveniences imposed the practices challenged this lawsuit.  The difference may expressed terms two primary dimensions: the significance requirement faced voters, and the control that they have over that requirement. 
For example, traditional vote dilution case, community voters may have practical chance elect even single member legislature.7 The affected voters the minority community, moreover, have control over this situation.  They cannot modify their own behavior way that allows them elect preferred candidate, long they are minority the age-eligible voters jurisdiction with at-large classic example U.S. Blaine Cnty., 157 Supp. 1145 (D. Mont. 2001), affd 363 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2004).  The County Commission there relied at-large elections and staggered terms office.  363 F.3d 900. Despite Native American population 45.2% (id.), no Native American [had] served County Commissioner the eighty-six year history Blaine County.  157 Supp. 1147. 
elections and racial bloc voting. 
Further, with the exception the Frank case, the vote denial cases cited Plaintiffs all concerned substantial physical and time burdens else significant risk disenfranchisement. E.g., Brooks, Civ. 12-5003 *23 (travel times one three hours led substantially different voting opportunities); Brown, 555 Supp. 504 (moving particular polling site was substantial deterrent voting).  All these cases, moreover, concerned burdens that were unevenly distributed and that varied the county, municipality, residence the voter.  This meant that assignment disadvantages one voter opposed another was made arbitrary basis. contrast, the changes made 589 apply equally throughout the state every voter.  And the demands are simply not burdensome.  North Carolina voters (1) must register days advance election;8 (2) must forgo same-day registration (which most states not have9 and which North Carolina only instituted 2007); (3) must early vote during the adjusted ten-day period; and (4) must vote their own precinct.  The voters North Carolina are complete control these outcomes. They can adjust the new law making simple and minor changes their own voting behaviors. the turnout results for the May 2014 primary elections show, that exactly what North Carolinas voters, including African American voters, managed do. 
prior election. U.S.C.  1973gg-6(a)(1). See http://www.demos.org/publication/what-same-day-registration-where-itavailable; http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-dayregistration.aspx. the Court holds, Plaintiffs request, that the slight inconveniences imposed 589 (like voting within ten- rather than seventeen-day period) give rise Section results claim, then there practical principled limit the reach the statute. probable that most electoral laws affect different races different extents.  What has been required Section date the additional showing that any disparate impact causally connected the denial equal opportunity participate elections and elect representatives choice.  Plaintiffs approach would away with this requirement. 
Ultimately, the effect Plaintiffs approach Section results claims elevate the electoral preferences minority voters unassailable rights.  The United States seems admit this when argues that the alternatives adding early late hours existing early voting sites are unlikely alleviate the problem since these new hours are not the hours voters want use (ECF No. 113 29) that data demonstrate that same-day registration preferred significantly higher percentage black voters than white voters (id. 32).  (Emphasis added.) The United States theory seems that, long minority voters take advantage procedures like same-day registration, early voting, out-of-precinct voting rates higher than white voters, then those procedures cannot repealed amended without violating Section 
This position tantamount arguing that one the purposes Section 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135
maximize minority voting strength.10 This position has been specifically rejected courts number occasions.  See Bartlett Strickland, 556 U.S. 16, 20, (2009) (Section does not guarantee maximization the political power particular racial groups); Johnson DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 116-17 (1994) (the failure maximize not denial the opportunity participate equally the electoral process); Gonzales Aurora, 535 F.3d 594, 598 (7th Cir. 2008); Jacksonville Coalition For Voter Protection Hood, 351 Supp. 1326, 1335-36 (M.D. Fla. 2004); Meza Galvin, 322 Supp. 52, (D. Mass. 2004). practical matter, Plaintiffs Section claims are upheld, the ruling could 
have the effect simply freezing state and local electoral laws place.11 Any repeal 
existing laws could lead challenge like the one before this Court. States would also 
want avoid experimenting with new electoral laws because they would know that such 
laws may become impossible repeal.  Therefore, states may conclude that the best 
course simply stop making any changes their voting laws. Judicial acceptance The United States also appears adopt this view when argues that Section violated because African Americans have used the voting procedures changed 589 increase their influence over the local political process.  Id. 36-7.  This implies that Section mandates the increase such influence. achieved this result, Plaintiffs theory Section liability could effectively reinstitute something like the statutory regime under Section that existed prior Shelby Cnty. Holder, 133 Ct. 2612 (2013).  The United States approach this litigation appears favor such outcome, that argues that, while the absence same-day registration, extended early voting, and out-of-precinct voting would not violate Section the repeal these provisions does.  ECF No. 113 23-4.  But not appropriate use Section surrogate for Section the statutes have different purposes. See Bartlett, 556 U.S. 24-25; Georgia Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 478 (2003); Lowery Deal, 850 Supp. 1326, 1334 (N.D. Ga. 2012). 
Plaintiffs position would deter experimentation and change the state and local level area the law where experimentation needs encouraged.  Such unwarranted end not required Section and should avoided. Note that under federal law registration could have closed even sooner, days 

III.	 The North Carolina General Assembly had Substantial Interest Passing 589. 
Plaintiffs argue that the government interests put forward proponents 589  promoting election efficiency, combatting voter fraud, and promoting public confidence elections  are unsupported the legislative history and not justify that bill. ECF No. 113 46-52; ECF No. 98-1 42-50.  Plaintiffs purpose arguing appeal Senate Factor which asks whether policy underlying challenged practice tenuous. See Gingles, 478 U.S. 37. making this argument, Plaintiffs ignore Supreme Court precedent establishing the states interest passing valid security legislation. Crawford Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), the Court heard constitutional challenge Indianas photo law, law that similar, but not identical, North Carolinas photo provision 589.12 upholding the law, the Court observed: 
While North Carolinas photo law not issue the motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs have raised the States defense that provision show that its justifications are tenuous.  ECF No. 113 52, ECF No. 98-1 45-6.  Further, argued herein, the Supreme Courts reasoning Crawford applies well other provisions repealed 589. 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135
There question about the legitimacy importance the States interest counting only the votes eligible voters. Moreover, the interest orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating the election process. While the most effective method preventing election fraud may well debatable, the propriety doing perfectly clear. 
Id. 196. addition, the Court identified second interest, namely, public confidence the integrity the electoral process, which has independent significance, because encourages citizen participation the democratic process. Id. 197; see Purcell Gonzalez, 549 U.S. (2006) (Confidence the integrity our electoral processes essential the functioning our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out the democratic process and breeds distrust our government.). Crawford, the Supreme Court expressly noted that the record contained no evidence [voter impersonation] fraud actually occurring Indiana any time its history. Id. 194.  However, the Court reasoned that this failure was not determinative Indianas strong interest preventing voting fraud, because fraud had occurred in other parts the country, and because the risk voter fraud [is] real [and] could affect the outcome close election. Id. 195-96; see Green Party Tenn. Hargett, No. 2:13-cv-224 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 20, 2014) *14 (upholding photo law while noting that Plaintiffs allegations Tennessees lack empirical evidence in-person fraud that requiring photo identification will reduce are irrelevant.). 
The reasoning applied Crawford photo laws has been applied other state interests related electoral integrity. Doe Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 191 (2010), the Supreme Court upheld against First Amendment challenge disclosure law concerning those who sign referendum petitions. The Court held that the States interest preserving the integrity the electoral process was particularly strong with respect efforts root out fraud . Id. 197 (citing Crawford and Purcell). 
Same-day registration raises the same kinds concerns about the integrity elections.  For example, under the system effect before the enactment 589, verification registration information had completed within two business days the submission the registration application.  N.C. Gen. Stat.  163-82.6A (d)(2012) (repealed 589).  If, therefore, potential registrant submitted application the Saturday before the election, local officials had until election day verify the information  during very hectic period for those officials.  Indeed, concern for making sure that county officials [had] more time validate voters who had registered during the early voting period was voiced Senator Rucho, one the primary sponsors 589.  ECF 113 13.  Further, with respect out-of-precinct voting, easy imagine why system that allows ballots cast precinct where the voter not registered vote would viewed with suspicion well-meaning legislators.  Indeed, the North Carolina Supreme Court has expressly recognized that the State's statutory residency requirement provides protection against election fraud . James Bartlett, 359 N.C. 260, 270 (2005) (overruled subsequent legislation). 
But larger sense, the question whether such rationales are convincing  or, Plaintiffs would have instead, tenuous  beside the point.  Clear Supreme Court precedent recognizes states valid interests attempting ensure electoral integrity.  See 
League United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 870-1 (5th Cir. 1993) (substantiality states interest different from limited issue tenuousness, and can defeat liability). the legislative history 589, its proponents claimed that preventing voter fraud and promoting public confidence elections  the same two government interests deemed compelling Crawford  justified the enactment the challenged election procedures.  Plaintiffs now ask this Court scrutinize the public policy reasons given members the General Assembly for 589, and without acknowledging that the Supreme Court has recognized the importance and legitimacy these very interests.  Plaintiffs demand particularized proof the justifications offered defense these interests, although the Supreme Court Crawford did not demand such proof.  Plaintiffs proposed inquiry should rejected inconsistent with how Crawford reviewed the assertion the state interests combatting voter fraud and encouraging public confidence the context challenges voting laws. allow this type attack would allow undue encroachment upon the legislative branchs prerogative make the laws for the Tar Heel State.  

CONCLUSION 
For all the foregoing reasons, amici respectfully urge the Court DENY Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135

Dated: June 18, 2014 Respectfully submitted: Christopher Coates Chris Fedeli Christopher Coates 

Chris Fedeli 
South Carolina Bar No. 80853 Bar No. 472919
 LAW OFFICE CHRISTOPHER COATES
 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 934 Compass Point 
425 Third Street,
 Charleston, South Carolina 29412
 
Washington, 20024
 Telephone:(843) 609-7080
 
Telephone: (202) 646-5172
 Email: curriecoates@gmail.com 
Facsimile: (202) 646-5199
 
Appearing Pursuant Local Rule 83.1(d) 
Email: cfedeli@judicialwatch.org 
Appearing Pursuant Local Rule 83.1(d) Gene Johnson 
Gene Johnson
 North Carolina Bar No. 15917
 JOHNSON LAW FIRM, P.A.
 
P.O. Box 1288
 Arden, North Carolina 28704
 Telephone: (828) 650-0859
 Facsimile: (828) 650-0913
 Email: gbj@johnsonlawnc.com 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135

CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 18th day June, 2014, transmitted the foregoing document the parties means electronic filing pursuant the ECF system. Chris Fedeli     
Chris Fedeli 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135
Exhibit  Camarota Declaration 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT NORTH CAROLINA
 
UNITED STATES AMERICA, 
Plaintiff,)  Case No. 1:13-cv-861 (TDS-JEP) THE STATE NORTH CAROLINA; THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD ELECTIONS; and KIM STRACH, her official capacity, Defendants.) __________________________________________ 

DECLARATION STEVEN CAMAROTA 
Pursuant U.S.C.  1746, Steven Camarota, hereby state and declare 
follows: name Steven Camarota. over the age eighteen and have current position Director Research for the Center for Immigration 

personal knowledge the facts set forth below.  
Studies, Washington, DC-based research institute that examines the consequences 
legal and illegal immigration the United States. hold masters degree political science from the University 
Pennsylvania, Ph.D. public policy analysis from the University Virginia, and 
B.A. from Juniata College.  During the course obtaining these degrees, received 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 
graduate level training the statistical study human populations, which qualifies conduct demographic research professional basis. May 2014, was retained Judicial Watch, Inc. individual capacity perform analysis black voter turnout the May 2014 primary election North Carolina, and compare turnout the last non-presidential-year primary election May 2010. conducted analysis using data files posted the North Carolina State Board Elections their website. then generated report discussing findings, which attached hereto Exhibit entitled: Estimating the Impact 589: Black Turnout Before and After 589 was Implemented. This report contains complete statement all opinions and the basis and reasons for them, and all the facts data considered forming them. 
Attached hereto Exhibit copy C.V., including list publications. the previous four years have testified expert witness Melendres Arpaio, Case No. 2:07-cv-02513 (D. Ariz., Dec. 12, 2007), and fact witness Judicial Watch, Inc. King, Cause No. 1:12-cv-800 (S.D. Ind., June 11, 2012). 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 
Exhibit
 
Estimating the Impact 589 
Black Turnout Before and After 589 was Implemented 
Introduction: August 2013 North Carolina enacted 589 which made changes the states election law. The changes affected when voters could register, the length the early voting period, and the counting out-of-precinct provisional ballots, among other things.  These changes were implemented January 2014. determine whether the changes have adversely impacted black turnout, this analysis employs what can described natural experiment. compares the result from the May 2014 primary election, which was the first election conducted after the changes were implemented, the last non-presidential-year primary election, May 2010, which was conducted under the old election law. The findings show discernable negative impact voter turnout from 589. particular, the share registered non-Hispanic blacks who voted and their turnout rate relative their population size were higher the May 2014 election under the new election law than May 2010 election under the old election law. 
Methods: North Carolina asks those registering vote identify their race and, separate question, whether they are Hispanic.  This information posted the North Carolina State Board Elections (NCSBE) website downloadable text file.  After each election the NCSBE also posts data file showing, among other things, the race and ethnicity those who voted.1 These files allow for comparison the share registered voters race who voted the May 2010 primary election the turnout registered voters the May 2014 primary election. The May 2014 election the first and only election occur after the provisions 589 were implemented. the new law had adverse impact turnout should show the May 2014 election.  The May 2010 election makes for good comparison with the May 2014 election because both were primary elections held May non-presidential election year. The board elections web site can found here: http://www.ncsbe.gov/ncsbe/ and the data files for each election can found here: ftp://alt.ncsbe.gov/ENRS/. The file named historystats05xx06xx2014 reports those who voted the May 2014 election and the file named voterStats05xx06xx2014 reports information those registered vote for that election. The files historystats05xx04xx2010 and voterstats05xx04xx2010 report the same information for the May 2010 election. All four files are posted text, which can downloaded into Excel for analysis. The race variable these files race_code and the variable that identifies Hispanics ethnic_code. The race variable good quality. 2010 and 2014 only 2.2 percent less those registering voting the May 2010 and May 2014 elections did not provide their race. The Hispanic variable lower quality; between and percent those registering voting did not indicate whether they were Hispanic. Table the end this report shows the nonresponse rates for race and ethnicity from the NCSBE data files. Hispanics comprise only modest share eligible voters the North Carolina. the first quarter 2014 the Census Bureaus Current Population Survey (CPS) shows that only 2.7 percent adult (18+) citizens the state were Hispanic and only percent were Hispanic 2010. Given their modest share voting-age citizens, there question that most those who did not report their ethnicity are not Hispanic. addition using the NCSBE data, this analysis also uses public use data from the Census Bureaus Current Population Survey (CPS) from the first quarters 2010 and 2014 estimate the size North Carolinas voting-age population race.3 With these population figures, possible estimate the share the voting-age population race that turned out the May 2010 and 2014 primary elections.  The data also allows for estimation the share the voting-age population that was registered vote race the time each election. 
Findings: end this report are tables showing comparisons between the May 2010 and 2014 elections.  Table shows the number blacks (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) and whites (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) who voted the 2010 and 2014 election based NCSBE data.  Table reports the racial shares voters each election.  Table reports registration figures for these same two elections.  Table shows the turnout rate for registered voters race 2010 and 2014.  Overall, Table indicates that the number non-Hispanic blacks voting the 2014 primary election was nearly 45,000 larger (29.5%) than the 2010 primary election.  The number non-Hispanic whites voting increased only 13.7%.  Table shows that non-Hispanic blacks increased their share those who voted from 17.2% the total the 2010 election 19% the 2014 election. contrast, the share voters who were non-Hispanic white declined. Table indicates that the share registered non-Hispanic blacks who voted was higher 2014 than 2010  13.4% versus 11.4%.  This increase percentage points the turnout registered non-Hispanic blacks was larger than the increase for non-Hispanic whites (see Figure 1).  
Tables through show that the number non-Hispanic blacks voting, the share registered non-Hispanic blacks voting and their share the overall vote increased from 2010 2014. These increases were both relative non-Hispanic whites and the overall electorate.  Therefore, the NCSBE data for the May 2010 and May 2014 elections show evidence that 589 adversely impacted black participation. 
Table provides turnout and registration rates the voting-age population using NCSBE data the numerator and population estimates from the Census Bureau data the denominator. The table shows that 10.9 percent non-Hispanic blacks ages and older voted the May 2010 election compared 12.7 percent the May 2014 election.  This increase statistically 
significant using percent confidence level for the Census Bureau data.4 The increase non-Hispanic black turnout was roughly equal the percentage point increase for non-Hispanic whites. Also, the percentage non-Hispanic blacks registered May 2014 relative their population size was virtually unchanged from the May 2010 election. Taken together, the NCSBE data and the Census Bureau data presented Table indicate that the reforms election law did not reduce the turnout rate registration non-Hispanic blacks North Carolina.  
Conclusion: This analysis uses natural experiment that compares turnout two similar elections, one before the implementation certain provisions 589 and one after its implementation.  The findings show that the turnout non-Hispanic blacks was high higher the election after 589 was implemented than the election before the law went into effect. This the case both relative non-Hispanic whites and the overall North Carolina population. These findings run counter the claim that 589 will reduce non-Hispanic black registration turnout.  Instead, comparison the May 2010 primary and the May 2014 primary indicates that the new law will not negatively impact black participation the election process North Carolina. Based the Current Population Survey (CPS) from the first quarter 2014, there were 1,535,011 (100,347) non-Hispanic blacks North Carolina ages and older. The CPS from the first quarter 2010 shows there were 1,389,687 (95,804) non-Hispanic blacks and older the state (see Table 6).  Using the upper and lower bounds these population estimates combined with the number non-Hispanic black voters 2010 and 2014 from the NCSBE data indicates that the increase 1.9 percentage points (shown Table the share blacks who voted statistically significant. (Due rounding error, Table shows 1.8 percentage point increase not 1.9. The actual voter turnout for non-Hispanic blacks 2010 was 10.86% and 12.73% 2014, creating increase 1.87 percentage points that rounds 1.9.) worth noting that the NCSBE data not sample there confidence interval margin error report. For detailed explanation about how calculate unbiased standard error and resulting confidence intervals for quarterly data from the CPS see this document the Bureau Labor Statistics web site:  http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf. Population estimates race and age are only available from the Census Bureau the state level though 2012. Therefore not possible know what the size the black population North Carolina using the Bureaus population estimates. However, the Census Bureau does create preliminary population estimates that they incorporate into the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), which collected for the Bureau Labor Statistics the Census Bureau. The CPS designed collect information the nations labor force. The public use files the CPS can used provide estimates the non-institutionalized population North Carolina race. this writing the January through March 2014 public use files CPS are available the Census Bureaus DataFarrett web site:  http://dataferrett.census.gov/. Table reports sample sizes, standards errors and percent confidence intervals from the January, February, and March 2010 and 2014 CPS. Table reads follows: the first quarter 2014 there were 1.535 million voting age non-Hispanic blacks North Carolina plus minus about 100,000. They were 20.8 percent the population plus minus 1.3 percentage points. 
Table  
Turnout the May 2010 and May 2014 Primary Elections North Carolina  
Number voting  
Category  Turnout May 2010  Turnout May 2014  Numerical increase turnout 2010 2014  Percentage increase turnout 2010 2014  
Black Non-Hispanic Black White Non-Hispanic White All  151,015 150,897 705,635 704,689 878,218  195,578 195,404 803,036 801,310 1,028,143  44,563 44,507 97,401 96,621 149,925  29.5% 29.5% 13.8% 13.7% 17.1%  
All figures are from the files posted North Carolina's State Board Elections website. Figures for whites and blacks are those reporting only one race.  

Table
 
Vote shares the May 2010 and May 2014 Primary Elections North Carolina  
Race/ethnicity  Share the Electorate May 2010  Share the Electorate May 2014  Increase the share the electorate  
Black Non-Hispanic Black White Non-Hispanic White All  17.2% 17.2% 80.3% 80.2% 100.0%  19.0% 19.0% 78.1% 77.9% 100.0%  1.8% 1.8% -2.2% -2.3% n/a  
All figures are from the files posted North Carolina's State Board Elections website. Figures for whites and blacks are those reporting only one race. 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 125-1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 125-1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 125-1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 125-1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 
Table  
Registration for the May 2010 and May 2014 Primary Elections North Carolina  
Category  Registration May 2010  Registration May 2014  Numerical Increase Registration 2010 2014  Percentage increase Registration 2010 2014  
Black Non-Hispanic Black White Non-Hispanic White All  1,322,309 1,319,606 4,478,797 4,460,801 6,118,134  1,463,672 1,459,234 4,621,316 4,591,562 6,517,104  141,363 139,628 142,519 130,761 398,970  10.7% 10.6% 3.2% 2.9% 6.5%  
All figures are from the files posted North Carolina's State Board Elections website. Figures for whites and blacks are those reporting only one race.  

Table  
Turnout Registered Voters for the May 2010 and May 2014 Primary Elections North Carolina  
Category  Turnout rate for registered voters May 2010  Turnout rate for registered voters May 2014  Increase turnout rate registered voters 2010 2014  
Black Non-Hispanic Black White Non-Hispanic White All  11.4% 11.4% 15.8% 15.8% 14.4%  13.4% 13.4% 17.4% 17.5% 15.8%  1.9% 2.0% 1.6% 1.7% 1.4%  
All figures are from the files posted North Carolina's State Board Elections website. Figures for whites and blacks are those reporting only one race.  

Table  
Turnout and Registration Rates the May 2010 and May 2014 Primary Elections North Carolina using NCSBE and Census Bureau data.  
Category  Turnout May 2010* Registration May 2010*  2010 18+ population from CPS**  Turnout rate 18+ population 2010  Registration rate 18+ population 2010  
Black  151,015 1,322,309  1,409,196  10.7%  93.8%  
Non-Hispanic Black  150,897 1,319,606  1,389,687  10.9%  95.0%  
White  705,635 4,478,797  5,109,819  13.8%  87.7%  
Non-Hispanic White  704,689 4,460,801  4,713,838  14.9%  94.6%  
All  878,218 6,118,134  6,891,715  12.7%  88.8%  
Category  Turnout May 2014* Registration May 2014*  2014 18+ population from CPS**  Turnout rate 18+ population 2014  Registration rate 18+ population 2014  
Black  195,578 1,463,672  1,551,477  12.6%  94.3%  
Non-Hispanic Black  195,404 1,459,234  1,535,011  12.7%  95.1%  
White  803,036 4,621,316  5,310,197  15.1%  87.0%  
Non-Hispanic White  801,310 4,591,562  4,779,247  16.8%  96.1%  
All  1,028,143 6,517,104  7,376,913  13.9%  88.3%  
*Figures are from North Carolina's State Board Elections, shown Table through  **Figures come from the public use files the January, February and March Current Population Survey for 2010 and 2014.  Figures for whites and blacks are those reporting only one race.  

Table  
Population Figures for North Carolina from the Current Population Survey Race  
2010  
Category  2010 18+ population from CPS  2010 Standard Error  90% Confidence Interval   Share total 18+ population  Standard Error for population share 18+ population  Sample size  
Black  1,409,196  58,799  96,430  20.4%  0.79%  1,224  
Non-Hispanic Black  1,389,687  58,417  95,804  20.2%  0.78%  1,209  
White  5,109,819  107,401  176,137  74.1%  0.80%  4,661  
Non-Hispanic White  4,713,838  103,270  169,362  68.4%  0.85%  4,317  
All  6,891,715  124,105  203,533  100.0%  n/a  6,210  
2014  
Category  2014 18+ population from CPS  Standard Error  90% Confidence Interval   Share total 18+ population  Standard Error for population share 18+ population  Sample size  
Black  1,551,477  61,491  100,844  21.0%  0.77%  1,088  
Non-Hispanic Black  1,535,011  61,187  100,347  20.8%  0.76%  1,081  
White  5,310,197  109,425  179,457  72.0%  0.80%  4,711  
Non-Hispanic White  4,779,247  103,965  170,502  64.8%  0.85%  4,237  
All  7,376,913  128,224  210,287  100.0%  n/a  6,201  
Population figures are from the public use files the January, February and March Current Population Survey for 2010 and 2014. Figures for whites and blacks are those reporting only one race.  

Table  
Number and Percentage Missing Values for NCSBE data for Race and Hispanic Variables  
Race Ethnicity  Number Missing May 2014 voters  Number Missing May 2014 registration  Number Missing May 2014 vote  Number Missing May 2014 registration  
Race Hispanic  5,315 78,891  99,656 984,576  9,433 113,587  145,350 1,174,352  
Race Ethnicity  Percentage Missing May 2010 vote  Percentage Missing May 2010 registration  Percentage Missing 2014 vote  Percentage Missing 2014 registration  
Race Hispanic  0.6% 9.0%  1.6% 16.1%  0.9% 11.0%  2.2% 18.0%  
All figures are from the files posted North Carolina's State Board Elections website. Missing values are those which the individual did not provide his race ethnicity.   

Exhibit
 
STEVEN CAMAROTA, Ph.D.
 Director Research
 Center for Immigration Studies
 
Center for Immigration Studies
 1522 St.,  Suite 820
 Washington, 20005
 (202) 466-8185
 E-mail: sac@cis.org 
EDUCATION: 
University Virginia Ph.D. Policy Analysis, May 1997  Charlottesville,  
University Michigan ICPSR Summer statistics program, 1994  Ann Arbor,  
University Pennsylvania M.A. Comparative Politics, August 1988  Philadelphia,  
Juniata College Bachelor Arts, May 1987  Huntington,  

RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT: 
Center for Immigration Studies Washington, Director Research, 2000 present Resident Scholar, 1996 2000 
Census Bureau/Sabre Systems  Washington, Lead Researcher evaluating data for the Census Bureau 2000 2007 

OUTSIDE REVIEWER FOR FOLLOWING REFEREED JOURNALS: 
Demography, the American Journal Sociology, the Quarterly Review Economics and Statistics, and Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: have worked for the Center for Immigration studies for years and the total number publications have written extensive, including opinion pieces, blogs, and other articles all which should available the Centers web site:  http://cis.org/Camarota-Publications. 
Journals/book chapters 
Forthcoming: The Fiscal and Economic Impact Immigration: The Current Debate Guide U.S. Economic Policy. Editors: Robert Wright and Thomas Zeiler, Press 2014. 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 
Immigration and Aging America Public Policy and Aging Report, National Academy Aging Society, spring 2012, Vol. 22, Num. 
Immigration and Black Americans: Accessing the Impact The Impact Illegal Immigration the Wages and Employment Opportunities Black Workers, Commission Civil Rights Chair: Gerald Reynolds,  August 2010 
Immigrations Impact Public Coffers the United States The Effects Mass Immigration Canadian Living Standards and Society edited Herbert Grubel. Fraser Institute, 2009. 
Immigrant Employment Gains and Native Losses 2000-2004 Debating Immigration, Editor: Carol Swain. Princeton University Press, 2007. How the Terrorists Get In The Public Interest, Fall 2002 The Impact Immigration the U.S. Labor Market with Mark Krikorian. Globalization and 
Wages, Editors: Albert Fishlow and Karen Parker Council Foreign Relations Press. 1999. 
Immigration and the Census: Which States are Losing Seats the House? with Dudley Poston. 
Campaign and Elections, December 1999. 
The Effect Immigration the Earnings Low-skilled Native Workers: Evidence from the June 1991 Current Population Survey, Social Science Quarterly, Vol #2, June 1997. Census Bureau (Sabre System Inc. contract): 
Examining the American Community Survey Data Collection Process for Sources Non-Sampling Error: Findings from Focus Groups Survey Interviewers 2001. 
Assessing the Quality Data Collected the Foreign Born: Evaluation the American Community Survey Pilot Study with Jeffery Capizzano 2004. 
Assessing the Quality Data Collected the Foreign Born: Evaluation the American Community Survey, Full Study Findings with Jeffery Capizzano 2004. 
Evaluation Subnational ACS Foreign-Born Data with Jeffery Capizzano 2005. 
Written Congressional Testimony: 
The Fiscal and Economic Impact Immigration the United States 
Testimony Prepared for the Joint Economic Committee, May 2013 
Why Less-Skilled Immigration and Amnesty Are Costly Taxpayers 
Testimony Prepared for Senate Committee the Judiciary April 22, 2013
 
Immigration and the U.S. Economy September 30, 2010
 Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Immigration, Citizenship, 

Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 
Refugees, Border Security and International Law.
 
Immigrations Impact U.S. Workers November 19, 2009
 Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
 
The H-2B Visa Program and "Shortage" American Workers April 16, 2008  
Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
 
Immigration, Social Security, and The Labor Market June 19, 2007
 Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee Immigration and Claims.
 
Immigrations Impact American Workers May 2007
 Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee Immigration and Claims.
 
Immigration's Impact American Workers August 29, 2006
 Testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee Immigration and Claims.
 
Immigration's Impact Public Coffers, Federal and Local August 24, 2006 
Testimony before for the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Immigration and Claims.
 
Immigration's Impact Public Coffers July 26, 2006
 Testimony before House Ways and Means Committee.
 
Analysis the Senate Amnesty Plan: S2611 Repeats Many the Mistakes the Past July 18, 2006 
Testimony before House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Immigration, Border Security, and 
Claims.
 
The Impact Non-Citizens Congressional Apportionment December 2005.
 Testimony before the House Committee Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee 
Federalism and the Census.
 
Immigrant Job Gains and Native Job Losses 2000 2004 May 2005
 Testimony before House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Immigration, Border Security, and 
Claims.
 
What's Wrong With the Visa Lottery? April 29, 2004
 Testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
 
Impact Immigration American Workers October 30, 2003
 Testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
 
Threats National Security: The Asylum System, The Visa Lottery, and 245(i) October 2002
 Testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
 
Making Interior Enforcement Work June 19, 2002
 Testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Immigration and Claims.
 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 
Immigration and Terrorism October 12, 2001 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee the Judiciary Subcommittee Technology Terrorism and Government Information. 
The Impact Immigration U.S. Population Growth August 2001
 Testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
 
The Impact Mass Immigration the Poor March 11, 1999.
 Testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
 

Selected Center for Immigration Studies Publications: There STEM Worker Shortage? look employment and wages science, technology, engineering, and math,
 
with Karen Zeigler, May 2014. 
How Many New Voters Would S.744 Create? look the electoral implications the Gang Eight immigration bill, October 2013.
 Shifting the Balance: How the Gang Eight bill and immigration generally shift seats the House 
Representatives, November 2013.
 
Immigrant Gains and Native Losses the Job Market, 2000 2013, with Karen Zeigler, July 2013. Who Voted 2012? Results from the Census Bureaus November Voting and Registration Supplement, 
May 2013. 
Are There Really Jobs Americans Wont Do? detailed look immigrant and native employment across occupations, with Karen Zeigler, May 2013. 
Projecting Immigrations Impact the Size and Age Structure the 21st Century American Population, December 2012. 
Projecting the 2012 Hispanic Vote Shares Nationally and Battleground States, 
with Karen Zeigler, August 2012.
 Immigrants the United States, 2010: Profile America's Foreign-Born Population, August 2012.
 Declining Summer Employment Among American Youths, December 2011.
 The Hispanic Vote 2010 Discernible Trend, with Ashley Webster, May 2011.
 Welfare Use Immigrant Households with Children Look Cash, Medicaid, Housing, and Food 

Programs, April 2011.
 Immigration and Economic Stagnation: Examination Trends 2000 2010, November 2010.
 The Hispanic Vote the Upcoming 2010 Elections, with Ashley Webster, October 2010.
 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 Drought Summer Jobs: Immigration and the Long-Term Decline Employment Among U.S.-Born 
Teenagers, with Karen Jensenius, May 2010.
 Religious Leaders vs. Members: Examination Contrasting Views Immigration, December 2009.
 Business and Labor Immigration: Contrasting Views Leaders vs. Rank and File, February 2010.
 Immigration and Crime: Assessing Conflicted Issue with Jessica Vaughan, November 2009.
 Public Opinion Mexico U.S. Immigration: Zogby Poll Examines Attitudes October 2009. Shifting Tide: Recent Trends the Illegal Immigrant Population, with Karen Jensenius, July 2009.
 Immigration the United States and World-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions with Leon Kolankiewicz,
 August 2008.
 
Immigrants the United States, 2007: Profile America's Foreign-Born Population, November
 
2007.
 100 Million More: Projecting the Impact Immigration the U.S. Population, 2007 2060, August 
2007.
 
Illegitimate Nation: Examination Out-of-Wedlock Births Among Immigrants and Natives, June 2007. 
Dropping Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit From the Labor Market, 2000-2005,March 2006. 
Immigrants Mid-Decade: Snapshot America's Foreign-Born Population 2005, December
 2005.
 Births Immigrants America: 1970 2002, July 2005.
 Immigration Aging Society: Workers, Birth Rates, and Social Security, April 2005.
 The High Cost Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, August 2004.
 Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact Illegal and Legal Immigration Congressional 

Apportionment, October 2003. 
Where Immigrants Live: Examination State Residency the Foreign Born Country Origin 1990 and 2000 with Nora McArdle, September 2003. Outsmarting Smart Growth: Population Growth, Immigration, and the Problem Sprawl, with Roy 
Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz, August 2003. 
Back Where Started: Examination Trends Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform, 
March 2003.
 Elite vs. Public Opinion: Examination Divergent Views Immigration, with Roy Beck, 

Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 
December 2002. 
Immigrants the United States -2002: Snapshot America's Foreign-Born Population, November 2002. 
The Open Door: How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered and Remained the United States 1993
2001, May 2002.
 The New Ellis Islands: Examining Non-Traditional Areas Immigrant Settlement the 1990s with 
John Keeley, September 2001.
 
Immigration from Mexico: Assessing the Impact the United States, July 2001.
 
The Slowing Progress Immigrants: Examination Income, Home Ownership, and Citizenship, 
1970-2000, March 2001.
 Without Coverage: Immigration's Impact the Size and Growth the Population Lacking Health 

Insurance with James Edwards, July 2000. 
Reconsidering Immigrant Entrepreneurship: Examination Self-Employment Among Natives and the Foreign-Born, January 2000. Importing Poverty: Immigration's Impact the Size and Growth the Poor Population the United 
States, September 1999.
 The Wages Immigration: The Effect the Low-Skilled Labor Market, January 1998.
 

Selected Conference Papers/Poster Presentations: 
Evaluating the Role Immigration U.S. Population Projections, Annual Meeting the Population Association America, May 2012. 
Assessing the Accuracy Data Collected the Foreign Born: Findings from Evaluation the American Community Survey, Annual Meeting the Population Association America, April 2005. 
Assessing the Accuracy Data Collected the Foreign Born the ACS, Annual Meeting the Population Association America, April 2001. 
The Impact  Immigration the Incidences Poverty the United States, Annual Meeting the Population Association America, April 1999. 
The Determinates Attitudes Toward Immigrants, Annual Meeting the Midwestern Political Science Association, April 1998. 
The Effects Labor Market Competition Attitudes Toward Immigrants, Annual Meeting the Western Political Science Association, March 1998. 
The Effect Immigrant Competition the Wages Blacks, Annual Meeting the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, November 1997. 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135 
Public Services Used and Taxes Paid Immigrants the United States, Annual Meeting the American Sociological Association, August 1997. 
The Consequences Immigration for Low-skilled Minorities, Annual Meeting the Western Economic Association, July 1997. 
"Policy Responses State and Local Governments Welfare Reform for Immigrants," Annual Meeting the Association Public Policy Analysis and Management, October 1996 
"The Wage Consequences Immigration for the Native-born Poor," Annual Meeting the New York State Political Science Association, April 1995 
Filed 06/18/14 Page 135