STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE No. 19-cv-15941 COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF SPEAKER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................................................2 I. The Statutory Disenfranchisement of People Not Incarcerated Traces Directly to the General Assembly’s Post-Civil War Efforts to Oppress African Americans .....................2 II. Plaintiffs Have Standing and This Court May Enjoin the Constitutional Violations .........6 A. The General Assembly’s Implementing Legislation on Felony Disenfranchisement Must Comport with Other Constitution Provisions ...............6 B. The Court May Enjoin the Unconstitutional Aspects of the Statute.......................9 III. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Violates the North Carolina Constitution’s Free Election Clause.................................... 13 IV. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Violates the North Carolina Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause .............................. 16 A. The Law Imposes Classifications Depriving North Carolinians of the Fundamental Right to Substantially Equal Voting Power ................................... 16 B. The Law Has the Impermissible Intent and Effect of Disproportionately Disenfranchising African Americans .................................................................. 20 C. The Law Imposes an Impermissible Wealth-Based Classification ...................... 23 V. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Violates the North Carolina Constitution’s Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses ................ 25 VI. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Violates the North Carolina Constitution’s Ban on Property Qualifications ................................. 26 VII. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Does Not Serve Any Adequate Government Interest...................................................... 28 VIII. The Court Should Enter a Preliminary Injunction If It Does Not Grant Judgment .......... 35 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 37 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 302 S.E.2d 754 (1983) .................................................................................. 37 ACLU of N.C. v. Conti, 835 F. Supp. 2d 51 (E.D.N.C. 2011) .................................................................................... 13 Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020) ........................................................................................................ 26 Blankenship v. Bartlett, 363 N.C. 518, 681 S.E.2d 759 (2009) ...................................................................... 17, 18, 20 Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (1979) .............................................................................................................. 11 Common Cause v. Lewis, 2019 WL 4569584 (N.C. Super. Sept. 3, 2019)........................................................ 14, 16, 19 Dep’t of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) ............................................................................................................ 11 Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) ............................................................................................................ 12 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) ............................................................................................................ 11 Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 345 N.C. 419, 481 S.E.2d 8 (1997) ................................................................................ 12, 13 Ga. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Fayette County Bd. of Commr’s, 118 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2015)................................................................................. 36 Hand v. Scott, 285 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (N.D. Fla. 2018) ................................................................................ 26 Harper v. Lewis, 19 CVS 012667 (N.C. Super. Oct. 28, 2019) ....................................................................... 36 Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) ...................................................................................................... 24, 28 Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) ...................................................................................................... 21, 22 ii Jenkins v. State Bd. of Elecs., 180 N.C. 169, 104 S.E. 346 (1920) ........................................................................................ 7 Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974) ............................................................................................................ 11 King ex rel. Harvey-Barrow v. Beaufort Cty. Bd. of Educ., 364 N.C. 368, 704 S.E.2d 259 (2010) ............................................................................ 17, 29 Kinlaw v. Harris, 364 N.C. 528, 702 S.E.2d 294 (2010) .................................................................................... 9 League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 36 Liebes v. Guilford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 213 N.C. App. 426, 713 S.E.2d 546 (2011).......................................................................... 20 Lloyd v. Babb, 296 N.C. 416, 251 S.E.2d 843 (1979) .................................................................................. 37 N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State, 255 N.C. App. 514, 805 S.E.2d 518 (2017), aff’d, 371 N.C. 149, 814 S.E.2d 54 (2018) ............................................................................. 8 North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 23 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) ........................................................................................................ 30 Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) ........................................................................................................ 23 Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) .............................................................................................................. 19 Roberts v. Cannon, 20 N.C. 398, 4 Dev. & Bat. (Orig. Ed.) .......................................................................... 15, 18 Roberts v. Madison Cty. Realtors Ass’n, 344 N.C. 394, 474 S.E.2d 783 (1996) .................................................................................. 37 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ............................................................................................................ 35 Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) ........................................................................................................ 19 iii Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017) ........................................................................................................ 30 Shelby Cty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) ............................................................................................................ 30 Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) ............................................................................................................ 26 State v. Fredell, 283 N.C. 242, 195 S.E.2d 300 (1973) ............................................................................ 10, 12 State v. Hilton, -- S.E.2d --, 2020 WL 2529538 (N.C. Ct. App. May 19, 2020) ...................................... 10, 13 Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377 (2002) ........................................................................... passim Texfi Indus., Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, 301 N.C. 1, 269 S.E.2d 142 (1980) ................................................................................ 15, 18 Wilson v. City of Charlotte, 74 N.C. 748 (1876).............................................................................................................. 27 Constitional Provisions and Statutes N.C. Const. art. I, § 11 .............................................................................................................. 26 N.C. Const. art. I, § 19 .............................................................................................................. 16 N.C. Const. art. VI, § 2, cl. 3 ......................................................................................... 6, 8, 9, 31 N.C.G.S. § 13-1 ................................................................................................................. passim N.C.G.S. § 13-1(1) .............................................................................................................. 10, 11 N.C.G.S. § 13-1(5) .................................................................................................................... 28 N.C.G.S. § 14-208.40B(c) ......................................................................................................... 10 N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.17 ............................................................................................................. 3 N.C.G.S. § 163-275 ..................................................................................................................... 3 1876 N.C. Sess. Laws Ch. 275, § 10............................................................................................ 3 1933 N.C. Sess. Laws Ch. 242 .................................................................................................... 3 Ky. Rev. Stat. 439.563(5). ......................................................................................................... 28 iv INTRODUCTION Across 85 pages of briefing and hundreds more pages of exhibits, Defendants do not offer an iota of proof that disenfranchising North Carolinians on community supervision serves any legitimate purpose today. They present no expert testimony, fact witness testimony, or documentary evidence showing that disenfranchising such people advances any government interest. Instead of trying to establish some good reason for disenfranchising people on community supervision today, Defendants put forward state interests supporting certain procedural improvements made to the statutory scheme in the 1970s. But Plaintiffs do not challenge those aspects of the law in this case. Simply put, Defendants’ briefs lay bare that there is no valid interest in denying the franchise to nearly 60,000 members of North Carolina communities who share the same concerns and interests in the public welfare as their neighbors. Unable to justify disenfranchising these individuals, Defendants’ arguments boil down to a combination of “because we can,” “it used to be worse,” “other states do it too,” and “even if it is unlawful, there is nothing this Court can do about it.” None of these arguments has merit. As shown in Part I below, Defendants misstate the statute’s history. The statutory disenfranchisement of people not incarcerated traces directly to the 1877 statutory scheme enacted with the goal of preventing African Americans from voting. Part II refutes Defendants’ contentions that Plaintiffs lack standing and that this Court can grant no effective relief. The statute enacted by the General Assembly to implement the state constitutional provision on felony disenfranchisement must comport with other constitutional guarantees, and this Court has ample equitable authority to enjoin and sever unlawful aspects of the statute. On the merits, Parts III-VI establish that Defendants misapprehend the unique, broad rights that North Carolina guarantees under its Free Elections Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses, and Ban of Property Qualifications Clause. Defendants’ arguments may be plausible in other jurisdictions, but not in North Carolina. Part VII addresses Defendants’ failure to satisfy any level of scrutiny. Strict scrutiny—or at least intermediate scrutiny—applies here given the challenged law’s infringement upon fundamental constitutional rights, and Defendants have established no state interest that can justify the indiscriminate disenfranchisement of people on community supervision. Indeed, discovery obtained since Plaintiffs’ opening brief makes clear that disenfranchising people on community supervision produces rampant confusion and administrative problems, all to the detriment of North Carolina residents and elections. The material facts are undisputed, and Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment. But at a minimum, as explained in Part VIII below, a preliminary injunction is warranted so that nearly 60,000 North Carolinians are not irreparably prevented from voting in November 2020. ARGUMENT I. The Statutory Disenfranchisement of People Not Incarcerated Traces Directly to the General Assembly’s Post-Civil War Efforts to Oppress African Americans Defendants paint an incomplete and misleading history of North Carolina’s statutory disenfranchisement scheme. The undeniable fact is that the current statutory scheme—including the disenfranchisement of people on community supervision—traces directly to legislation enacted after the Civil War to suppress the political power of African Americans. In the 1860s and before, North Carolina disenfranchised only persons convicted of “infamous” crimes, not all felonies. Burton Report at 19-21. Immediately after the Civil War, former rebels in North Carolina engaged in a widespread campaign of convicting African Americans of “infamous” crimes and whipping them as the punishment, with the express goal of preventing African Americans from being able to vote. Id. In 1876, to neuter the effects of the recently adopted Fifteenth Amendment, Conservative-Democrats ratified North Carolina’s constitutional amendment expanding the 2 crimes for which people could be disenfranchised to include felonies, not just “infamous” crimes. Burton Report at 27-35. In the following session of the General Assembly, the very next year, the General Assembly enacted implementing legislation. A Democrat named John Henderson chaired the House committee that prepared this 1877 legislation. Id. at 35-36. Henderson was an avid Jim Crow supporter who once presided over the lynching of three African Americans who were “paraded down Main Street … across the street from Henderson’s house, and lynched before a ‘bloodthirsty’ mob of more than two thousand white citizens.” Id. There were three particularly noteworthy aspects of the 1877 statutory scheme that Henderson ushered into law. First, the General Assembly chose broadly to disenfranchise those convicted of all felonies, not just the most serious or election-specific crimes. Ch. 275, § 10, 1876 N.C. Sess. Laws. That is still the law today. Second, the General Assembly made it a crime for people with felony convictions to vote before their rights were restored, punishable by up to two years in prison. Id. § 62. That is still the law today. N.C.G.S. §§ 163-275, 15A1340.17. Third, the 1877 statutory scheme required people to wait four years from the date of conviction before they could apply to have their rights restored. Pls.’ Opening Br. (“Br.”) 7. Thus, just like today, the statutory scheme adopted in 1877 extended disenfranchisement for a period after people were no longer incarcerated. In 1933, with African Americans blocked from voting through other means such as a literacy test and poll tax, the General Assembly shortened the wait time to seek rights restoration from four years to two. Ch. 242, 1933 N.C. Sess. Laws. In 1971, the only two African American members of North Carolina’s General Assembly—Representatives Joy Johnson and Henry Frye—set out to amend the disenfranchisement statute. They had two principal goals. First, they sought to remove procedural obstacles to rights restoration. This effort was partly successful; the 1971 legislation 3 removed certain requirements such as the need to have five character witnesses. Defs.’ NOF, Exs. 1, 2. Second, the two legislators sought to re-enfranchise people with felony convictions as soon as they were released from prison. The original 1971 bill introduced by Representative Johnson would have restored rights upon the completion of a person’s sentence, with no mention of probation or parole. 5/8/20 Decl. of Daniel F. Jacobson (“Jacobson Decl.”), Ex. L. But that bill was reported unfavorably, and a substitute was introduced adding the phrase “including any period of probation or parole.” Id. Representative Frye made clear in a speech on the House floor that the intent of the original bill had been to re-enfranchise people once they were no longer incarcerated. As reported at the time: “Rep. Henry Frye, D-Guilford, told the House he favored the bill’s original proposal which called for automatic restoration of citizenship when a felon had served his prison sentence.” Defs.’ NOF, Ex. 5 (emphasis added). Defendants point to an answer by Senator Michaux at his deposition suggesting that the original 1971 bill could have disenfranchised people on probation or parole. LD Br. 4, 17; SBOE Br. 6. But Defendants neglect to mention that Senator Michaux was not in the General Assembly at the time and had no formal or informal involvement with the legislation—he was first elected in 1972. Defs.’ NOF, Ex. 5 (“Michaux Dep.”) at 44:15-22, 53:14-20. Senator Michaux was merely speculating, under questioning from counsel several hours into his deposition, as to the meaning of the original 1971 bill. The contemporaneous statement of one of the two legislators who drafted the original 1971 bill, Representative Frye, is unambiguous that the bill was intended to restore voting rights upon the completion of a “prison sentence.” But it is academic because, as Senator Michaux’s testimony makes clear, African American legislators wanted to restore voting rights upon completion of a prison sentence and were stymied by civil rights opponents. By 1973, Senator Michaux had joined the General 4 Assembly, and he provided unrebutted testimony that his goal and that of Representatives Frye and Johnson in the 1973 amendments was again to restore people’s voting rights upon their release from incarceration, “regardless of whether they had probation or parole.” Michaux Dep. at 16-22 (“Q. And so your original aim, and that of the NAACP, was to restore voting rights automatically as soon as someone … was released from prison, regardless of whether they had probation or parole. Is that correct? A. That’s correct.”); accord Jacobson Decl., Ex. K (“Michaux Aff.”) ¶ 15. But civil rights opponents in the General Assembly insisted on continuing to disenfranchise people through probation and parole, and Senator Michaux agreed to keep that in the legislation in order to get further procedural reforms passed, such as removing the requirement to petition a judge for rights restoration. Michaux Aff. ¶¶ 10-19. Thus, as in 1971, the 1973 legislation removed procedural obstacles to re-enfranchisement, but fell short of the African American legislators’ goal of limiting disenfranchisement to those incarcerated. Id. This history makes clear that the current statutory scheme carries forward central aspects of the 1877 statute enacted by white supremacists. The current scheme continues to disenfranchise people for all felonies rather than a subset, it continues to criminalize voting before one’s rights are restored with punishment of up to two years in prison, and it continues to disenfranchise people for a period of time even once they are not incarcerated. Indeed, before 1971 the required waiting period for rights restoration was two years, yet the average length of probation today is 2.5 years. Baumgartner Opening Report at 23. Functionally, therefore, the current requirement that people complete their community supervision before they can vote has the same effect as the required waiting period under the pre-1971 statutory scheme. 5 II. Plaintiffs Have Standing and This Court May Enjoin the Constitutional Violations A. The General Assembly’s Implementing Legislation on Felony Disenfranchisement Must Comport with Other Constitution Provisions Defendants argue that Article VI, § 2, cl. 3 of the North Carolina Constitution is a selfexecuting provision that operates alone to disenfranchise all persons with felony convictions, and that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 merely restores people’s rights. SBOE Br. 14-15; LD Br. 11-12. According to Defendants, in the absence of any legislation regarding felony disenfranchisement, all North Carolinians with felony convictions would be disenfranchised for life. Defendants are wrong. Article VI, § 2, cl. 3 reflects a delegation of authority to the General Assembly to “prescribe[] by law” the contours of felony disenfranchisement, and legislation enacted by the General Assembly pursuant to this delegation must comport with all other provisions of the North Carolina Constitution. The history of Article VI and the maxim that constitutional provisions must be interpreted in harmony conclusively establish this interpretation. For Article VI, § 2, cl. 3 to be “reconciled with other state constitutional guarantees.” Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 371, 562 S.E.2d 377, 389 (2002), it must be interpreted as a delegation of authority to the General Assembly to enact a legislative scheme that comports with the rest of the Constitution. Because “all constitutional provisions must be read in pari materia,” it is a bedrock principle in North Carolina that a constitutional provision “cannot be applied in isolation or in a manner that fails to comport with other requirements of the State Constitution.” Stephenson, 355 N.C. at 377-78, 562 S.E.2d at 392, 394. Here, interpreting Article VI, § 2, cl. 3 as a self-executing provision that would impose across-the-board lifetime disenfranchisement absent implementing legislation would be incompatible with other provisions of the Constitution, including the Free Elections Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the 6 Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses. It would disenfranchise for life millions and millions of North Carolinians, a grossly disproportionate number of whom are African Americans. Stephenson v. Bartlett and Holmes v. Moore are on point. In Stephenson, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution’s “Whole County Provision,” which states that “[n]o county shall be divided in the formation of a … district.” N.C. Const., art. II, § 3(3). The Court declined to interpret this constitutional provision in a “strictly mechanical fashion” because doing so “would be inconsistent with other provisions of … the State Constitution.” Stephenson, 355 N.C. at 377-78, 381-82, 562 S.E.2d at 392-96. “[T]o avoid internal textual conflict” with North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause, the Court interpreted the Whole County Provision in a manner that upheld “the principles of substantially equal voting power and substantially equal legislative representation arising from that same Constitution.” Id.; see also Jenkins v. State Bd. of Elecs., 180 N.C. 169, 104 S.E. 346, 349 (1920) (“A constitution should not receive a technical construction, as if it were an ordinary instrument or statute. It should be interpreted so as to carry out the general principles of the government and not defeat them.”). In Holmes, the Court of Appeals interpreted the constitutional provision stating that “[v]oters offering to vote in person shall present photographic identification before voting.” N.C. Const. art. VI, §§ 2(4), 3(2). The Court of Appeals rejected Defendants’ argument that this constitutional provision foreclosed challenges to the General Assembly’s implementing legislation brought under other constitutional provisions, and the Court of Appeals held that the implementing legislation violated the Equal Protection Clause. 840 S.E.2d 244, 265-67 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). As a result of the injunction against the legislation, North Carolinians will not be required to show photo identification before voting in 2020, even though the Constitution states 7 that “voters … shall present photographic identification before voting.” Id. The voter ID constitutional provision is like Article VI, § 2, cl. 3—both require implementing legislation. The history of Article VI confirms this interpretation. “A court should look to the history” in interpreting a constitutional provision, N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State, 255 N.C. App. 514, 529, 805 S.E.2d 518, 527 (2017), aff’d, 371 N.C. 149, 814 S.E.2d 54 (2018), and throughout its history Article VI, § 2, cl. 3 has always been accompanied by implementing legislation. As explained above, the General Assembly enacted a statutory scheme providing for felony disenfranchisement and rights restoration in 1877, in the very first legislative session after ratification of the 1876 constitutional amendment. At no point in the 144 years since its adoption has Article VI, § 2, cl. 3 ever operated by its own force without implementing legislation. In any event, implementing legislation has been enacted, and there can be no dispute that any statute enacted by the General Assembly must comport with all provisions of the North Carolina Constitution. Defendants admit as much when they concede that certain types of felony disenfranchisement statutes would violate the Constitution. SBOE Br. 22; LD Br. 14-15. And Stephenson and Holmes make clear that implementing legislation authorized under one constitutional provision is subject to the normal legal standards and scrutiny that apply under other constitutional provisions. In both cases, the courts applied the normal tests for evaluating whether legislation enacted by the General Assembly violated North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause. Stephenson, 355 N.C. at 389, 562 S.E.2d at 394 (applying strict scrutiny where redistricting deprived a group of citizens of “substantially equal voting power”); Holmes, 840 S.E.2d at 255 (evaluating whether race was a “motivating factor” in implementing legislation). These precedents also refute Defendants’ suggestion that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 is necessarily subject to rational basis review in light of Article VI, § 2, cl. 3. Even if the statutory 8 disenfranchisement scheme were subject to less scrutiny than other legislation based on Article VI, the statute still impinges upon other constitutional rights and thus at least intermediate scrutiny would apply. For instance, in Blankenship v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court harmonized the Constitution’s delegation of authority to the General Assembly to create a “convenient number” of superior court districts with the Equal Protection Clause guarantee of substantially equal voting power. 363 N.C. 518, 523-25, 681 S.E.2d 759, 763-75 (2009). To reconcile the “internal conflict” between these two constitutional provisions, and because the dispute over judicial elections had “a component that implicates the fundamental right to vote and a separate component that is ordinarily the province of the legislature,” the Court held that intermediate scrutiny was warranted where a judicial districting plan created different voting power between groups of citizens. Id. Here, at a minimum, intermediate scrutiny is warranted if the legislation enacted pursuant to Article VI is in tension with the rights protected under the Free Elections Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Freedom of Speech and Association Clauses. B. The Court May Enjoin the Unconstitutional Aspects of the Statute Defendants contend that this Court lacks authority to enjoin portions of N.C.G.S § 13-1 to afford Plaintiffs the relief they seek. State Board Defendants frame the issue as one of standing, SBOE Br. 14-16, while Legislative Defendants focus on courts’ remedial authority, LD Br. 31-33. These arguments run headlong into controlling precedent and foundational principles. Plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the disenfranchisement of North Carolinians on probation, parole, or supervised release, see Am. Compl., Prayer for Relief, and such relief is well within this Court’s power. “Trial courts have broad discretion to fashion equitable remedies to protect innocent parties when injustice would otherwise result.” Kinlaw v. Harris, 364 N.C. 528, 532-33, 702 S.E.2d 294, 297 (2010). “This discretion includes the power to ‘grant, deny, limit, or shape’ relief as necessary to achieve equitable results.” Id. Under these powers, this 9 Court can fashion injunctive relief to remedy a partially unconstitutional statute. The Court may order that “the portion which is constitutional may stand while that which is unconstitutional is stricken out.” State v. Fredell, 283 N.C. 242, 245, 195 S.E.2d 300, 302 (1973). The Court of Appeals recently exercised such remedial authority in State v. Hilton, a case analogous to this one. There, plaintiffs challenged a statute providing that, if certain conditions are met, “the court shall order the offender to enroll in satellite-based monitoring for life.” N.C.G.S. § 14-208.40B(c) (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals held that it is permissible to impose satellite-based monitoring during a person’s post-release supervision, but that monitoring after such supervision “is no longer reasonable.” Hilton, -- S.E.2d --, 2020 WL 2529538, at *2-5 (N.C. Ct. App. May 19, 2020). The Court of Appeals enjoined the “for life” language and found it severable, holding that the monitoring requirement could instead be enforced for a shorter duration. Id. at *2. Echoing Defendants’ arguments here, the dissent objected that “the majority does not merely strike through ‘for life’ but also adds a wholly different temporal frame, ‘so long as the offender is on post-release supervision’ or some equivalent, to the statute in question.” Id. at *16 (Brook, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The dissent accused the majority of improperly “rewriting the statute,” id., but the majority rejected this concern. Just as in Hilton, this Court may enjoin the “temporal frame” of N.C.G.S § 13-1. The Court can and should hold that, while the statute may deny voting rights to persons in prison, it may not disenfranchise people living in North Carolina communities on supervision. Put differently, for a “probationer” or a “parolee,”1 the Court can enjoin the requirement that the person must receive an “unconditional discharge” to have their voting rights restored. Such an injunction falls comfortably within the Court’s discretionary remedial authority. 1 Under N.C.G.S. § 13-1(1), a “parolee” includes a person on post-release supervision. The provision was enacted before North Carolina switched from a system of parole to post-release supervision in 1994. 10 Defendants’ argument that this Court could only “enjoin the automatic restoration of citizenship rights” for everyone, SBOE Br. 15, or could only order a remedy that involves striking through specific words in the statute, SBOE Br. 15; LD Br. 31, contradicts decades of civil rights precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions finding gender-based equal protection violations, for example, have regularly ordered remedies that expand a statute to cover an improperly excluded class, rather than enjoining the statute altogether. For example, after finding that a statute extending financial benefits to children of an unemployed “father” was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court did not hold that no one got benefits, but extended the statute to cover children of unemployed mothers as well. Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76, 80, 92-93 (1979) (affirming district court decision “ordering that ‘father’ be replaced by its genderneutral equivalent”); accord, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) (extending statute conferring discretionary benefit on men to confer that benefit on women as well). Similarly, after finding that a disability program and a food stamp program unlawfully excluded particular classes of individuals, the Supreme Court extended the programs to the wrongfully excluded classes. Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628, 630-631 & n.2, 637-638 (1974); Dep’t of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 529-530, 538 (1973). In none of these cases did the Court’s ability to provide effective relief depend on whether such relief could be accomplished by striking through a particular word or phrase, as Defendants suggest. SBOE Br. 15; LD Br. 32. Even if it were necessary to perform a technical strikethrough exercise (and it is not), this Court could afford effective relief by simply enjoining the term “unconditional” throughout N.C.G.S § 13-1. Subsection (1) would then provide that voting rights are restored upon the “discharge of an inmate, of a probationer, or of a parolee,” where the “discharge” of a probationer or parolee means the release of a person by a court or the Department of Public 11 Safety (DPS) onto community supervision. Indeed, the “discharge” of a probationer or parolee under § 13-1 cannot mean the termination of their community supervision, because otherwise the term “unconditional” before “discharge” would have no import for probationers and parolees.2 Finally, Defendants contend that N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s disenfranchisement of people on community supervision is not severable from the remainder of the statute. SBOE Br. 16; LD Br. 33. Based on this theory, they assert that the only appropriate remedy in this case would be to invalidate all of § 13-1, which, in Defendants’ view, would result in lifetime disenfranchisement of the millions of North Carolinians with felony convictions. SBOE Br. 16-17, 50. Defendants are wrong that enjoining all of § 13-1 would have this extreme consequence, but this Court need not reach the question because the challenged portions of § 13-1 are plainly severable. “Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute,” courts should “limit the solution to the problem, severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.” Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 508 (2010) (quotation marks omitted). Under North Carolina law, courts must sever where “the remaining provisions are operative and sufficient to accomplish their proper purpose.” Fredell, 283 N.C. at 245, 195 S.E.2d at 302; accord Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 345 N.C. 419, 422, 481 S.E.2d 8, 9 (1997) (“[I]f the separate parts of the statute are not so interrelated and mutually dependent that one part cannot be enforced without reference to another, the offending part must be severed and the rest of the statute enforced.”). Where this standard is met, a court must sever regardless of 2 Another alternative option would be to enjoin everything in N.C.G.S. § 13-1 after “automatically restored,” such that voting rights are immediately restored to all persons convicted of felonies. This particular remedy is not necessary given the Court’s ability to enjoin only the statute’s withholding of rights from people on community supervision, but as between restoring voting rights to everyone or nobody, the African American legislators who led the 1970s amendments to § 13-1 plainly would have preferred the former. 12 whether the statute has a severability clause. See, e.g., Hilton, 2020 WL 2529538, at *2; ACLU of N.C. v. Conti, 835 F. Supp. 2d 51, 62 (E.D.N.C. 2011). Here, if the Court enjoins the disenfranchisement of people on community supervision, N.C.G.S § 13-1’s denial of voting rights to people in prison can continue to operate as it always has. Disenfranchising people in prison is not “mutually dependent” on, or inextricably bound to, disenfranchising people on community supervision. Fulton Corp., 345 N.C. at 422, 481 S.E.2d at 9. And it is plain that the General Assembly that enacted and amended § 13-1 would have wanted to deny voting rights to people in prison even if people on community supervision could vote. As described above, that was the original goal of the legislators who introduced the 1970s amendments. Conversely, even if it were permissible to permanently disenfranchise everyone with a felony conviction (and it is not), the General Assembly could not possibly have preferred such a draconian scheme to simply restoring rights for people on community supervision. In short, this Court has ample authority and discretion to afford the relief that Plaintiffs seek. The Court should reject Defendants’ efforts to elevate form over substance to deny relief to 60,000 members of North Carolina communities who are now locked out of democracy. III. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Violates the North Carolina Constitution’s Free Election Clause Defendants do not dispute that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 prevents nearly 60,000 people living in North Carolina communities from voting. Nor do they deny that, in at least nine counties, more than 1% of the total voting-age population is disenfranchised by virtue of being on community supervision. Br. 25. And they do not deny that, in 19 counties, more than 2% of the African American voting-age population is on community supervision and thus cannot vote. Id. at 27. What’s more, Defendants do not contest that N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s disenfranchisement of people on community supervision may have swung the outcome of numerous elections. Id. at 13 28-29. It is thus undisputed that the disenfranchisement of people on community supervision may frequently prevent the will of North Carolina communities from prevailing in elections. Defendants’ attempts to preserve this undemocratic scheme rest on erroneous theories of the Free Elections Clause. State Board Defendants contend that a plaintiff may not challenge “the composition of the electorate” under the Free Elections Clause. SBOE Br. 20. But State Board Defendants’ own recounting of the Free Elections Clause’s history and purpose belies that assertion. As they explain, the free elections clause in the English Bill of Rights, on which North Carolina’s provision is modeled, was designed to address the King’s efforts to “manipulat[e] the composition of the electorate by expanding or shrinking the electorate.” Id. at 17 (quotation marks omitted). State Board Defendants’ suggestion that the Free Election Clause does not prohibit laws altering “the composition of the electorate” thus conflicts with its central purpose. State Board Defendants’ reading of the Clause would also have startling consequences. In their view, any restriction on who constitutes a “qualified voter” would comply with the Free Elections Clause, because the Clause purportedly protects only “qualified voters.” SBOE Br. 20. State Board Defendants openly admit that, under this position, a statutory scheme that restored voting rights only to members of one “race, sex, or religion … would not violate the Free Elections Clause.” Id. at 22 (emphasis added). That statement alone requires rejecting their view. Courts should not endorse any theory under which the Free Elections Clause would permit the General Assembly to disenfranchise all African Americans, all women, or all Muslims.3 State Board Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs are claiming a Free Election Clause right to vote for “all people living in North Carolina communities,” including “non-citizens, citizens 3 State Board Defendants assert that a law disenfranchising people with felony convictions based on race, gender, or religion “may” violate other constitutional provisions, and thus they contend that it would be “superfluous” if such a law violated the Free Elections Clause as well. SBOE 22. But of course statutes can and often do violate multiple constitutional provisions. See, e.g., Common Cause v. Lewis, 2019 WL 4569584 (N.C. Super. Sept. 3, 2019). 14 under 18 years of age, [and] persons who have not resided in the state for a sufficient period before the election.” SBOE Br. 20. That is incorrect. The Free Elections Clause prohibits the General Assembly from obstructing the will of the people who share an interest in the State’s welfare and “humane, economic, ideological, and political concerns,” and for whom no compelling government interest justifies their exclusion from the electorate. Br. 30-31 (quoting Texfi Indus., Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, 301 N.C. 1, 13, 269 S.E.2d 142, 150 (1980) and Roberts v. Cannon, 20 N.C. 398, 4 Dev. & Bat. (Orig. Ed.) 256, 260-61 (1839)). That does not include non-citizens, minors, and people who have not lived in the State for a month. State Board Defendants argue that it is “doubtful” the Framers of the Free Elections Clause intended to promote the will of all members of the community because they excluded slaves, women, and non-property owners from the franchise. SBOE Br. 19. But the Free Elections Clause establishes the principle that elections must reflect the “will of the people,” even if its Framers held antiquated views about who constitutes “the people.” Compare U.S. Const., Preamble (“We the People ….”). Just as we now recognize that women and African Americans are part of “the people” who may express their will at the ballot box, it is time to recognize that so too are North Carolinians on community supervision. Legislative Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Free Elections Clause claim fails because people on community supervision purportedly do not “enjoy the … fundamental right to vote.” LD Br. 20. As explained infra pp. 18-19, their premise is wrong. But the question is of no moment here, because the Free Elections Clause protects not only the individual right of a voter to cast his or her ballot, but the collective right of the people to elections that properly reflect their will. State Board Defendants recognize this distinction, explaining that “the Free Elections Clause guarantees a different ‘fundamental’ right—to have elections conducted freely and 15 honestly to ascertain, fairly and truthfully, the will of the people.” SBOE Br. 23 (quotation marks omitted). For example, in Common Cause v. Lewis, the challenged redistricting plans did not prevent any individual person from voting, but the plans still violated the Free Elections Clause because they led to election results that did not reflect the collective will of the people. 2019 WL 4569584, at *108-12. The challenged disenfranchisement scheme here infringes the right shared by disenfranchised and non-disenfranchised people alike—including NC NAACP’s 20,000-plus members—to be governed by leaders chosen according to the will of the people. Defendants do not deny that the right under the Free Elections Clause to elections reflecting the will of the people is a “fundamental right.” Common Cause, 2019 WL 4569584, at *110. Nor do they contest that, if disenfranchising people on community supervision infringes that collective right, strict scrutiny applies. And as described infra pp. 28-35, disenfranchising people on community supervision cannot satisfy strict scrutiny, or indeed any level of scrutiny. IV. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Violates the North Carolina Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause A. The Law Imposes Classifications Depriving North Carolinians of the Fundamental Right to Substantially Equal Voting Power Defendants acknowledge that classifications involving a “fundamental right” are subject to strict scrutiny under North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause. SBOE Br. 24; LD Br. 29. But they ignore the fundamental right at the center of Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim—the fundamental right to “substantially equal voting power and substantially equal legislative representation,” which the North Carolina Supreme Court has held is a uniquely protected right under Article I, § 19. Stephenson, 355 N.C. at 382, 562 S.E.2d at 396. Heightened scrutiny applies under North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause whenever a challenged statute draws a “distinction among similarly situated citizens” that deprives one group of citizens of substantially equal voting power relative to the other. Stephenson, 355 N.C. at 377-78, 562 S.E.2d at 393-94. 16 Neither set of Defendants addresses the equal protection right of similarly situated North Carolinians to “substantially equal voting power” anywhere in their briefs. Defendants instead focus on whether each individual with a felony conviction maintains a “fundamental right to vote” as that phrase has been used in federal jurisprudence. SBOE Br. 2426; LD Br. 20. But the right to substantially equal voting power under the North Carolina Constitution focuses on classifications that affect the relative voting power of similarly situated groups of citizens. Whether each individual in each group, standing alone, maintains a personal “fundamental right to vote” is not determinative. For instance, in Blankenship, an individual’s right to elect judges was not a fundamental right, but the Court still applied heightened scrutiny because the challenged judicial districts created a “disparity in voting power between similarly situated residents of Wake County.” 363 N.C. at 527, 681 S.E.2d at 766. And King ex rel. Harvey-Barrow v. Beaufort County Board of Education, 364 N.C. 368, 704 S.E.2d 259 (2010), though not a voting rights case, is also analogous. There, the Supreme Court held that even though a suspended student does not have a “fundamental right to alternative education … under the state constitution,” heightened scrutiny still applied where the State provided alternative education to some suspended students but not others, because there is a constitutional right “to equal education access” across students. King, 364 N.C. at 373, 377, 704 S.E.2d at 261, 265. A felony disenfranchisement statute like N.C.G.S. § 13-1 thus can impermissibly deprive similarly situated groups of substantially equal power regardless of whether each individual has a fundamental right to vote. If the General Assembly prescribed that only people with felony convictions over 50 years old can vote—or only those who were registered to vote before their conviction—heightened scrutiny would apply because the scheme affords differential voting power to similarly situated groups of people. N.C.G.S. § 13-1 creates such classifications as 17 well. The statute deprives substantially equal voting power to the group of people on community supervision relative to similarly situated groups of people, including those with felony convictions who have finished their community supervision. The people in both groups have felony convictions, both live and work in their communities after having been deemed by the State fit to return to society, but one group has voting power and the other has none. For this reason, the challenged law is subject to heightened scrutiny. Stephenson, 355 N.C. at 377-78, 562 S.E.2d at 393-94; Blankenship, 363 N.C. at 527-28, 681 S.E.2d at 766. In any event, contrary to Defendants’ position, individuals on community supervision do personally maintain a fundamental right to vote. Defendants assert that there is “no support or reasoning” for affording such individuals this fundamental right. SBOE Br. 26. Of course there is. “The right to vote is the right to participate in the decision-making process of government” among all those “sharing an identity with the broader humane, economic, ideological, and political concerns of the human body politic.” Texfi Indus., 301 N.C. at 13, 269 S.E.2d at 150. People on community supervision share the same concerns as everyone else living in their communities. These individuals are our neighbors, our friends, our family members, our coworkers, members of our churches. As State Board Defendants recognize, people on community supervision “are subject to the laws enacted and enforced within our communities.” SBOE Br. 32. North Carolinians on community supervision thus share in the State’s “public burthens” and “feel an interest in its welfare.” Roberts, 4 Dev. & Bat. (Orig. Ed.) at 260-61. Defendants argue that “the U.S. Supreme Court” and “federal appellate courts” have held that “the right to vote by people who have been convicted of felonies is not fundamental” under the U.S. Constitution. SBOE Br. 24-25 (collecting cases). But as this Court reaffirmed last year, it is “beyond dispute” that “North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause provides greater protection 18 for voting rights than federal equal protection provisions.” Common Cause, 2019 WL 4569584, at *113 (citing cases). Simply put, this Court need not follow federal precedent refusing to recognize a fundamental federal right to vote for people with felony convictions. It does not matter that the U.S. Constitution “implicitly” authorizes States to “exclu[de] felons from the vote,” barring Fourteenth Amendment challenges to disenfranchisement laws. SBOE Br. 24 (quoting Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 54 (1974)). The U.S. Constitution explicitly authorizes States to draw congressional districts, U.S. Const., art. I, § 4, cl. 1, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held that challenges to States’ redistricting plans are not even cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment, Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 250708 (2019). Nevertheless, a three-judge panel of this Court held last year that North Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan violated North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause, and enjoined the plan. Order on Inj. Relief, Harper v. Lewis, CVS 012667 (N.C. Super. Oct. 28, 2019). The U.S. Constitution’s explicit delegation of power to the state legislature to draw the congressional plan did not insulate it from judicial review under North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause. The same is true with respect to this Court’s review of N.C.G.S. § 13-1. Nor does it matter that the North Carolina Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to regulate felony disenfranchisement. SBOE Br. 26. Holmes is again instructive. Even though the North Carolina Constitution states that people must have photo ID to vote in person, the Court of Appeals held that the statute restricted “fundamental voting rights” of people who lack photo ID. Holmes, 840 S.E.2d at 266. In other words, even though the North Carolina Constitution permits the General Assembly to prevent people without a qualifying photo ID from voting, those people still possess the fundamental right to vote. The same is true with respect to people living in North Carolina’s communities on supervision following a felony conviction. 19 B. The Law Has the Impermissible Intent and Effect of Disproportionately Disenfranchising African Americans As Defendants acknowledge, regardless of whether a fundamental right is at stake, strict scrutiny independently applies when a classification “disadvantage[s] … a suspect class.” SBOE Br. 24 (quoting Liebes v. Guilford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 213 N.C. App. 426, 428-29, 713 S.E.2d 546, 549 (2011)); see also LD Br. 24. Race is a suspect class, and thus if N.C.G.S. § 13-1 intentionally discriminates against African Americans, strict scrutiny applies. Under North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause, “[w]hen considering whether discriminatory intent motivates a facially neutral law, a court must undertake a ‘sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.’” Holmes, 840 S.E.2d at 254 (quoting Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 (1977)). “Challengers need not show that discriminatory purpose was the ‘sole’ or even a ‘primary’ motive for the legislation, just that it was ‘a motivating factor.’” Id. at 254-55 (quoting same) (cleaned up). “Discriminatory purpose ‘may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts, including the fact, if it is true, that the law bears more heavily on one race than another.’” Id. at 255 (quoting same). Relevant circumstances include: (1) “the historical background of the challenged [policy]”; (2) “the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged [policy]”; (3) “departures from normal procedural sequence”; (4) “the legislative history of the decision”; and (5) “of course, the disproportionate impact of the official action—whether it bears more heavily on one race than another.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Starting with the final factor, the law here disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans in the extreme. As detailed in Plaintiffs’ opening brief, African Americans comprise 21.51% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, but 42.43% of those disenfranchised while on community supervision. Br. 44-45. State Board Defendants admit that “there are racial 20 disparities in the population of North Carolinians who are serving probation or parole sentences or who are under post-release supervision for a felony conviction.” SBOE Br. 34. Nevertheless, relying on Legislative Defendants’ expert Dr. Callanan, Defendants contend that “it is not North Carolina’s policy of re-enfranchisement that leads to disproportionate exclusion from the franchise among certain voters in North Carolina; instead, it is the outcomes arising out of the criminal justice system that lead to such disproportionate representation.” SBOE Br. 34; see LD Br. 19 (similar). Setting aside that Dr. Callanan’s report and testimony should be excluded under Rule 702, the Court should reject his profoundly flawed view that African Americans are “not disenfranchised at disproportionately high rates in North Carolina” because the “racial … disparities in disenfranchisement are simply a function of the racial … composition of the felon population in North Carolina.” Callanan Report at 2-3. Under this circular analysis, no facially race-neutral law could ever have a racially disparate impact. A literacy test could be upheld on the theory that it disenfranchised “100% of [individuals] of every race” who could not pass the test. That is not how disparate impact analysis works. See Holmes, 840 S.E.2d at 262. The General Assembly has enacted a law disenfranchising people on community supervision, and that law disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans. That is quintessential disparate impact. See, e.g., Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 227 (1985) (describing disparate impact of facially neutral felony disenfranchisement law). Other Arlington Heights factors confirm the challenged law’s intent to disenfranchise African Americans. First, the “historical background” of this law centers on violent white supremacy and a racist aim to prevent African Americans from voting. There is no dispute that this law is part of an extensive “historical pattern of laws” targeting African Americans’ voting rights. Holmes, 840 S.E.2d at 257; see, e.g., Br. 9. State Board Defendants admit that “North 21 Carolina’s history with racial discrimination, particularly in voting, is well documented.” SBOE Br. 36. And the specific history of using criminal convictions to disenfranchise North Carolinians is unequivocally and unabashedly racist. See supra pp. 2-5; Br. 4-12. Seeking to paper over this law’s grounding in white supremacy, Defendants contend that the legislative changes in 1971 and 1973 were not racist. SBOE Br. 35; LD Br. 15-18. But history did not begin in the 1970s. The policy of disenfranchising people with felony convictions who are not incarcerated was adopted in the 1870s, not the 1970s. See supra pp. 2-3. Second, “the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged [policy]” includes the racist expansion of criminal disenfranchisement to prevent African Americans from voting after the Civil War. This white supremacist campaign began with the systematic whipping of African Americans in the 1860s to render them “infamous” and thus unable to vote. Then came the enactment of a constitutional amendment expanding disenfranchisement to all felonies. Such disenfranchisement was then implemented via enactment of a statutory scheme in 1877. Finally, “legislative history” reinforces the law’s discriminatory intent. Defendants analyze the statutory scheme as if it was first adopted in 1971. SBOE Br. 34-35; LD Br. 16. It was not. The legislative history is that proud proponents of Jim Crow led the 1877 enactment of the statutory scheme that carries forward to this day in critical respects, including by prolonging disenfranchisement for non-incarcerated individuals. As explained, African American legislators who led the 1970s amendments wanted to eliminate this aspect of the statutory scheme, but they were unable to. See supra pp. 3-5. Just as with the felony disenfranchisement law in Hunter v. Underwood, changes to the statute “occurring in the succeeding … years” since its enactment do not wipe out the law’s original intent. 471 U.S. at 232-33. Regardless of whether N.C.G.S. § 13-1 “would be valid if enacted today without any impermissible motivation, … its original 22 enactment was motivated by a desire to discriminate against blacks on account of race and the section continues to this day to have that effect.” Id. at 233; see also Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1410 (2020) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (“[W]here a legislature actually confronts a law’s tawdry past in reenacting it[,] the new law may well be free of discriminatory taint,” but “[t]hat cannot be said of the laws at issue here.”). If the Court concludes that this law “was likely motivated by discriminatory intent, the burden shifts to Defendants ‘to demonstrate that the law would have been enacted without this factor.’” Holmes, 840 S.E.2d at 264-65 (quoting North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, 221 (4th Cir. 2016)). But neither State Board Defendants nor Legislative Defendants even attempt to argue that they could carry this burden. For good reason. It is apparent that North Carolina’s statutory disenfranchisement of people convicted of all felonies even while they live in the community would never have come to pass but-for an explicitly racist effort to prevent African Americans from voting. Thus, Plaintiffs’ showing of discriminatory intent under the Arlington Heights factors is dispositive. C. The Law Imposes an Impermissible Wealth-Based Classification N.C.G.S. § 13-1 also triggers strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because, in denying voting rights to some individuals based solely on their failure to pay financial obligations accompanying a conviction, the statute creates a wealth-based classification that denies substantially equal voting power to poor persons. Br. 46-48. Defendants assert that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 does not facially impose a classification “on the basis of wealth.” SBOE Br. 39; see LD Br. 26-27. But on its face, § 13-1 requires a person to obtain an “unconditional discharge” before the person can vote, and failing to pay financial obligations is a basis on which a person may be denied an “unconditional discharge.” As between two identically situated probationers who owe the same amount of money, the one who 23 can afford to pay will receive an unconditional discharge while the one without sufficient means may not. That is a wealth-based classification, plain and simple. Defendants stress that North Carolina law merely “authorizes, but does not require, a court to extend the period of probation,” and thus “the period of probation is not necessarily extended for a failure to pay such a financial obligation.” SBOE Br. 40. But by default under North Carolina law, every probationer owes some form of financial obligation, and the only way for a probationer to ensure that his or her probation is not extended is to pay those obligations. It does not matter whether “every person who has an outstanding financial obligation will have their supervision period extended,” as Defendants contend. Id. What matters is that every probationer could have their supervision extended based on unpaid financial obligations, and thus every probationer must pay those obligations to ensure they regain the right to vote. State Board Defendants contend that Plaintiffs should have brought “an as-applied challenge” solely on behalf of “indigent people who are, in fact, precluded from reenfranchisement based on their inability to pay court fees, costs, and restitution.” SBOE Br. 41. But nothing required Plaintiffs to bring such an as-applied claim or to limit the relief they seek only to “indigent people” who are unable to pay their financial obligations. A law is facially invalid under equal protection principles “whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.” Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 666 (1966) (emphasis added). In Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court facially invalidated Virginia’s poll tax of $1.50. The law was invalid as to all citizens, the Court explained, regardless of “whether the citizen . . . has $1.50 in his pocket or nothing at all, pays the fee or fails to pay it.” Id. at 668. The Court explained that “a system which excludes those unable to pay a fee to vote or who fail to pay” is facially unconstitutionally because it makes 24 wealth a condition of voting for everyone, including those with means. Id. Thus, while State Board Defendants emphasize that “the actual plaintiffs” in Harper were unable to pay the poll tax, SBOE Br. 41, the Supreme Court struck down the poll tax in its entirety, not only as to the actual plaintiffs. Under Defendants’ view, states might permissibly impose a poll tax on people able to pay it. That is plainly not the law. Like the poll tax in Harper, N.C.G.S § 13-1’s requirement that every probationer pay financial obligations to ensure their rights are restored is facially invalid as to all probationers, not only those who are unable to pay or who do not pay. Defendants point out that North Carolina “generally authorize[s]” courts to consider a person’s ability to pay in deciding whether to waive financial obligations accompanying a conviction. LD Br. 8, 27. But according to the North Carolina Administrative Office of Courts’ 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers, courts waived such financial obligations last year in only a miniscule fraction of cases. Statewide, financial obligations were “Waived” in 28,036 cases, “Partially Waived” in 392 cases, and “Not Waived” in 848,375 cases. See 8/17/20 Decl. of Daniel F. Jacobson (“Jacobson Reply Decl.”), Ex. 9 at 9. Such an insignificant waiver rate hardly reduces the burden on North Carolinians forced to pay financial obligations to vote. State Board Defendants dispute that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 was “intentionally designed to prevent low-wealth people who had completed their felony sentences from voting.” SBOE Br. 42. Plaintiffs cited evidence of intentional wealth-based discrimination, Br. 48, but it is irrelevant because wealth discrimination claims have no intent requirement. Br. 47-48 (citing cases). Defendants do not dispute that legal contention, waiving any argument to the contrary. V. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Violates the North Carolina Constitution’s Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses Defendants do not deny that voting is core political expression protected by North Carolina’s Freedom of Speech Clause. Br. 49. Nor do they deny that registering to vote with a 25 political party is a form of political association protected by the Freedom of Assembly Clause. Id. at 50. And they do not deny that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 bans people on community supervision from engaging in such political expression and association. SBOE Br. 43-45; LD Br. 29-30. To justify depriving North Carolinians on community supervision of these rights, Defendants repeat their argument that these individuals purportedly do not have a “fundamental right to vote.” LD Br. 29; SBOE Br. 43-44. But none of the out-of-state cases Defendants rely upon for that proposition, e.g., SBOE Br. 25, address the speech or associational components of voting and registering to vote. They cite no support for the notion that people on community supervision somehow enjoy lesser speech and association rights than everyone else in society. State Board Defendants assert that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 does not discriminate against speech based on its content or viewpoint. SBOE Br. 45. But this law is content-based because it restricts speech based on its “subject matter”—namely, supporting a candidate in an election. Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2346 (2020). In any event, free speech rights guard against more than just content and viewpoint discrimination. The State also cannot ban speech based on “the identity of the speaker,” Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 567 (2011), and that is precisely what N.C.G.S. § 13-1 does.4 VI. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Violates the North Carolina Constitution’s Ban on Property Qualifications Defendants do not deny that money is property subject to Article I, § 11’s ban on property qualifications. SBOE Br. 45-48; LD Br. 30-31. Nor could they. The Supreme Court 4 State Board Defendants assert that they are not aware of any court “that has recognized a free speech or assembly claim for the denial of the franchise to individuals who are not guaranteed voting rights under the state constitution.” SBOE Br. 44. But Hand v. Scott, 285 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (N.D. Fla. 2018), held that “voting is . . . a form of speech,” that people with felony convictions maintain “the right to free association and expression,” and that Florida’s statutory scheme violated those people’s free speech and association rights. Id. at 1295, 1298-99 (quotation marks omitted). The district court’s decision was stayed (over a dissent) and ultimately vacated on mootness grounds due to the passage of Florida’s constitutional amendment on felony disenfranchisement. 26 has held that “property” under this Clause is “not confined to tangible property,” but rather “[i]n its most general sense” “embraces every thing which a man may have exclusive dominion over,” including financial assets. Wilson v. City of Charlotte, 74 N.C. 748, 755-56 (1876). State Board Defendants also “do not dispute that it may be an unconstitutional property qualification to require a person convicted of a felony to pay money … as a necessary condition to regaining the franchise.” SBOE Br. 47. But Defendants insist that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 does not violate the Ban on Property Qualifications Clause because the statute purportedly “does not speak to financial obligations.” SBOE Br. 46; see LD Br. 30-31. State Board Defendants assert that it is “other statutes” that impose “costs, fees, and restitution” as conditions of probation and permit courts to extend probation for failure to pay such financial obligations. SBOE Br. 47. This argument mischaracterizes Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs do not challenge the constitutionality of the statutes requiring payment of financial obligations as conditions of community supervision, nor do Plaintiffs challenge the State’s ability to extend probation for failure to pay such obligations. Plaintiffs instead challenge the North Carolina law that ties voting-rights restoration to the payment of financial obligations. It is N.C.G.S. § 13-1, not any other statute, that bars individuals from voting when they have failed to receive an “unconditional discharge” from community supervision because of their failure to pay money. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not identified specific individuals on extended probation for failure to pay financial obligations. SBOE Br. 48; LD Br. 31. That is both incorrect and irrelevant. It is incorrect because Plaintiff Henry Harrison attested that he has had probation extended previously for failure to pay. Jacobson Decl., Ex. C (“Harrison Decl.”) ¶ 10. And Defendants have not contested the organizational Plaintiffs’ standing based on their diversion of resources to educate people about the need to pay financial obligations to regain 27 voting rights. E.g., Jacobson Decl., Ex. F (“Powell Aff.”) ¶¶ 20-21; id., Ex. H (“NAACP Decl.”) ¶ 26. In any event, Defendants’ assertion is irrelevant because a statute imposing a property qualification to vote is facially unconstitutional as to everyone, including people who meet the qualification. If a statute provided that only people who own 10 acres of land can vote, it would facially violate the Ban on Property Qualifications Clause as to everyone, including people who own 10 acres of land. See Harper, 383 U.S. at 665 (facially invalidating poll tax as to everyone). N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s violation of the Ban on Property Qualifications Clause may be particularly injurious for people living in North Carolina with out-of-state convictions. A person convicted in another state may not vote until he or she receives an “unconditional discharge … by the agency of that state having jurisdiction of such person.” N.C.G.S. § 13-1(5). In some states, people with felony convictions cannot obtain an “unconditional discharge” until they pay their financial obligations. For instance, in Kentucky, “the parole for a person owing restitution shall be until the restitution is paid in full, even if this would lengthen the period of supervision beyond the statutory limit of parole supervision or the statutory limit for serving out the sentence imposed.” Ky. Rev. Stat. 439.563(5). Accordingly, for any person living in North Carolina who was convicted of a felony in Kentucky or another state with a similar regime, having enough money to pay their financial obligations is an absolute precondition to voting.5 VII. N.C.G.S. § 13-1’s Disenfranchisement of People on Community Supervision Does Not Serve Any Adequate Government Interest For each of Plaintiffs’ claims except the Ban on Property Qualifications Clause—which imposes an absolute prohibition that no government interest can override—strict scrutiny applies 5 Kentucky’s Governor recently issued an Executive Order allowing people with felony convictions to vote even if they still owe restitution or other financial obligations, if they have finished their other terms of parole. https://governor.ky.gov/attachments/20191212_Executive-Order_2019-003.pdf. Thus, a person convicted in Kentucky who has finished all terms of parole except restitution could vote in Kentucky elections. But if the person lives in North Carolina, he or she could not vote here based on the lack of an “unconditional discharge” from parole. 28 for the reasons explained above. Defendants do not even attempt to argue that the challenged disenfranchisement scheme could satisfy strict scrutiny, and that is conclusive. But as discussed above, the Court at a minimum should apply intermediate scrutiny. The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied intermediate scrutiny where the government’s discretion to regulate in a particular field had to be balanced against other constitutional protections. In King, the Supreme Court recognized the deference owed to a school board’s “judgments regarding the provision of alternative education,” but held that “[r]ational basis review … does not adequately protect student[s]” in light of the “state constitutional rights to equal educational access and a sound basic education.” 364 N.C. at 372-77, 704 S.E.2d at 262-65. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny “to harmonize the rational basis test employed in school discipline cases with the strict scrutiny analysis that formed a part of this Court’s constitutional holding in school funding cases.” Id. The Supreme Court likewise applied intermediate scrutiny in Blankenship to balance the constitutional “province of the legislature” to create a “convenient number” of judicial districts with the separate equal protections right of North Carolinians to substantially equal voting power. Blankenship, 363 N.C. 523-27, 681 S.E.2d 763-76. Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show that the challenged law “advance[s] important government interests” and is not more restrictive “than necessary to further those interests.” Id. Here, Defendants cannot show that N.C.G.S. 13-1’s disenfranchisement of people on community supervision advances any “important,” much less “compelling,” government interest. Indeed, Defendants have not shown that the challenged aspects of N.C.G.S. 13-1 advance any legitimate government interest at all, and thus the scheme is invalid under any level of constitutional scrutiny. Defendants have presented no evidence whatsoever—none—that disenfranchising people on community supervision serves any valid state interest today. 29 Importantly, to defend the law’s constitutionality here, Defendants must show not just that the law served some supposed government interests when it was amended nearly 50 years ago, but instead that the law adequately serves government interests today. See Shelby Cty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 550-56 (2013). As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, a “classification must substantially serve an important governmental interest today, for … ‘new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged.’” Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678, 1690 (2017) (quoting Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2603 (2015)) (emphasis by Supreme Court)). State Board Defendants focus primarily on the state interests served in the 1970s by certain changes to the law adopted then—changes that Plaintiffs do not challenge in this case. See SBOE Br. 29-31 (“Fourth” through “Seventh” interests). For instance, State Board Defendants describe the benefits of making rights restoration automatic rather than requiring a petition to a judge or other tribunal, but Plaintiffs do not challenge the part of N.C.G.S. § 13-1 that makes rights restoration “automatic.” Plaintiffs challenge other parts of the law, and State Board Defendants must establish that those parts of the law serve government interests today. The relevant inquiry, moreover, is not to compare the current version of the law to prior versions and evaluate which is better; the question is whether the ongoing enforcement of the challenged parts of the statute serves adequate government interests that would be lost if those parts were enjoined. If a single statute imposing both a poll tax and a literacy test were amended to remove the literacy test, the remaining poll tax could not be sustained on the ground that the amendment “expand[ed] the opportunities … to vote.” SBOE Br. 29. The question would be whether the poll tax served government interests, which it would not. The same is true here. 30 Other than invoking Article VI—which Holmes establishes is insufficient, Br. 31-32— State Boards Defendants put forward just two government interests in their brief relating to the aspect of the law that Plaintiffs do challenge, but those interests were not identified in discovery and thus cannot be relied upon now. In particular, State Board Defendants assert that people on community supervision “have forgone their opportunity to elect the officials who are responsible for enacting and enforcing the laws,” and that the State has an interest in conditioning restoration “on some showing of rehabilitation.” SBOE Br. 28. State Board Defendants did not list these interests in response to Plaintiffs’ interrogatory asking them to identify any government interest supporting the law. See Jacobson Decl., Ex. I. It would be manifestly unfair to permit State Board Defendants to rely on such undisclosed interests now when Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to examine the Board’s 30(b)(6) representative about them. The prejudice is particularly great because, as explained below, at deposition the Board’s representative disclaimed any reliance on the interests that were listed in their interrogatory response. Even setting aside the failure to disclose these purported interests, they do not remotely justify the law. The first rationale, which seems to be grounded in social contract theory, is inconsistent with N.C.G.S. § 13-1 itself and this State’s entire history of felony disenfranchisement. North Carolina has never permanently disenfranchised people with felony convictions. By its own terms, N.C.G.S. § 13-1 does not adhere to a notion that people with felony convictions have “foregone altogether” the ability to vote. SBOE Br. 28. Legislative Defendants’ own expert also admitted that there is no evidence that North Carolina’s disenfranchisement scheme was enacted based on principles of social contract theory. Callanan Dep. 264:5-14. This State’s disenfranchisement law traces its origins to white supremacy in the post-Civil War American South—not ancient “Roman and English law.” SBOE Br. 28. 31 As for State Board Defendants’ other newly disclosed interest, people released from incarceration have already made “some showing of rehabilitation.” SBOE Br. 28. That is why they are permitted in live in communities across the State. State Board Defendants offer no explanation why that is not so. If anything, the record shows that disenfranchisement stigmatizes people with felony convictions, thus hindering their reintegration. Burch Report at 40-42. As to the purported interests disclosed in State Board Defendants’ interrogatory response, the State Board’s Executive Director testified at deposition that the State Board is not asserting those interests to justify enforcing the challenged law today. For five of the six interests set forth in the interrogatory response, the Executive Director testified that the State Board is not asserting that disenfranchising people on probation, parole, or post-release supervision serves these interests as a factual matter in the present day, and she admitted that the State Board has no evidence that disenfranchising such people advances any of these interests. See Jacobson Reply Decl., Ex. 1 (“Bell Dep.”) at 179:4-204:15. For the remaining interest that Plaintiffs could ask about—that the law purportedly ensures people satisfy their obligations before their rights are restored—the Executive Director interpreted that to mean only that the State Board has an obligation to comply with N.C.G.S § 13-1 as currently written, which obviously is not a government interest supporting the statute itself. Id. at 206:11-19. For their part, Legislative Defendants merely provide a list of bullet points—largely copied-pasted from their interrogatory response—listing ten interests that the statute purportedly serves.6 LD Br. 23. Legislative Defendants offer no evidence or explanation for how disenfranchising people on community supervision serves any of those interests. Merely pasting a list of purported interests into a brief with no elaboration cannot satisfy any level of scrutiny. 6 There are some differences between the interests listed in Legislative Defendants’ brief and their interrogatory response. Legislative Defendants may not rely on any aspects of the interests in their brief that are different. 32 Further, the record shows that disenfranchising people on community supervision in fact undermines the interests that Defendants put forward. For instance, the challenged scheme does the opposite of “simplifying the administration of the process,” “avoiding confusion” among people with felony convictions, and “streamlining and promoting voter registration and electoral participation among North Carolinians convicted of felonies.” The State Board uses a datamatching process to identify people convicted of felonies in North Carolina state court who are registered voters, and these individuals’ registrations are then canceled. But the State Board’s Executive Director admitted that, based on audit data from a related matching process, roughly 20% of the hits through this data matching may be false positives, meaning that a very sizeable number of people may have their registrations canceled erroneously. Bell Dep. at 78:2-82:14. The State’s tracking and notification procedures are also a mess. When the State Board identifies a registered voter who has been convicted of a felony through its data matching, the relevant county board of elections sends the voter a letter stating that they are no longer eligible to vote. Jacobson Reply Decl., Ex. 2 at 4; Bell Dep. at 34:6-40:15. But neither the county board nor the State Board sends the voter a new notification once they are re-eligible to vote after completing their community supervision—even though the State Board receives lists from DPS of individuals who have completed their sentences. Bell Dep. at 41:16-47:4. The situation is even worse for people convicted of felonies in federal court. The U.S. Attorneys’ offices inform the State Board when people are convicted of federal felonies, and county boards then notify those people that they cannot vote and cancels their registrations. Jacobson Reply Decl., Ex. 3; Bell Dep. at 53:9-55:3. But federal officials never notify the State Board or county boards when people finish their federal sentences. The boards’ databases thus continue to show that people convicted of federal felonies are ineligible to vote even after their 33 rights are restored. Bell Dep. at 55:10-25, 62:25-63:5. Moreover, the State Board has no idea whether federal probation officers or anyone else ever tell people that upon completing their federal community supervision their voting rights are restored. Id. at 65:8-66:3. Worse yet, the State Board maintains no information about people living in North Carolina after a felony conviction in another state. Id. at 67:13-70:15. As a result, nobody tells these people that they are ineligible to vote or that they can vote once they receive an unconditional discharge. Id. The disenfranchisement of people on community supervision fosters confusion on the State Board’s forms as well. At the time of the Executive Director’s deposition, all of the State Board’s forms—including the voter registration form and the application for one-stop voting— told applicants that they could not vote if they were on “probation or parole,” but the forms did not mention post-release supervision. Jacobson Reply Decl., Exs. 4, 5; Bell Dep. at 83:5-97:19, 112:11-113:4.7 The State Board’s educational materials for people with criminal convictions, and its training manuals for poll workers, likewise omit post-release supervision. Jacobson Reply Decl., Exs. 6, 7; Bell Dep. at 98:18-109:21. People on post-release supervision reading these materials accordingly may mistakenly believe that they are eligible to vote, and they could then be prosecuted for a serious crime if they do. Bell Dep. at 105:13-106:5. Beyond these problems, disenfranchising people on community supervision inherently leads to confusion. Many people intuitively believe that they can vote once released from prison. Powerful evidence on this score can be found in an affidavit by Anthony Haith, one of the “Alamance 12,” included with the North Carolina Justice Center’s amicus brief. Many North Carolinians are also uncertain whether they have received an “unconditional discharge” if they have not paid off all of their financial obligations. Powell Aff. ¶ 20. This confusion, in 7 Since the deposition, the State Board amended the voter registration form to mention post-release supervision, but Ms. Bell indicated that the Board’s other forms and materials may not be similarly changed. Bell Dep. at 97:5-18. 34 conjunction with recent high-profile prosecutions of people for voting while on community supervision, deters people with felony convictions from voting even once they are eligible— particularly in the African American community. Id. ¶ 21. A simple rule that people can vote if they are not incarcerated would eliminate all of this confusion and fear. In short, the mass disenfranchisement of people on community supervision causes immense harm, and Defendants produced zero evidence that it serves any counterbalancing state interest. The scheme thus fails strict scrutiny or any other level of review. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996) (striking down statute under rational basis review where “[t]he breadth of the [law] is so far removed from the[] particular justifications” offered for it). Defendants assert that the “reasonableness” of disenfranchising people on community supervision is “confirmed by the fact that 31 other states draw the same distinction among people living in their communities.” SBOE Br. 31. As of 1948, 39 states including North Carolina banned interracial marriage. Jacobson Reply Decl., Ex. 8 (“Barber Dep.”) at 58-59. It wasn’t reasonable. Before the Nineteenth Amendment, 33 states including North Carolina had laws restricting women from voting. Id. at 56-57. It wasn’t reasonable. As of 1923, 45 states including North Carolina had a poll tax. Id. at 54-56. It wasn’t reasonable. As of 1965, half of the states including North Carolina required a literacy test for voting. Id. at 57-58. It wasn’t reasonable. There is no “everyone else is doing it” defense to unconstitutional discrimination. VIII. The Court Should Enter a Preliminary Injunction If It Does Not Grant Judgment While summary judgment is warranted for the reasons set forth above, at a minimum the Court should enter a preliminary injunction for the November 2020 elections.8 Defendants do not even attempt to refute the irreparable harm to the nearly 60,000 people who will be prevented 8 Because Defendants have not cross-moved for summary judgment, a trial would be necessary if the Court does not grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. 35 from voting—and their surrounding communities—if they are unable to vote this year. Br. 5457. Legislative Defendants do not discuss the equities or public interest at all. LD Br. 35. State Board Defendants avoid addressing the severe injuries that will befall tens of thousands of North Carolinians by hiding behind the broken premise that this Court would have to disenfranchise all people with felony convictions as the only available remedy. SBOE Br. 50. That is not the only equitable remedy this Court can order, as previously explained. See supra pp. 8-12. Rather than address the equities or public interest, Defendants assert that a preliminary injunction here would not maintain the “status quo.” LD Br. 35; SBOE Br. 49. Even if Defendants were correct that North Carolina law permits preliminary injunctions only to restore a “status quo” (and they are not), that requirement would be met here. “[T]here is no particular magic in the phrase ‘status quo,’” Ga. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Fayette County Bd. of Commr’s, 118 F. Supp. 3d 1338, 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2015) (quotation marks omitted), but generally in the injunction context, the term means “the last uncontested status between the parties which preceded the controversy,” League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 236 (4th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Here, the “last uncontested status” between the parties is before North Carolina ever passed legislation disenfranchising people with felony convictions who are not incarcerated, and Plaintiffs seek to return to that status. See, e.g., Order on Inj. Relief at 12, Harper v. Lewis, 19 CVS 012667 (N.C. Super. Oct. 28, 2019). In any event, North Carolina courts may alter the status quo through mandatory, as opposed to prohibitory, preliminary injunctions. Roberts v. Madison Cty. Realtors Ass’n, 344 N.C. 394, 400, 474 S.E.2d 783, 788 (1996); League of Women Voters of N.C., 769 F.3d at 236 (“mandatory injunctions alter the status quo”). In Lloyd v. Babb, 296 N.C. 416, 430, 251 S.E.2d 843, 853 (1979), the trial court entered a preliminary injunction requiring a county board of 36 elections to take new measures when registering college students to vote. The Supreme Court held that “[t]his order amounts to a preliminary mandatory injunction,” and “[o]ur courts have power to enter such an order, provided it is supported by the evidence.” Id. (cleaned up). This Court has authority to enter a preliminary injunction that affirmatively orders the State Board to process registrations by people on community supervision and to allow them to vote. Furthermore, irrespective of the status quo, the Supreme Court has held that a preliminary injunction may issue “where the primary ultimate remedy sought is an injunction; where the denial of a preliminary injunction would serve effectively to foreclose adequate relief to plaintiff; where no ‘legal’ (as opposed to equitable) remedy will suffice; and where the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction in effect results in a determination on the merits, [and] plaintiff has made a showing that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is necessary for the protection of its rights.” A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 410, 302 S.E.2d 754, 764 (1983). All of these criteria are met here. Plaintiffs ultimately seek a permanent injunction; the decision to grant a preliminary injunction will turn on the merits; and an injunction is necessary to protect Plaintiffs and their members’ right to vote in the November 2020 elections. Ultimately, Defendants’ position elevates form over substance, ignoring the maxim that a preliminary injunction is “equitable in nature.” A.E.P., 308 N.C. at 406, 302 S.E.2d at 762. If ever there were a case where the equities demanded an injunction, it is this one. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, or alternatively a preliminary injunction. 37 Respectfully submitted this the 17th day of August, 2020. FORWARD JUSTICE /s/ Daryl Atkinson_______________ Daryl Atkinson (NC Bar # 39030) Whitley Carpenter (NC Bar # 49657) 400 W Main St., Suite 203 Durham, NC 27701 daryl@forwardjustice.org Counsel for Plaintiffs ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP R. Stanton Jones* Elisabeth S. Theodore* Daniel F. Jacobson* Graham White* 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 (202) 942-5000 stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT Farbod K. Faraji* Aditi Juneja* 77 Pearl Street Middletown, CT 06459 (202) 579-4582 farbod.faraji@protectdemocracy.org Counsel for Plaintiffs * Admitted pro hac vice CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing to counsel for Defendants via e-mail, addressed to the following persons at the following addresses which are the last addresses known to me: Brian D. Rabinovitz 114 W. Edenton St. Raleigh, NC 27603 BRabinovitz@ncdoj.gov Counsel for Legislative Defendants Paul M. Cox Olga Vysotskaya 114 W. Edenton St. Raleigh, NC 27603 pcox@ncdoj.gov OVysotskaya@ncdoj.gov Counsel for State Board Defendants This the 17th day of August, 2020. /s/Daryl Atkinson Daryl Atkinson (NC Bar # 39030) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION No. 19-cv-15941 COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DECLARATION OF DANIEL F. JACOBSON TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Defendants. I, Daniel F. Jacobson, declare and say as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. 2. I am a senior associate with the law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and one of the attorneys representing Plaintiffs in this case. 3. I submit this affidavit in support of Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative a Preliminary Injunction. 4. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Deposition of Karen Brinson Bell. 5. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a PowerPoint presentation from the State Board of Elections (“SBOE”) titled “Election Technology Training” produced by the SBOE in discovery, which was Exhibit A to the Deposition of Karen Brinson Bell. 6. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from a SBOE document describing the felony voter list maintenance process that was produced by the SBOE in discovery, and which was Exhibit B to the Deposition of Karen Brinson Bell. 7. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the North Carolina Voter Registration Application produced by the SBOE in discovery, which was Exhibit E to the Deposition of Karen Brinson Bell. 8. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of North Carolina’s One Stop Application produced by the SBOE in discovery, which was Exhibit G to the Deposition of Karen Brinson Bell. 9. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a document titled “NC Voting Rights Guide: People in the Criminal Justice System,” which was produced by the SBOE in discovery and was Exhibit J to the Deposition of Karen Brinson Bell. 10. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from an SBOE poll worker guide, which was produced by the SBOE in discovery and was Exhibit I to the Deposition of Karen Brinson Bell. 11. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of the Deposition of Michael J. Barber. 12. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts’ 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers. Respectfully submitted this the 17th day of August, 2020. __/s/ Daniel F. Jacobson___ Daniel F. Jacobson EXHIBIT 1 COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 · ·1· ·NORTH CAROLINA· · ·)· IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE · · · · · · · · · · · · )· · · SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION ·2· ·WAKE COUNTY· · · · )· · · · · · 19-CVS-15941 ·3 ·4· ·COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE; JUSTICE · · ·SERVED NC, INC.; NORTH CAROLINA STATE ·5· ·CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, ·6· · · · · · Plaintiffs, ·7· ·vs. ·8· · · ·9· · · 10 · · 11· ·TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL ·CAPACITY OF SPEAKER OF THE NORTH ·CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; ·et al., · · · · · Defendants. ·__________________________________________/ 12 13 14· · · · · · 30(b)(6) Deposition by RingCentral 15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · of 16· · · · · · · · · · KAREN BRINSON BELL 17 18 19· · · · · · · (Taken Remotely by Plaintiffs) 20· · · · · · · · · Raleigh, North Carolina 21· · · · · · · · · Thursday, July 16, 2020 22 23 24· · · · · · · Reported Remotely in Stenotype · · · · · · · · · · · · Denise Y. Meek 25· · · · · · ·Court Reporter and Notary Public www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 2..5 Page 2 ·1· ·2 · · ·3 · · ·4· · · ·5· · · ·6· ·7· · · ·8· · · ·9· · · 10 11· 12· · · 13· · · 14· · · 15 16· 17· · · 18· · · 19· · · 20 21· 22· · · 23· · · 24· · · 25· · · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES ·FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · DANIEL F. JACOBSON, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC· 20001-3743 202-942-5000 daniel.jacobson@arnoldporter.com DARYL V. ATKINSON, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) WHITLEY J. CARPENTER, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) Forward Justice 400 West Main Street, Suite 203 Durham, NC· 27701 daryl@forwardjustice.org ·FOR THE LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS: · · · BRIAN D. RABINOVITZ, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) · · · North Carolina Department of Justice · · · 114 West Edenton Street · · · Raleigh, NC· 27603 · · · 919-716-6820 · · · brabinovitz@ncdoj.gov ·FOR THE STATE BOARD DEFENDANTS: · · · PAUL M. COX, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) · · · North Carolina Department of Justice · · · 114 West Edenton Street · · · Raleigh, NC· 27603 · · · 919-716-6820 · · · pcox@ncdoj.gov ·FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS: · · · KATELYN ROSE LOVE, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) · · · North Carolina State Board of Elections · · · 430 North Salisbury Street · · · 6400 MSC · · · Raleigh, NC· 27603 · · · 919-814-0756 · · · katelyn.love@ncsbe.gov Page 4 ·1· ·2 ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6 ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· · · 11· 12· · · 13· 14· · · 15· 16· · · 17· · · 18 · · 19· · · 20 · · 21· · · 22 · · 23· 24· · · 25 · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS ·KAREN BRINSON BELL· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE ·By Mr. Jacobson· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·9 ·By Mr. Cox· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 207 · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXHIBITS ·NUMBER· · · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · PAGE ·Defendants' 1· Order - 7/15/2020· · · · · · · · · · 8 ·Plaintiffs' A· Election Technology Training· · · · 27 · · · · · · · · Topic: Felony Processes 6/21/2017 · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_279 thru 302 ·Plaintiffs' B· Biennial List Maintenance· · · · · ·52 · · · · · · · · (No-Contact Process) · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_322 thru 350 ·Plaintiffs' C· Post-Election Report 4/21/2017· · · 70 · · · · · · · · General Election 2016 · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_406 thru 439 ·Plaintiffs' D· HuffPost Article - 6/18/2020· · · ·132 · · · · · · · · "They Didn't Know They Were · · · · · · · · Ineligible to Vote.· A Prosecutor · · · · · · · · Went After Them Anyway." ·Plaintiffs' E· North Carolina Voter Registration· ·82 · · · · · · · · Application · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_351 thru 353 ·Plaintiffs' F· Absentee Application and· · · · · · 94 · · · · · · · · Certificate · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_127 ·Plaintiffs' G· · · · · · · · · ·Plaintiffs' H· · · · · · · · · One Stop Application· · · · · · · ·111 Bates: CSI_NCSBE_405 NCSBE Voting Site Station Guide· · ·97 Bates: CSI_NCSBE_537 thru 597 Page 3 ·1 ·2 ·3 ·4 ·5· · · · · · 30(b)(6) Deposition by RingCentral of ·6· ·KAREN BRINSON BELL, a witness located in Raleigh, ·7· ·North Carolina, was called remotely on behalf of the ·8· ·plaintiffs, before Denise Y. Meek, remote court ·9· ·reporter and notary public, in and for the State of 10· ·North Carolina, on Thursday, July 16, 2020, 11· ·commencing at 9:01 a.m. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 5 ·1 · · ·2· ·3 · · ·4 · · ·5· ·6· · · ·7· · · ·8 · · ·9· · · 10 · · 11· · · 12· · · 13 · · 14· · · 15 · · 16· 17· · · 18· · · 19 · · 20· · · 21 22 · · 23 24 25 · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXHIBITS · · · · · · · · · · · (Continued) ·NUMBER· · · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · PAGE ·Plaintiffs' I· · · · · · · · · ·Plaintiffs' J· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Election Offices Manual· · · · · · 101 Bates: CSI_NCSBE_132 thru 278 NC Voting Rights Guide· · · · · · ·114 People in the Criminal Justice System Bates: CSI_NCSBE_598 ·Plaintiffs' K· A Misdemeanant & Ex-Felon's· · · · 106 · · · · · · · · Guide to Voting in North Carolina · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_303 thru 304 ·Plaintiffs' M· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · State of Michigan Voter· · · · · · 140 Registration Application and Michigan Driver's License/State Identification Card Address Change Form Instructions ·Plaintiffs' N· Voter Registration Application· · ·142 · · · · · · · · District of Columbia Board of · · · · · · · · Elections ·Plaintiffs' O· · · · · · · · · ·Plaintiffs' P· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · New Jersey Voter Registration· · · 144 Application State Board's Amended Response· · ·159 to Interrogatory No. 7 of the Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories ·Plaintiffs' Q· Letter 3/3/2017 Re: Uniform· · · · 119 · · · · · · · · Notice to Felons Regarding Voting · · · · · · · · Rights in North Carolina ·REPORTERS NOTE:· Exhibit L was not identified. www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 6..9 Page 6 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · · · · · ·-· - · · ·THE REPORTER:· We are now on the ·record. · · ·MR. COX:· I'm Paul Cox with the ·North Carolina Attorney General's Office, ·representing the State Board of Elections ·and its members, and the witness, and we ·consent to the remote deposition. · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· This is Daniel Jacobson ·from Arnold & Porter representing the ·plaintiffs.· We consent to the remote ·deposition. · · ·MR. ATKINSON:· Darryl Atkinson, ·Forward Justice, counsel for the ·plaintiffs.· We consent to the remote ·deposition. · · ·MS. CARPENTER:· Whitley Carpenter, ·Forward Justice, counsel for the ·plaintiffs.· We consent to the remote ·deposition. · · ·MR. RABINOVITZ:· This is Brian ·Rabinovitz from the North Carolina Attorney ·General's Office on behalf of the ·legislative defendants, and we also consent ·to the remote deposition. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·THE REPORTER:· All right.· Ms. Bell, ·please raise your right hand. · · ·Do you solemnly swear the testimony you ·will give in this matter will be the truth, ·the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, ·so help you God? · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do. · · ·THE REPORTER:· Thank you, ma'am. · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Good morning, Ms. Bell. · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, this is Paul.· Before we ·get started, I just wanted to make one note ·on the record. · · ·Yesterday the Court entered into a ·protective order, as all counsel knows, and ·I just want to make sure that that's ·entered into the record.· I'll be emailing ·a copy to the court reporter to enter it ·into the record. · · ·But just for everyone's sake of ·understanding right now, it states that: · · ·"Plaintiffs' examination of Defendant ·State Board's Rule 30(b)(6) designee ·relating to matter 1 of Schedule A of the ·notice of deposition shall be limited to ·factual assertions pertaining to items 1.a. Page 8 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·through 1.f. · · ·"Plaintiffs' examination of Defendant ·State Board's Rule 30(b)(6) designee shall ·also be limited to governmental interests ·Defendant State Board may have in the ·present enforcement of N.C.G.S., ·Section 13-1, including Defendant State ·Board's current policies and procedures ·relating to N.C.G.S., Section 13-1." · · ·And finally: · · ·"Plaintiffs shall be precluded from ·examining Defendant State Board's Rule ·30(b)(6) designee on matters relating to ·the enactment or historical enforcement of ·N.C.G.S., Section 13-1." · · ·And, Madam Court Reporter, I'll send ·you a copy for the exhibit to be entered ·into the record. · · ·And just stating here at the outset, ·for anything that would go outside the ·bounds of that order or would violate the ·order, the State Board will be objecting to ·those questions and instructing the witness ·not to answer. · · ·(Defendants' 1 marked.) ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · · · · · · · ·-· - · · · · · · · ·KAREN BRINSON BELL, · · · having been first duly remotely sworn, · · · was examined and testified as follows: · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Okay.· Good morning, again, Ms. Bell. ·As I mentioned, I'm Daniel Jacobson.· I am an ·attorney for the plaintiffs in this case. · · · · ·Could I ask you to state your full name ·for the record. · · ·A.· Karen Brinson Bell. · · ·Q.· And do you understand that you've taken ·an oath to tell the truth today? · · ·A.· Yes, I do. · · ·Q.· There will be a transcript of ·everything we say.· So we should just try the ·best we can not to talk over each other.· I'll ·try to do my best if you could do your best as ·well. · · ·A.· Yes.· I'm aware of that.· Thank you. · · ·Q.· And your counsel may object, but you ·must answer the question even if he objects, ·unless your counsel specifically instructs you ·not to answer the question. Page 7 Page 9 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 10..13 Page 10 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·Do you understand that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Is there any reason you cannot give ·complete, truthful testimony today? · · ·A.· Not that I'm aware of. · · ·Q.· Have you taken any medications that ·would prevent you from giving complete, ·accurate, and truthful testimony today? · · ·A.· I have not. · · ·Q.· If you want a break at any point, just ·let us know, and we'll take a break. · · ·A.· Will do.· Thank you. · · ·Q.· Have you ever been deposed before? · · ·A.· Yes, I have. · · ·Q.· And when was that? · · ·A.· I've been deposed once personally; once ·about a year ago, in my capacity as executive ·director; and then once this week in my ·capacity as executive director; and then this ·deposition. · · ·Q.· I'll take those one at a time, then. · · · · ·You said once about a year ago?· Did I ·hear that right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And what case was that? ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· It was dealing with the federal ID law. · · ·Q.· And was that a federal court case or a ·state court case? · · ·A.· I honestly don't recall at this point. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And you were already in your ·position that you currently hold now at the ·time of that deposition; is that right? · · ·A.· I had just begun.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then the second case, what ·was that case? · · ·A.· That was earlier this week, and it is ·dealing with changes to the -- it's a case ·dealing with coronavirus and -- a lawsuit ·asking for changes in how we conduct elections ·dealing with coronavirus. · · ·Q.· And what kind of changes are the ·plaintiffs asking for in that case? · · ·A.· It's actually quite a -- numerous ·things.· Changes to the witnesses on -- changes ·to the voter registration deadline.· How we -·I'm just trying to think of some of the other ·things that were being considered.· Those are ·two of the main ones. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· The poll workers and precinct workers. Page 12 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· And other than those two cases, you've ·never given a deposition before in any ·capacity? · · ·A.· In my role as executive director. ·That's correct.· There was a personal matter ·that I've been deposed for. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And just to make sure:· You've ·never given a deposition in any other case in ·your professional capacity even before your ·current job; is that right? · · ·A.· That's right. · · ·Q.· Have you ever testified before at a ·trial? · · ·A.· I'm sorry.· One moment. · · ·Q.· Sure. · · ·A.· Sorry.· No, I have not testified in a ·trial. · · ·Q.· Okay.· What is your current job title? · · ·A.· I'm executive director of the ·North Carolina State Board of Elections. · · ·Q.· And how long have you been in that ·position? · · ·A.· I began June 1, 2019.· So just over a ·year. · · ·Q.· And I understand that this might be a ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·very difficult question to answer, but on a ·high level, what are your responsibilities in ·that role? · · ·A.· I am the chief elections official for ·the State of North Carolina.· I, with the State ·Board of Elections, have oversight of ·elections, administration for our state, and ·the conduct of all 100 county boards of ·elections.· And we also, as the State Board, ·and the 100 county boards, oversee compliance ·with campaign finance laws. · · ·Q.· In your role, do you oversee the State ·Board's efforts to notify people convicted of ·felonies about their voting rights? · · ·A.· We do receive voter registrations.· So ·that does pertain to felons. · · ·Q.· And do you oversee the State Board's ·procedures for preventing people convicted of ·felonies from voting? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Assumes facts not · · ·in evidence. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, you understand that people ·who are serving a felony sentence in ·North Carolina are not allowed to vote.· Is Page 11 Page 13 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 14..17 Page 14 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·that right? · · ·A.· That is what the law states. · · ·Q.· And do you oversee the State Board's ·procedures for preventing such people from ·voting? · · ·A.· I administer the law which says that we ·give notice or administer the law as it's ·written pertaining to felons and their rights ·to vote. · · ·Q.· Right.· And just so that I -- the Board ·has certain procedures in place.· Right? ·Administrative procedures to, you know, the ·best they can, make sure that people who are ·serving such felony convictions are not ·actually able to vote; is that right? · · ·A.· We have procedures pertaining to the ·qualifications of voters. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then in your capacity as ·executive director, that falls within your ·purview of overseeing those procedures; is that ·right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And in your role -- and, ·Ms. Bell, you understand that people who have ·completed their felony sentence become ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·reeligible to vote again.· Is that right? · · ·A.· That is how our law is stated, yes. · · ·Q.· And does the Board have procedures to ·help implement that aspect of the law, that ·people are allowed to vote again once their ·felony sentences are completed? · · ·A.· Yes.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And in your capacity as executive ·director, do you oversee those procedures? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, am I correct that the Board ·conducts investigations of people who may have ·voted illegally while they were serving their ·felony sentence? · · ·A.· We do have an investigations division ·where we look at violations of election law. · · ·Q.· And do you -- in your capacity as ·executive director, do you oversee that ·division? · · ·A.· Yes, that is a division of this agency. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Before your current job, what ·was -- what job did you hold before your ·current job? · · ·A.· I was a consultant for the Ranked ·Choice Voting Resource Center. Page 16 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· And how long did you have that job? · · ·A.· From -- in a full-time capacity, ·October of 2016 until I assumed this role.· So ·the end of May 2019. · · ·Q.· And is that a nonprofit organization? · · ·A.· It is.· It is organized now as a ·nonprofit organization. · · ·Q.· And what's -- again, this might be a ·loaded question, but, broadly speaking, what's ·the primary mission of that organization? · · ·A.· We were a group of former election ·administrators who had worked in the election ·administration field.· We were working with ·different governmental entities, be that a ·legislature or a city council, varying levels ·of government and election administration for ·those who were considering or were already ·charged with implementing ranked choice voting ·as a voting method.· We had -- I particularly ·had experience in that voting method, and so we ·were sharing election administration practices ·for those considering the method or who were ·implementing or expanding their processes. · · ·Q.· And before that job -- what was your ·job before that? ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· I had worked for a voting -- an ·elections software company. · · ·Q.· Have you ever worked -- other than your ·current job, have you ever worked for any ·government agency? · · ·A.· Yes.· From two thousand -- well, yes. ·That's a "yes" or "no."· So yes. · · ·Q.· And what agency was that? · · ·A.· I was the elections director for ·Transylvania County, North Carolina. · · ·Q.· And when did you serve in that role? · · ·A.· From March of 2011 until March of 2015. · · ·Q.· And did I hear you right that you said ·you were the elections director?· Or I might ·have misheard. · · ·A.· That's correct.· Yes.· At the county ·level in North Carolina, we're considered ·election directors. · · ·Q.· And what were your responsibilities in ·that role? · · ·A.· To administer voting, voter ·registration, campaign finance, election ·administration for Transylvania County, ·North Carolina. · · ·Q.· And in that role, were you involved in Page 15 Page 17 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 18..21 Page 18 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·implementing procedures for notifying people ·convicted of felonies about their voting ·rights? · · ·A.· Yes, as it pertains to North Carolina ·law, yes. · · ·Q.· And in that role were you involved in ·implementing procedures for preventing people ·who were serving felony sentences from voting? · · ·A.· Again, my role was to administer ·elections and voter registration based on ·qualifications for people to vote or not to ·vote based on North Carolina law. · · ·Q.· And those qualifications included that ·a person is not currently serving a felony ·sentence; is that right? · · ·A.· That was the law at that time.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And in that role in Transylvania ·County, were you involved in procedures for ·enabling people who had finished their felony ·sentence to once again vote? · · ·A.· Yes.· If an individual was qualified to ·register and vote, then we did follow those ·procedures. · · ·Q.· And in that role were you involved in ·the investigation of people who may have ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·legally voted while serving a felony sentence? · · ·A.· The county level turns over that ·information to the state, and there is no ·county investigations division.· So that's ·turned over to the state. · · ·Q.· Other than that role in Transylvania ·County, have you served in any sort of ·government capacity, other than your current ·job? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And what was that? · · ·A.· I worked for the State Board of ·Elections from 2006 until I became county ·elections director in 2011. · · ·Q.· And what was your -- what role did you ·hold at that time? · · ·A.· I was a district elections technician. · · ·Q.· And what did that job entail? · · ·A.· I was assigned a regional position ·where I worked in the western part of the state ·supporting 12 counties.· The primary ·responsibilities dealt with the voting systems ·and North Carolina's procurement of a new ·voting system in 2006, and that rollout, and ·the training associated with that. Page 20 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· And when you say "voting systems," are ·you referring to the actual software that ·voting machines use that will actually cast the ·ballots?· Is that -· · ·A.· A voting system is the firmware, ·software, and hardware associated with voting. ·So the tabulators, the tabulation software. ·Yeah.· All the components you see when you cast ·your ballot. · · ·Q.· In that role -- did that role touch at ·all on the law regarding people serving their ·felony sentences and whether they can vote? · · ·A.· That was not a direct part of my job. ·I assisted counties in other processes, but ·that was not a direct part of my job at that ·time. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And other than the three ·government positions we've discussed, have you ·held any government position? · · ·A.· No. · · ·Q.· Other than the jobs we've already ·talked about, have you ever worked at all in a ·professional capacity on issues relating to ·felony disenfranchisement? · · ·A.· I have not. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· What did you do to prepare for ·today's deposition? · · ·A.· I have spoken with counsel to ·understand the process, particularly, to the ·organizational witness aspect.· I have reviewed ·documents that we provided as the State Board, ·that were provided by counsel. · · ·Q.· Did you meet with your lawyers to ·prepare for this deposition? · · ·A.· I did. · · ·Q.· How many times did you meet them? · · ·A.· Other than being briefed, you know, on ·the status of the case to actually prepare for ·this, we met once. · · ·Q.· And other than Mr. Cox, was anyone else ·present at that meeting? · · ·A.· The State Board's general counsel, ·Katelyn Love. · · ·Q.· Other than Ms. Love and Mr. Cox, was ·anyone present? · · ·A.· Yes.· Our deputy director, Trena Parker ·Velez. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Was Mr. Rabinovitz from the ·Attorney General's Office present at that ·meeting? Page 19 Page 21 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 22..25 Page 22 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· No, he was not. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I believe you just mentioned ·this a moment ago, but have you reviewed any ·documents to prepare for this deposition? · · ·A.· Yes.· I reviewed some of our ·procedures -- procedural documents that were ·provided with this case. · · ·Q.· Other than documents that were -- and ·when you -- I'm sorry.· When you say provided ·in this case, do you mean provided to ·plaintiffs as part of discovery? · · ·A.· That would be my understanding.· I'm ·not an attorney, so... · · ·Q.· Okay.· Other than those documents that ·you think were provided to the plaintiffs as ·part of discovery, did you review any documents ·to prepare for today? · · ·A.· No, not that I recall. · · ·Q.· I see that you have a large stack of ·documents behind you, and I won't ask you about ·those, but did you -· · ·A.· So that would be our COVID response, ·our Monday morning kickoff, our conference that ·we have coming up.· All the many things that go ·on in election administration. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Fair enough.· And that would probably ·take us a full day just to go through those. · · ·A.· At least. · · ·Q.· Did you bring any documents, though, ·with you today specifically for this ·deposition? · · ·A.· I have some of those documents that ·have been provided.· I have those with me. · · ·Q.· Okay.· But nothing else beyond what ·you've already described? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And, Ms. Bell, I believe, again, ·you already answered this, but you're aware ·that the State Board produced documents in ·response to the plaintiffs' discovery request ·in this case? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Were you involved in the process of ·identifying or collecting the documents that ·were to be produced? · · ·A.· No, not -- not particularly. · · ·Q.· Who at the State Board was involved in ·gathering the documents that were produced as ·part of discovery in this case? · · ·A.· To my knowledge, most of that was Page 24 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·handled by our general counsel.· We reached out ·to staff. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Are you familiar at all with the ·process that he used to gather documents? · · ·A.· Our general counsel, or Mr. Cox? · · ·Q.· Your general counsel. · · ·A.· I was copied or included on emails when ·she reached out to staff members.· If she -·yeah, I was not pertinent to phone ·conversations, if those occurred. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Do you know do they search paper ·files and electronic documents, or just one or ·the other? · · ·A.· I don't have the answer to that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Do you know if they conducted ·electronic searches? · · ·A.· In some of what I have, there's a ·record of an email that I have in front of me ·that was submitted.· So if that answers your -·there's at least an email.· So that would be an ·electronic file. · · ·Q.· Okay.· What email is that? · · ·A.· It's -- maybe the best way for me to ·identify it is the page number. · · ·Q.· Sure. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· So CSI_NCSBE_000048.· So it's an email ·from Katelyn Love, as well as Veronica ·Degraffenreid. · · ·Q.· And do State Board -- does the State ·Board staff or members frequently email about ·issues relating to felony disenfranchisement? · · ·A.· What do you mean by "frequently"? · · ·Q.· Do they ever email about issues ·relating to felony disenfranchisement? · · ·A.· Yes, we would email -- you know, yes, ·we would email about that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And do you know that the State ·Board searched their emails in response to ·discovery requests in this case? · · ·A.· I don't know. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And you think the person who ·would know that is the deputy director and the ·general counsel.· Am I understanding that ·right? · · ·A.· In this case it would be the general ·counsel. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· The deputy director does not have the ·discovery rights. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And have you reviewed all of the Page 23 Page 25 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 26..29 Page 26 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·documents that were ultimately produced by the ·State Board in this case? · · ·A.· I have not. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Just a subset? · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to walk through some ·of the documents, now, that were produced. · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· So I'm going to pull up -- I'm going to ·pull up exhibits on my screen and use the ·screen-share function.· You can at any point ·tell me you want me to scroll to a different ·page or you want to take more time to read ·something I'm looking at.· It's a little bit ·cumbersome using remote procedures, but we'll ·do the best we can. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· And for opposing · · ·counsel, Mr. Atkinson will email you the · · ·marked copies.· We've premarked all of · · ·these.· So he'll email them, you know, one · · ·by one as we introduce each one, just so · · ·everyone has a copy in front of them. · · · · ·Does that sound okay to everyone? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Yes. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' A premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Are you able to see my screen? · · ·A.· Yes.· Well, I see a screen.· I don't ·see the entire document. · · ·Q.· Do you see that this is a document ·entitled Election Technology Training? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Have you seen this document before? · · ·A.· I have. · · ·Q.· Can you confirm, to the best of your ·ability, that this is a true and accurate copy ·of a document produced by the State Board in ·discovery? · · ·A.· I'm sorry.· Your audio faded. · · ·Q.· I'm sorry.· You said you've seen this ·document before, correct? · · ·A.· Yes, I have. · · ·Q.· Can you confirm, to the best of your ·ability, that this is a true and accurate copy ·of a document produced by the State Board in ·this case in discovery? · · ·A.· Yes, it is a State Board document.· At ·least, as far as the cover. · · ·Q.· And does this -- does this document Page 28 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·reflect current protocols and technology ·databases used by the State Board and county ·board of elections? · · ·A.· Yes.· We have -- we have other ·supplemental documents, but, yes, this is the ·latest version, to my knowledge, of this ·document. · · ·Q.· So there's no more recent documents ·that sort of updates this?· This is the latest ·version, you just said? · · ·A.· I believe that's correct.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn now to the ·page that's Bates stamped page 286. · · · · ·Do you see that the title of this slide ·is "DOC Felon Reports Updated"? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Does this page show the databases that ·the State Board maintains regarding persons ·convicted of a felony in a North Carolina state ·court and their eligibility to vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· Repeat your question, please. · · ·Q.· Sure.· Does this page show the ·databases that the State Board of Elections ·maintains regarding persons convicted of a ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·felony in a North Carolina state court and ·their eligibility to vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I don't know that the terminology used ·is correct for what this displays. · · ·Q.· Okay.· How would you describe it? · · ·A.· Okay.· This is a listing of lists and ·daily reports.· It's not necessarily a ·database. · · ·Q.· Okay.· But these are the lists and ·daily reports that the State Board possesses ·regarding persons convicted of a felony in a ·North Carolina state court; is that right? · · ·A.· Somewhat. · · ·Q.· Okay.· What did I get wrong? · · ·A.· You indicated that we possess them. ·They may be provided to us or -- I just don't ·want to -- it indicates it's the Department of ·Corrections, which is a title that really means ·DPS, Department of Public Safety.· And so some ·of these are provided to us and not necessarily ·our documents. · · ·Q.· Sure.· The State Board maintains copies ·of -- at least, copies of all of these lists; ·is that correct? Page 27 Page 29 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 30..33 Page 30 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· Yes.· They're provided to us, and we ·maintain them for our purposes.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And these lists show -- or these lists ·relate to persons convicted of a felony in a ·North Carolina state court; is that correct? · · ·A.· Actually, the way this is written, it ·does not indicate that all of those are those ·convicted of a felony in a North Carolina state ·court. · · ·Q.· You think that this includes people who ·were convicted of a felony in a different ·court? · · ·A.· Not -- no, just indicating that that's ·not what all of these bullet points state. · · ·Q.· Okay.· How about we'll do this.· We'll ·go through them one by one, and I'll state my ·understanding of them, and then you can tell me ·what I'm getting wrong.· Sound good? · · ·A.· I believe you're correct that they are ·from the North Carolina state court, but I just ·wanted to clarify that they don't each state ·that. · · ·Q.· I understand.· Okay.· So the first one ·here is called "Felon County List"? · · ·A.· Yes. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· And does that list show the current ·list of people who are ineligible to vote ·because they are serving a felony sentence? · · ·A.· By definition, no, that's not what the ·report indicates. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Well, can you explain to me why ·that's not correct? · · ·A.· I will read what it says.· It says ·that:· "This report shows the current list of ·persons who have an active felony status due to ·conviction of a felony in a North Carolina ·state court.· The report is available by the ·county in which the person was convicted of a ·felony (or was a resident at the time of his or ·her conviction).· User must select county and ·user may select conviction month and year." · · · · ·It does not state whether they are ·eligible to vote or not, as you stated. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is it your understanding that ·anyone serving an active felony status due to a ·felony is ineligible to vote in North Carolina? · · ·A.· That is correct. · · ·Q.· So given that, doesn't this list show a ·current list of persons who are ineligible to ·vote in North Carolina due to a conviction in a Page 32 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·North Carolina state court? · · ·A.· I don't want to split hairs with you, ·but that's -- it is not a report that says they ·are not eligible to vote.· It says that they ·are "active felony status due to conviction of ·a felony" in North Carolina. · · ·Q.· Okay.· But everyone who is on the list ·is ineligible to vote; is that right? · · ·A.· They are active felony status. ·Therefore, we would then process this as ·someone who is not eligible to vote. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· But it's -· · ·Q.· Go ahead.· I'm sorry. · · ·A.· That's all. · · ·Q.· Okay.· The second list is called "Felon ·State Matching List"; is that right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And does that list show the current ·list of people who are on active felony status ·who you are able to -- from a conviction in a ·North Carolina state court -- who you are able ·to match up to a North Carolina voter ·registration record? · · ·A.· That is correct. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And is that -- am I ·understanding right, is that the SEIMS ·database?· I might be -· · ·A.· No.· You said it correctly. · · ·Q.· Okay.· That's a list of voters who are ·registered in North Carolina; is that right? · · ·A.· That's our database of people who are ·registered in North Carolina, SEIMS. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And the third list is called ·"Felon Completed List."· Does that show the ·current list of persons who have completed ·their felony sentence from a conviction in a ·North Carolina state court? · · ·A.· It states that they are no longer ·considered active felons.· So by that -- does ·that meet your definition of no longer serving ·a sentence? · · ·Q.· So let me ask you this:· Anyone who is ·no longer considered to be an active felon and ·is, therefore, on that list, are all of those ·people eligible to vote in North Carolina ·elections? · · ·A.· They are eligible, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then the fourth list here, ·"Felon Completed State Matching List," does Page 31 Page 33 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 34..37 Page 34 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·that show the current list of people who are no ·longer considered to be active felons who you ·are also able to match up to a North Carolina ·voter registration record? · · ·A.· That is correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn back now to ·what is stamped as Bates stamp page 282. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you see that the title of ·this slide is "Felony Removal Notice"? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And does this represent a sample letter ·sent to voters notifying them that their name ·will be removed from the list of registered ·voters because they've been convicted of a ·felony? · · ·A.· That is what it's depicting, yes. · · ·Q.· So to state it slightly differently: ·This letter tells voters that they are now ·ineligible to vote because of their felony ·conviction; is that correct? · · ·A.· That is correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is it -- am I right that this ·letter is sent shortly after the conviction ·takes place? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Calls for speculation. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Objection. · · ·A.· I was going to say.· I mean, what do ·you mean by "shortly after"? · · ·Q.· Sure.· Roughly how long after a ·conviction takes place is this letter sent? · · ·A.· Can you zoom in?· Or, actually, I'd ·like to look at my procedures to give you the ·exact number of days. · · ·Q.· That would be fine. · · ·A.· I don't believe this page that you have ·displayed indicates the number of days as we ·process voter registration reforms -- or not ·reforms -- forms.· I'm sorry. · · ·Q.· Well, let me -· · ·A.· So it's untimely.· It's not... · · ·Q.· Am I correct, Ms. Bell, that this ·letter is sent to people who are already ·registered to vote who have been matched up to ·a voter registration record in SEIMS?· Is that ·correct? · · ·A.· That is correct.· Yes.· Sorry.· I did ·not state that quite right. · · ·Q.· Sure.· So, just ballpark, is it fair to ·say that this letter will be sent to voters ·within six months of their conviction? Page 36 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· What I can attest to is what the ·process would be once we receive that ·information.· And that is available to the ·counties on a daily or weekly basis.· So as ·they process those, that would be the time ·frame from an elections side of things. · · ·Q.· Gotcha. · · ·A.· So that's all I can speak to. · · ·Q.· And is the county processing that ·information on a continual basis? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· They're not -- they don't only do it, ·you know, once a year or twice a year or ·something like that? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And am I correct that this ·letter is sent by the relevant county board of ·elections in the voter's home county? · · ·A.· That is correct. · · ·Q.· Is this letter, though, a standard ·template that's used by all counties? · · ·A.· Yes, we do have a standard template ·letter. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· And is it the State Board of Elections ·that develops that standard template letter? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I think we touched on this a ·moment ago, but do counties rely on what was ·the second database that we talked about on the ·previous slide, which was called the Felon ·State Matching List, to identify persons whose ·names should be removed from the list of ·registered voters and sent this letter? · · ·A.· That is data available to the counties ·and that is a method that they use. · · ·Q.· Is there any other method that they use ·to identify people who were registered to vote ·who should be removed because of felony ·conviction other than that database -- or that ·list, I should say? · · ·A.· I believe what you were showing on that ·previous slide were all the lists available to ·the counties for them to use in processing. ·But that -- yes, that is the primary way that a ·county would process for this -- for this ·notice. · · ·Q.· Sure.· You say it's the primary way, ·and I guess what I'm just trying to clarify is, Page 35 Page 37 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 38..41 Page 38 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·is there -- well, I'll go back to that other ·slide, just to be -- just so we can make sure ·we're on the same page. · · · · ·So I'm referring to the Felon State ·Matching List that matches up people who are on ·active felony status (inaudible) -· · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Excuse me.· I can't hear · · ·you.· You're cutting out. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· I'm sorry.· Can you hear · · ·me? · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes.· Please repeat. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· The second list here that we talked ·about before, the Felon State Matching List, ·that shows the current list of people who are ·on active felony status who are also matched up ·to an existing voter registration record; is ·that right? · · ·A.· That is right. · · ·Q.· And so what I'm asking is:· Other than ·relying on this list, is there something ·else -- some other source that counties rely on ·to remove people who are already on the rolls, ·from the rolls, because of a felony conviction? ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· There are two other items on this ·particular slide that indicate other resources ·that the counties have.· The one that you ·noted, the Felon State Matching List, is the ·primary, but they do still have access to the ·Felon County List that we've reviewed.· And the ·one that you did not review is the DOC Felon ·Search.· If they needed to clarify or review, ·those would be available to them as well. · · ·Q.· And is it your understanding that ·counties, in fact, do rely on those two other ·lists when identifying -- to identify people ·who should be removed from the registration ·rolls? · · ·A.· They are available to them, but they ·would rely primarily on the Felon State ·Matching List that you've asked about. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll turn now to page 283. · · · · ·And, Ms. Bell, do you see that this ·is -- this slide is titled "Denial Notice"? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And does this slide -- does this letter ·on this slide represent a letter sent to people ·who were not already registered to vote, or ·tried to register to vote, notifying them that Page 40 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·they're ineligible to register to vote because ·of a felony conviction? · · ·A.· This is the template, at the time, of ·the denial of registration letter, yes. · · ·Q.· So this is for people who tried to ·register to vote; is that right? · · ·A.· That's right. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And like the prior letter, is ·this letter sent by the relevant county board ·of elections? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And like the prior letter, is it based ·on a template that's developed by the State ·Board? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And going back now to slide 286. · · · · ·For purposes of that Denial Notice we ·just looked at, am I correct that the counties ·rely on this first list, the Felon County List, ·to identify people who should be sent that ·letter? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, we've just looked at two ·separate notices that election officials send ·to voters after their felony convictions, or ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·that may send to voters after their felony ·convictions, advising them that they cannot ·vote; is that right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, I didn't see any ·similar letter in this document advising voters ·after their sentence is completed that they're ·once again eligible to vote. · · · · ·Is it correct that neither the State ·Board of Elections nor a county board of ·elections send voters such a notification once ·they've become reeligible to vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Confusing. · · ·A.· Would you state your question again, ·please? · · ·Q.· Sure.· So after a person finishes their ·felony sentence, does either the State Board of ·Elections or a county board of elections send ·voters a notification telling them that they're ·now once again eligible to vote? · · ·A.· We do not send a letter -· · ·Q.· Okay.· And -· · ·A.· -- of that nature.· Sorry. · · ·Q.· And we talked earlier here about the ·third and fourth bullet points -- or lists -- Page 39 Page 41 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 42..45 Page 42 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·Felon Completed List and Felon Completed State ·Matching List? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Those lists provide details of people ·who finished their felony sentences and are ·once again eligible to vote; is that right? · · ·A.· Correct.· They are no longer active -·considered active felons. · · ·Q.· And am I correct that those databases ·contain contact information like name and last ·known address? · · ·A.· I'm sorry.· You cut out. · · ·Q.· I'm sorry.· The perils of remote ·depositions. · · · · ·Am I correct that those databases ·contain contact information for people such as ·their name and last known address? · · ·A.· It still trails off at the end of your ·question.· I'm sorry. · · ·Q.· That's okay.· Can you hear me better? · · ·A.· I can.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll try my best to be heard. · · · · ·Am I correct that those two databases ·contain contact information such as name and ·last known address? ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· I believe that is correct.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And you could -- the State Board could ·use that contact information to contact people ·and tell them that they're now eligible to ·vote, right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· We could use -- I don't -- that is not ·a procedure that we have.· I mean, is that a ·contact list?· Could anyone send a letter? ·Yes, anyone could send a letter. · · ·Q.· Right.· And the county boards could use ·that contact information to send a letter to ·people telling them that they're once again ·eligible to vote; is that right? · · ·A.· Your question is "could," and that ·would imply:· Do they have the ability or the ·capability?· "Could" is -- an answer to "could" ·is "yes." · · ·Q.· Okay.· But they don't do that, do they? · · ·A.· That is not what is -- that is not our ·procedure or law. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· So they do not keep that. · · ·Q.· When you say that it's not their law, Page 44 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·can you tell me what you mean by that? · · ·A.· We do not have -- the instruction in ·our law is not -- it does not instruct that it ·will be the county board of elections who would ·make that contact -· · ·Q.· Okay.· Is there -· · ·A.· -- based upon these lists. · · ·Q.· Is there anything in the law, based on ·your understanding, that prohibits the county ·boards of elections from contacting individuals ·to tell them that they're once again eligible ·to vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for a legal · · ·conclusion. · · ·A.· As I've mentioned, I'm not an attorney. ·So I would need to confirm with counsel before ·I would make that decision. · · ·Q.· Okay.· But sitting here today, you're ·not aware of any law that would prohibit the ·counties from contacting people to tell them ·that they're once again eligible to vote, are ·you? · · ·A.· Restate your question, please. · · ·Q.· Sure.· Just sitting here today, as we ·talk to each other, you're not aware of any law ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·that would prevent the county boards of ·elections from contacting people on these lists ·and telling them that they're once again ·eligible to vote? · · ·A.· The way that I best know to answer that ·is to say that we administer the law as it is ·written.· We -- it is not -- so if there's ·not -- if that's not within the law, then -·you know, we have to be careful in our ·administration that we do not exceed what the ·law states either. · · ·Q.· Okay.· But you're not aware of any law ·that prohibits it, are you? · · ·A.· To the best of my knowledge, no. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So from the standpoint of a ·person convicted of a felony in North Carolina, ·even after their sentence is finished, the last ·communication they will have received from ·election officials is something telling them ·that they're not eligible to vote; is that ·right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation.· Vague. · · ·A.· And I actually was going to ask you to ·restate your question, please. Page 43 Page 45 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 46..49 Page 46 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Yes.· I understand.· That was a ·bad question. · · · · ·So we talked before that when somebody ·is convicted of a felony, they receive a ·notice -- a letter from the county board of ·elections telling them that they're not ·eligible to vote, correct? · · ·A.· If they are a registered voter and are ·convicted of a felony, and we removed them, ·then they receive a notice.· Your question was, ·if someone is convicted of a felony, that they ·receive a letter from the State Board -- or ·from the Board of Elections -- and that would ·not be correct for all individuals. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So somebody who was a registered ·voter, after they're convicted, they receive a ·letter from the county board of elections ·telling them they're not eligible to vote; is ·that right? · · ·A.· That is correct. · · ·Q.· And that same person, after they finish ·their sentence, does not receive a letter from ·the county board of elections telling them that ·they're once again eligible to vote, right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·answered. · · ·A.· They do not receive a letter from the ·State Board of Elections or county board of ·elections. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So for such a person, the last ·communication they will receive from either the ·State Board of Elections or the county board of ·elections will have been that letter telling ·them they're not eligible to vote, right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· Actually, I could say that we work with ·the probation and parole and DPS and provide ·them with brochures that are provided to ·someone who has completed their sentence. ·Therefore, that is a communication from the ·State Board of Elections or county board of ·elections.· It's just not in the form of a ·letter. · · ·Q.· But the State Board of Elections and ·the county board of elections, they don't send ·that themselves, right, to people who have ·finished their sentences? · · ·A.· No, it is provided to DPS and the court ·system to provide to those individuals. Page 48 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And would you agree, though, ·that at a minimum, a person in the situation we ·just talked about, with the last communication ·they received directly from a state election ·official -- I'll rephrase the question. · · · · ·Would you agree, at a minimum, that a ·person in a situation we just talked about, ·could be confused about their eligibility to ·vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I don't think I can speak to another's ·state of mind. · · ·Q.· Okay.· If somebody -- if the last ·communication they received from an election ·official is something telling them they're not ·eligible to vote, could you understand how that ·person could then be confused about their ·eligibility to vote even after they've finished ·their sentence? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Assumes facts not · · ·in evidence. · · ·A.· The letter actually might be the ·clarification that they need not to create ·confusion. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· I'm sorry.· Can you explain to me what ·you mean by that? · · ·A.· Your assertion is that by receiving the ·letter, it confuses someone about their state ·of registration.· But the fact that they ·receive a letter stating that they're not ·registered might actually be not confusing but ·rather provide clarity to them of their status ·of registration. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, you mentioned before that -·I think I heard you say the Department of ·Public Safety is tasked with handing people ·some information after they finish their ·sentence about their voting rights.· Is that ·correct? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Does the State Board have any ·procedures for ensuring that the Department of ·Public Safety actually distributes that ·information? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· Sorry.· What do you mean by ·"procedures"? · · ·Q.· Does the State Board do anything to ·ensure that the DPS, the Department of Public Page 47 Page 49 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 50..53 Page 50 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·Safety, distributes that information about the ·restoration of voting rights to individuals ·after they've completed their sentence? · · ·A.· We have worked with that agency and ·have been in communication with them to provide ·them with materials.· And they have a checklist ·that they review that indicates -- and one of ·the items on their checklist is to review that ·with someone when they've completed their ·sentence. · · ·Q.· Other than providing DPS with those ·materials, does the State Board take any ·measures to ensure that DPS actually ·distributes those materials? · · ·A.· I think the best answer I can give you ·is that we are in a routine and set schedule, ·but we are in -- we are -- we have ·communication that is ongoing with that agency. ·So there is assurance there.· Does that -- I ·don't know if I'm answering your question. · · ·Q.· Sure.· So maybe you can explain it to ·me.· How does that -- how do those ·communications provide an assurance that DPS is ·actually distributing these materials that ·we're talking about? ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· I don't know that I have an answer for ·you. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Do you know the volume -- beyond ·just materials relating to voting rights, do ·you know how many materials DPS distributes to ·an individual after they complete their felony ·sentence? · · ·A.· I do not know. · · ·Q.· So you don't know if they might hand ·out a hundred different documents? · · ·A.· I don't work in that agency, and I'm ·not a probation or parole officer, so I would ·not know. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, to this point, ·everything we've been discussing has been about ·convictions in the North Carolina state court. ·I would like to now discuss individuals ·convicted of felony crimes. · · · · ·And for that I'll pull up what's been ·marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 -- or ·Exhibit -· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Would this be a good time · · ·for a break? · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You're shifting gears. I Page 52 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·think it might be a good time. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure. · · · · ·(Recess from 9:55 to 10:02 a.m.) · · · · ·(Plaintiff's B premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, as I mentioned a moment ago, ·I would like to now turn to people convicted of ·federal felony crimes. · · · · ·And I've pulled up what's been marked ·as Exhibit B.· And this is a title "Biennial ·List Maintenance," and in parentheses it says, ·"(No-Contact Process)." · · · · ·Have you seen this document before, ·Ms. Bell? · · ·A.· I believe so, yes.· I'm not seeing a ·whole lot of it right now, so... · · ·Q.· I'm going to zoom out a bit. · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· And I'm happy to scroll over. · · · · ·You believe you've seen this document ·before? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And can you confirm, to the best ·of your ability, that this is a true and ·accurate copy of a document produced by the ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·State Board of Elections as part of discovery ·in this case? · · ·A.· You cut out a little bit.· I'm sorry. · · ·Q.· Can you confirm, to the best of your ·ability, that this is a true and accurate copy ·of a document produced by the State Board in ·this case? · · ·A.· Yes, I believe it is. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn now to what's ·been marked as Bates stamped page 333. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you see this top paragraph ·here?· And you can take a moment to read it. ·But do you see it says that the State Board ·receives quarterly reports from the federal ·US Attorney's Office about people who have been ·convicted of a felony crime in the federal ·court? · · ·A.· Yes, I do see that. · · ·Q.· And then do you see in the second ·paragraph here -- and, again, you can take a ·moment to read it -- it says that county boards ·of elections should cancel the registrations on ·anyone listed on those lists received from the ·federal US Attorney's Offices? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the Page 51 Page 53 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 54..57 Page 54 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·evidence. · · ·A.· Would you restate your question?· And ·then I'll read the paragraph. · · ·Q.· Sure.· Do you see that it says in the ·second paragraph that county boards of ·elections should initiate steps to cancel a ·voter's registration if they're on that list ·received from the federal US Attorney's ·Offices? · · ·A.· It does state that, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And do county boards of ·elections send letters, like the ones we looked ·at earlier, the removal notice and the denial ·notice, to individuals convicted of federal ·felony crimes? · · ·A.· They do send those notices, yes. · · ·Q.· And similar to those notices before, or ·maybe the same as those notices before, do ·those advise voters that either their names are ·being removed from the list of registered ·voters or that their application to register to ·vote has been denied? · · ·A.· That is the intent of those letters, ·yes. · · ·Q.· And is it the exact same letter that we ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·looked at before that is sent to people with ·felony convictions in federal court? · · ·A.· I do believe so, yes. · · ·Q.· We discussed earlier how the Board ·receives information from the North Carolina ·Department of Public Safety about when a person ·convicted of a state crime has completed his or ·her sentence.· Do you recall that? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· I couldn't find anything in this ·document or any of the other documents produced ·by the Board saying that the Board receives ·information from federal officials about when ·an individual has completed his or her federal ·sentence. · · · · ·Does the Board receive information from ·the federal government about when people ·convicted of federal crimes have completed ·their sentences? · · ·A.· One moment.· Let me double-check ·something.· (Reviewing.) · · · · ·I felt like I knew the answer, but I ·wanted to double-check.· So I do not show ·correspondence from a federal authority on ·that. Page 56 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Thank you. · · · · ·If the North Carolina Board of ·Elections and the county boards of elections ·don't receive information from federal ·officials about when people have finished their ·felony sentences, won't the state boards ·databases or lists continue to assume that such ·a person isn't eligible to vote even though ·they've finished their federal sentence? · · ·A.· So I'm not trying to be smart here, but ·a database can't assume anything. · · ·Q.· Sure.· So the Board, we just discussed ·on the top of this page, you receive lists of ·people who have been convicted of federal ·felonies, right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And from those lists, the State Board ·and the county board uses those lists to deny ·people registration or to remove their ·registrations, right? · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And the State Board continues to ·maintain those lists, right, on an ongoing ·basis? · · ·A.· As we receive the reports, yes. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So if a person, who has finished ·their federal felony sentence -- right? -·let's say it's finished, tries to register to ·vote, won't their registration be denied ·because the current information that the Board ·has is just from that list we talked about, ·that they've committed a crime, a federal ·crime? · · ·A.· Is your question if a former federal ·felon comes into the North Carolina Board of ·Elections, and submits a voter registration ·form, would we deny, because in our system it ·shows them as having been convicted of a ·felony? · · ·Q.· Correct. · · ·A.· No, we would not deny them because of ·that. · · ·Q.· My understanding from before is that ·you rely on these lists to deny people voter ·registrations, right, the list provided by the ·US Attorney's Office? · · ·A.· We receive these lists of felony ·convictions.· And if you read further, it does ·say that we use this to cancel the person's ·registration if they have been convicted of a Page 55 Page 57 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 58..61 Page 58 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·felony. · · ·Q.· Sure.· But I believe you said a few ·minutes ago that you also use this list to deny ·registrations to people who try to register for ·the first time.· Isn't that what you stated? · · ·A.· I may have misunderstood your question, ·then. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So if somebody is convicted of a ·federal crime, and you receive their name on a ·list from the US Attorney's Office, and then a ·week later tries to register to vote -- so ·they're still on their federal sentence -- are ·they going to be allowed to register to vote? · · ·A.· Let me make sure that I'm clear on the ·steps you're outlining. · · ·Q.· Sure. · · ·A.· If we received notice that John Doe is ·convicted of a felony, and he then attempts to ·register to vote? · · ·Q.· Correct. · · ·A.· Are you saying that he's already in our ·database as a registered voter and we've ·removed him because now he's updating his ·registration? · · ·Q.· No.· So John Doe has never registered ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·to vote before in North Carolina.· Okay? ·That's the -- are you with me on my hypo so ·far? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· He's then convicted of a federal crime. ·Okay? · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· And then you receive his name on one of ·these quarterly reports from the US Attorney's ·Office.· Okay? · · ·A.· After he's registered to vote. · · ·Q.· No, he hasn't tried to register to ·vote. · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· After you receive his name from the ·US Attorney's Office -- from one of these ·quarterly reports -- he tries to register to ·vote.· He's still serving his federal sentence, ·though.· Will he be allowed -· · ·A.· Did he -· · ·Q.· Go ahead. · · ·A.· Did he attest on his voter registration ·form that he is not a felon? · · ·Q.· Sure.· Will he be allowed to register ·to vote? Page 60 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· Any individual who completes a voter ·registration form and attests to their ·qualifications to register, if they attest to ·that, we will process the voter registration ·form.· If we find a match with these reports, ·then they would be denied registration and ·removed from the registration list. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So in our hypothetical, John Doe ·tries to register to vote, or he fills it out, ·and he attests that he's eligible.· But then ·you would get a match -- right? -- saying he's ·on this US attorney's report, just like you ·just said, and he would be sent a denial ·notice.· Is that right? · · ·A.· I believe we're saying the same thing. ·Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So now I'm going to just change ·the hypothetical slightly. · · · · ·John Doe finishes his federal ·sentence -- so he's done with his federal ·sentence -- and then he tries to register to ·vote for the first time. · · · · ·Okay?· Are you with me on that ·hypothetical? · · ·A.· Yes. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Won't his name still come up as a match ·to this quarterly report that you receive from ·the US Attorney's Office after his conviction? · · ·A.· Did he attest to having completed his ·felony sentence, that he is no -- that he is ·not a felon? · · ·Q.· He attested it to the same way he did ·in the prior hypothetical, where he was not ·telling the truth, but this time he is. · · ·A.· I believe if you'll scroll down on your ·document, you'll find the answer to your ·question. · · ·Q.· What page am I looking for on the ·document? · · ·A.· Let's stop right here.· And if you look ·at the very first question, it says: · · · · ·"If a county does not update the · · ·removal reason to Felony Sentence Completed · · ·for a previously removed voter, will the · · ·SEIMS prevent the new voter's registration · · ·from being processed?" · · · · ·"No.· SEIMS will not prevent the · · ·processing of a registration of a · · ·previously removed voter whose citizenship · · ·rights have been restored even if the Page 59 Page 61 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 62..65 Page 62 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·removal reason still indicates FELONY · · ·CONVICTION." ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, how does the State Board or ·the county board know that this person is ·eligible to vote if they don't receive any ·information from the federal officials that the ·person has finished their sentence? · · ·A.· The voter attested to it. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, am I correct that in the ·context of a state court conviction, that we ·talked about earlier, you maintain databases ·called Felon Completed List -- I can go back ·just to make sure I'm getting the names exactly ·right -- Felon Completed List and Felon ·Completed State Matching List, based on data ·you receive from the North Carolina Department ·of Public Safety, right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And we talked about before that that's ·information that shows you who has finished ·their state federal sentence, which now shows ·you who is once again eligible to vote.· Right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· You don't -- the State Board does not ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·possess any analogous list for people who have ·finished their federal sentences, right? · · ·A.· We do not get a list of -- a federal ·list of who has completed their sentence.· It's ·based on the information I've just reviewed. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· And what we discussed. · · ·Q.· And in the context of a state court ·conviction, you don't rely solely on an ·individual's attesting that they've finished ·their sentence, right?· You rely on these Felon ·Completed Lists; is that right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I'm going to review a procedure for ·just a moment, and then I'm going to ask you to ·restate your question. · · ·Q.· Sure. · · ·A.· (Reviewing.) · · ·Q.· Actually, Ms. Bell, in the interest of ·time, I'm happy to move on, unless there's ·something more you want to say on this subject. · · ·A.· I would like you to state your question ·again, because I think it's the same answer. ·But I would like to hear your question again. · · ·Q.· Sure.· In the context of individuals Page 64 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·convicted of a crime in North Carolina state ·court, the Board of Elections maintains ·databases called the Felon Completed List and ·the Felon Completed Matching List.· And I'm ·using the word "databases," but I don't mean ·that in a technical sense.· It maintains lists ·showing people who have finished their ·sentences in order to inform election officials ·about who is, once again, eligible to vote, ·right? · · ·A.· Right. · · ·Q.· It does not maintain a comparable list ·for people who have finished their federal ·felony sentences? · · ·A.· I do not know of us being provided with ·a federal list.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· We spoke earlier, Ms. Bell, ·about how, when people finish their state court ·sentences, the Department of Public Safety is ·supposed to hand them information about ·restoration of their rights; is that correct? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· The Department of Public Safety, to the ·best of your knowledge, they don't hand ·information to people who finish their federal ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·sentences; is that correct? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· Actually, I don't know that I'm ·knowledgeable of how federal felons or former ·federal felons are processed upon their ·completion. · · ·Q.· Is it your understanding that the ·North Carolina Department of Public Safety ·supervises people who have been convicted of ·federal crimes but not state crimes? · · ·A.· I actually -- I actually do not know ·the answer to that.· I don't know how a federal ·felon is processed. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to represent to you ·for the purposes of my next question that ·people convicted of felony crimes are ·supervised by federal probation officers. · · · · ·Will you accept that representation ·just for purposes of my next question?· If I'm ·wrong, that's my fault, but will you accept it ·for purposes of my next question? · · ·A.· I will accept that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Do you know if federal probation ·officers hand any information to individuals Page 63 Page 65 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 66..69 Page 66 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·after they've finished their sentences about ·the restoration of their voting rights? · · ·A.· I do not know that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So to the best of your ·knowledge, you're not aware if anybody provides ·information to individuals who finish their ·federal sentences about the restoration of ·their voting rights? · · ·A.· I do not know if they do or do not. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'd like to now turn to ·individuals who are convicted of crimes in ·another state's courts; for instance, in a ·South Carolina state court. · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, do you understand that ·individuals convicted of crimes in another ·state's courts, if they're serving their ·community supervision while living in ·North Carolina, they're not eligible to vote? ·Correct?· If it's a federal offense?· I'm ·sorry.· I'm going to start that over. · · · · ·If an individual is convicted of a ·felony in another state's courts, but is ·serving their community supervision in ·North Carolina, while living in North Carolina, ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·is it your understanding that they're ·ineligible to vote in North Carolina elections? · · ·A.· That would be correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board receive ·information about such individuals from any ·source? · · ·A.· Because we do not have a national ·network, we would be reliant upon other states ·to notify us. · · ·Q.· And to the best of your knowledge, do ·any other states notify you of that? · · ·A.· I do not know one way or the other. · · ·Q.· Okay.· To the best of your knowledge, ·does the State Board of Elections or the county ·boards of elections notify such individuals ·that they are ineligible to vote in ·North Carolina elections? · · ·A.· I do not know. · · ·Q.· Okay.· To the best of your knowledge -· · ·A.· Actually, let me ask you to state that ·question again.· Because I believe you asked if ·the State Board of Elections or county board of ·elections would give notice of a felony to ·someone else in another state.· That would not ·be our role.· Reporting a felon is, obviously, Page 68 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·done by the Department of Public Instruction, ·since that's how we receive information as the ·State and county board of elections.· We do ·not -· · ·Q.· Let me try to clarify that just to make ·sure we're on the same page. · · · · ·So let's say an individual is convicted ·of a crime in South Carolina -- right over the ·border, let's say -- but they live in ·North Carolina, and they're serving their ·probation in North Carolina, while they live in ·North Carolina. · · · · ·Do the county boards of elections in ·North Carolina send that person a notice ·saying, "You're not eligible to vote in ·North Carolina elections"? · · ·A.· We do not notify someone in another ·state that they are ineligible to vote in ·North Carolina.· No. · · ·Q.· So just to clarify, the person in my ·hypothetical lives in North Carolina. · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· They were convicted of a crime in ·South Carolina, but they live in North ·Carolina.· They're serving their probation from ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·their South Carolina conviction while they live ·in North Carolina.· Okay? · · ·A.· Correct.· Okay. · · ·Q.· And let's say they're a North Carolina ·registered voter.· Okay? · · ·A.· Uh-huh. · · ·Q.· Does the county board of elections send ·that person any notification that they're not ·eligible to vote? · · ·A.· If we received a notice, which I can't ·say whether we would or would not -- if we ·received a notice from a court or from, you ·know, South Carolina's system, then that would ·be -- we could send notice.· But the -- the ·source of information that our county boards of ·elections receive, and that we receive at the ·State Board of Elections, is from the ·North Carolina court system. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So to the best of your ·knowledge, you're not aware that county boards ·of elections would send such a person a notice? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry.· What was · · ·that, Paul? Page 67 Page 69 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 70..73 Page 70 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· Yes.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board of ·Elections or county board of elections receive ·information when such a person has completed ·their sentence? · · ·A.· In another state? · · ·Q.· The exact same person we were just ·talking about, who is convicted in ·South Carolina, but they're living in ·North Carolina, while they're serving their ·probation? · · ·A.· We do not have a systematic process for ·that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And so for such people, when ·they've finished their sentence, am I correct ·that neither the State Board of Elections nor ·the county board of elections sends such person ·a notification telling them that they're once ·again eligible to vote? · · ·A.· No, we would not send a letter to ·someone who has completed their sentence in ·another state. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' C premarked.) ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, I'm going to turn now ·to what's been marked as Exhibit C. · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· I'm going to share my screen if I can ·figure out how. · · · · ·Okay.· Ms. Bell, do you see that this ·is a document titled Post-Selection Audit ·Report. · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Have you seen this document before? · · ·A.· I have. · · ·Q.· And can you confirm, to the best of ·your knowledge, that this is a true and ·accurate copy of a document produced by the ·State Board in discovery in this case? · · ·A.· It does appear to be. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And, then, Ms. Bell, is this an ·audit report written by the State Board of ·Elections after the 2016 general election? · · ·A.· It is.· That is the title. · · ·Q.· And it's dated April 21, 2017; is that ·correct? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, my understanding from this Page 72 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·document is that after the 2016 election the ·State Board conducted an audit to identify ·persons who voted in the 2016 general election ·but were ineligible due to a felony conviction. ·Is that right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Does the State Board still conduct ·audits after elections? · · ·A.· We have not done one.· This is the only ·time this audit was completed. · · ·Q.· Is the State Board planning to do a ·similar audit after the 2020 election? · · ·A.· The State Board, as a board, has not ·directed for that, and I have not, as executive ·director, so no. · · ·Q.· Okay.· But it's possible you'll conduct ·future audits again after future elections? · · ·A.· In my role as executive director, I do ·not have plans to request this audit, and I ·have not had that expressed by this board, and ·I can't speak for current boards. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Fair enough.· I'm going to now ·scroll to page 3 of this document, which is ·Bates stamped page 409. · · · · ·Can you see what's on my screen, ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·Ms. Bell? · · ·A.· I can. · · ·Q.· And this -- we're looking now at the ·section that's titled "FELONS," in all ·capitals.· And the second sentence reads: ·"NCSBE" -- and I should clarify.· That was the ·prior name for the State Board of Elections; is ·that right? · · ·A.· Actually, that -- that would -- we'll ·have several iterations.· We also have ·abbreviated it in numerous ways.· This is, ·actually, an abbreviation that we currently ·use, that stands for North Carolina State Board ·of Elections.· Yes, that actually is the ·current -· · ·Q.· Got it.· I will admit I lose track of ·all the names that your agency has had over the ·last few years. · · ·A.· And there's different perspectives on ·which ones should be used.· So we'll... · · ·Q.· I understand.· I'll try to avoid that ·land mine. · · · · ·So the second sentence here reads: ·"NCSBE initiates investigations into possible ·cases of felons voting through a system of data Page 71 Page 73 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 74..77 Page 74 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·audits followed by investigator review." · · · · ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And where this refers to "a ·system of data audits," is that using the ·database, the DPS database -- or I'm sorry, the ·DPS list -- we discussed previously that has a ·list of registered voters -- I'm sorry -- that ·has a list of active felons who are ineligible ·to vote? · · ·A.· I believe that may -- that that was a ·source within this audit. · · ·Q.· And we discussed earlier how -- for ·that second database we discussed earlier -- so ·putting this aside -- DPS, on a continual ·basis, matches the list of people convicted of ·felony crimes to people -- to registered voters ·in the SEIMS database to determine who should ·have their registrations canceled.· Is that ·right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And is the system that was used ·here to match people who actually voted in an ·election to the DPS database, is that a similar ·matching process to the one that's used for ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·purposes of that list we discussed earlier? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· Yeah.· State your question again. · · ·Q.· Sure.· That was a terrible question, I ·will admit. · · ·A.· I'm not judging. · · ·Q.· I'll judge myself here. · · · · ·Previously we discussed how, on a ·continual basis, the State Board of Elections ·is using some sort of matching system to match ·the list of people who are serving an active ·felony sentence to the list of names in your ·SEIMS database, right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And there's some sort of matching ·criteria that are used, right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And here it describes a "system of data ·audits" that was used for purposes of this ·audit, right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And so what I'm asking is:· Was that ·system of data audits using a similar matching ·process of matching the SEIMS database -- I'm ·sorry -- matching the list of felons serving Page 76 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·active sentences, but to people who actually ·voted in the election? · · ·A.· I can try to determine from this ·document what the audit may have been, if it's ·stated, but I did not perform the audit, nor ·was I the executive director when the audit was ·performed.· So I can only attest to what it ·states that audits were performed. · · ·Q.· Okay.· It's fair to say that they use ·some sort of matching criteria to match the ·list of people who are serving felony sentences ·to the list of people who voted to come up with ·this list?· Is that fair? · · ·A.· I think that's fair. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'm going to go back now to ·page 408, Bates stamp page 408 of this ·document.· And can I ask you to take a moment ·to just read this first bullet point here that ·starts with, "441 open cases." · · ·A.· Read it for myself or read it aloud? · · ·Q.· You can just read it to yourself. · · ·A.· Okay.· And just the first bullet point? · · ·Q.· Correct. · · ·A.· Okay.· (Reviewing.)· Okay. · · ·Q.· Does that first bullet point indicate ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·that through the data matching process we just ·discussed, the State Board initially identified ·541 people who may have illegally voted due to ·a felony conviction, with the 541 being the 441 ·people listed in that first sentence plus the ·hundred people who further investigation ruled ·out? · · ·A.· Okay.· I do really need you to state ·that question again -· · ·Q.· Sure. · · ·A.· -- because I got hung up on the ·numbers, so... · · ·Q.· Sure.· Does this first bullet indicate ·that through the data matching process we just ·discussed, the State Board initially identified ·541 people who may have illegally voted due to ·a felony conviction? · · ·A.· It does indicate that they were able to ·rule out more than 100 voters initially ·flagged.· So 100 to the 441 open cases is 541. ·So it does state "more than," so there could ·potentially be more than a hundred that were ·ruled out. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Sure.· But let's -- I'll just ·assume -- I'll just use the number 100 for Page 75 Page 77 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 78..81 Page 78 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·purposes of my next question. · · · · ·So just based on this data in this ·bullet, the false positive rate that resulted ·from the data matching was nearly 20 percent, ·right?· 100 out of 541? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· It would require you to use math ·skills, but I believe that's fairly correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And that error rate was so ·significant that the State Board wrote here ·that, "it further supported the need for ·investigative review of data audits."· Is that ·right? · · ·A.· It does state that, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, we talked earlier ·about -- I'm sorry.· Give me one second. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, we talked in the context ·of -- sorry.· Bear with me a second. · · ·A.· You're fine. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, so, in the context we talked ·about earlier, where the State Board is on a ·continual basis taking in a list of people ·serving active felony sentences and comparing ·it to the SEIMS database, in that context, the ·State Board doesn't conduct any further ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·investigation into the circumstances of each ·person before it initiates the cancellation ·process, right? · · ·A.· There's a -- there's a criteria -- a ·matching criteria, and that's the audits ·performed or the process that's performed. · · ·Q.· Right.· So if the matching criteria ·pops up and it's a hit, then that person will ·be sent a letter telling them that their ·registration can be canceled right? · · ·A.· In the nutshell, yes.· I mean, there's ·some steps in between there, but yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And the State Board doesn't have ·investigators do a person-by-person ·investigation into each person who matches up ·on the list to, you know, confirm that, in ·fact, they are -- they were convicted of a ·felony and should be removed from the rolls, ·right? · · ·A.· There is not an investigation done on ·each of those individuals.· That is correct. ·We do not have that large of an investigations ·division, for starters. · · ·Q.· And we just talked about that, in the ·context of this audit, further investigation by Page 80 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·investigators showed that roughly 20 percent of ·the people who are identified as illegally ·voting through the data matching turned out to ·be false positives, right? · · ·A.· In this particular report or audit, ·yes. · · ·Q.· So doesn't that suggest to you that ·roughly 20 percent of the people whose ·registrations are canceled because they're ·matched to that SEIMS database, that they are ·erroneously identified as false positives? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Speculation. · · ·A.· I don't think I can make that as a ·blanket statement.· I think that's what this ·particular audit produced. · · ·Q.· Sitting here today, do you have any ·reason to assert that the data matching that's ·done on a continual basis to remove ·registrations produces fewer false positives ·than the process that was used to identify ·people who voted illegally in the 2016 election ·as shown in this audit? · · ·A.· Since we have not conducted another ·audit, I don't know that I have and can answer ·affirmatively or negatively. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· So sitting here today, you don't have ·any information to suggest that the false ·positive rate or the current ongoing ·identification of people whose registration ·should be matched -- or should be canceled -·is lower than it was in these audits? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· We have not conducted further audits. ·So I do not have an analysis to support one way ·or the other. · · ·Q.· And assuming -- just assuming for the ·purposes of this question -- that the false ·positive rates for your continual process of ·matching people to the registration records is ·the same as the false positive rating from the ·matching process that happened after the 2016 ·election, that would mean that roughly ·20 percent of the people whose registrations ·are canceled are false positives; is that ·right? · · ·A.· You're asking me to speculate that ·current matching would be -- the false ·positives would be equal to what was found in ·this particular audit. Page 79 Page 81 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 82..85 Page 82 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· I'm asking you just to assume that.· So ·assume for the sake of my question that the ·false positive rate is the same.· Doesn't that ·mean that roughly 20 percent of people whose ·registrations are canceled, based on the ·ongoing matching process, had their ·registration erroneously canceled as false ·positives? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Incomplete · · ·hypothetical. · · ·A.· I think the best I can say is that if ·this is the measure, then that is possible, but ·there could be other audits that would prove ·differently if we were to conduct those audits. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'd like to now switch gears a ·bit and talk about some of the -- the forms ·that voters actually have to fill out that were ·produced in discovery.· And I'm going to pull ·up now what's been marked as Exhibit E. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' E premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, this is a -- do you recognize ·this document? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And can you confirm that this appears ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·to be a true and accurate copy of a document ·produced by the State Board in discovery in ·this case? · · ·A.· It does appear to be so, yes. · · ·Q.· And, Ms. Bell, is this the voter ·registration form that the State Board ·currently makes available for people to ·register to vote? · · ·A.· It is. · · ·Q.· And now turn to the second page, which ·is Bates stamped page 352.· And I'm going to ·direct your attention, Ms. Bell, to instruction ·1 in subpart 5 here. · · · · ·Do you see where it says:· "If ·previously convicted of a felony, you must have ·fully completed your sentence, including ·probation and/or parole"? · · ·A.· Yes, that is what it states. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, are you familiar with the ·Structured Sentencing Act of 1994? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· Actually, I don't know -- I don't know ·it by that -- I don't know that one way or the ·other.· I don't know, by that time. · · ·Q.· Are you aware that in 1994, the Page 84 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·North Carolina General Assembly passed a law ·that essentially eliminated, quote, parole? · · ·A.· I know that there have been changes in ·parole, but I do not know, as a person ·working -- I don't know beyond that.· I don't ·work in that division. · · ·Q.· Sure.· So, Ms. Bell, did you not know ·that, quote, parole essentially does not exist ·in North Carolina today? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· States facts not · · ·in evidence.· Calls for a legal conclusion. · · ·A.· I think I -- I think I would have to ·have you -- I would have to have more ·knowledge. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, did you know that in ·the 1994 law that I mentioned a moment ago, the ·Structured Sentencing Act, North Carolina ·replaced parole with something called ·"post-release supervision" for people who are ·released from incarceration but still subject ·to supervision? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the · · ·law. · · ·A.· I am familiar -- I am not familiar with ·the precise law.· I am familiar with a ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·change -- that there has been a change in what ·I would say is terminology, though, I do ·know -- I do know parole would still be a ·common term. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Are you familiar with the term ·post-release supervision? · · ·A.· I have been -- I actually did not know ·of that term until I became executive director. · · ·Q.· But you're familiar with that term ·today? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And what is that term?· What do ·you understand that term to mean? · · ·A.· The way that I came to understand it is ·that it is a -- it is the term used in lieu of ·the term "parole" now.· As far as I know, they ·are the same processes or the same entity with ·a different term. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, is it your understanding that ·North Carolina's felony disenfranchisement laws ·apply to people who are on post-release ·supervision, meaning that they're not allowed ·to vote until their post-release supervision is ·completed? · · ·A.· That is my understanding. Page 83 Page 85 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 86..89 Page 86 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, I would like you to ·put yourself in the shoes of someone who is on ·post-release supervision and who reads this ·form saying, "You must have completed your ·sentence, including and/or parole," without ·mentioning post-release supervision. · · · · ·Could such a person think they're ·eligible to vote because post-release ·supervision isn't mentioned here? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope · · ·of the deposition notice. · · · · ·Objection.· Speculative. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Should I proceed on that, · · ·Paul? · · · · ·MR. COX:· You can answer it if you have · · ·personal knowledge that would allow you to · · ·answer it. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay. · · ·A.· And I'm sorry.· Could you state your ·question again? · · ·Q.· Sure.· Put yourself in the shoes of ·somebody who is on post-release supervision, ·who reads this instruction 1, number 5, where ·it says you can't vote if you -- or it says, ·"You must have fully completed your sentence, ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·including probation and/or parole," but does ·not mention post-release supervision.· Could ·such a person think that they're eligible to ·vote because post-release supervision is not ·mentioned here? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope · · ·of the deposition notice. · · · · ·Objection.· Calls for speculation. · · · · ·If you have knowledge and the ability · · ·to answer it, you can answer it. · · ·A.· I don't think I have -- you've asked me ·to put myself in someone else's shoes.· I don't ·know whether that makes it clear or unclear for ·them. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll give you this as a ·hypothetical.· Let's say somebody on ·post-release supervision reads this form and ·says -- comes up to you -- you just happen to ·be standing there -- and they say, "I think I ·might be eligible to vote because this doesn't ·mention post-release supervision."· Could you ·understand why that person would think that? · · ·A.· The best answer I can give you is that ·I don't know if I can put myself in someone ·else's shoes.· And by the fact that as -- and Page 88 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·this is me speaking personally -- as an engaged ·citizen, someone who works in the governmental ·entity, and yet, until recently, I did not know ·that that terminology had been changed, it is ·perhaps, actually, easier for someone to ·understand what parole is than post-licensing ·supervision.· So I don't want to speculate one ·way or the other.· Because of how terminology ·has changed because of the law, we interchange ·terminology quite frequently in other -- there ·are other instances where we do that. · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, I'm not asking you to put ·yourself in the shoes of another person.· I'm ·just saying in your own shoes.· Hypothetically, ·if somebody who is on post-release supervision ·reads this sentence, and then you happen to be ·standing right next to them while they're ·reading it, and they said, "Ms. Bell, I think I ·might be eligible to vote because this doesn't ·mention post-release supervision," can you ·understand why that person would think that? · · ·A.· I can -- what I can state is that when ·someone questions whether they're eligible to ·vote or not, in particular, with an individual ·who is a felon or has completed their felony ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·sentence, and they're not certain, we aren't ·probation officers, we aren't officers of the ·court; therefore, we say that it's best for ·them to speak with that officer if they need ·clarification. · · ·Q.· So just to make sure I understand that ·answer.· You're saying that the State Board of ·Elections does not provide clarification to ·individuals about their eligibility to vote? · · ·A.· We give them clarification as defined ·here as best as to our knowledge, but if they ·still don't -- if they don't know the ·distinction between parole or post-licensing, ·as you mentioned, or if they don't know what ·probation is, then the best thing I can do as ·an election official is to say, "That's outside ·of the scope of elections, and you should speak ·with your officer as to whether you have ·completed your sentence or not." · · ·Q.· Sure.· So I'm just going to ask one ·more time, though.· My question was simply that ·hypothetical person, and they say to you, "I ·think I might be eligible to vote, because this ·doesn't mention post-release supervision," ·could you, at least, understand why they would Page 87 Page 89 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 90..93 Page 90 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·think that? · · ·A.· Are you asking me as Karen Brinson ·Bell, or are you asking -- I -· · ·Q.· I'm asking you as the representative ·here for the State Board of Elections. · · ·A.· I think that -- I've expressed before, ·I think it's difficult for me to assert what ·someone would have as confusion or not ·confusion. · · ·Q.· But can you at least understand why ·they would say that? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I don't think I can answer a question ·about understanding as a representative of an ·organization versus -- understanding is about ·my individual understanding, not the ·understanding of an organization. · · ·Q.· Could you understand why such a person ·might be uncertain or confused if they're ·eligible to vote if they read this when they're ·on post-release supervision? · · ·A.· I don't believe I can answer your ·question.· I'm sorry. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn back now to ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·the prior page, which is page 351. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you see in Section 10 ·here, which is the section that -- and I don't ·know what the right word is -- the affirmation ·that a voter must sign, number 4 says:· "I have ·not been convicted of a felony, or if I have ·been convicted of a felony" -- (inaudible). · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· We're not hearing you. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Do you not hear me? · · ·A.· No.· I was about to say, "Did you say ·something more?" · · ·Q.· I could see everyone making gestures. · · ·A.· I was reading the note, looked up, and ·I was, like, I think you're talking, but I ·don't hear your voice. · · ·Q.· Yeah.· I was, like, did I just say ·something super offensive?· Everyone is ·starting to gesture. · · · · ·Can you hear me? · · ·A.· Yes.· All I heard was "number 4," so... · · ·Q.· Okay.· So, Ms. Bell, do you see on ·number 4 here it says -- so let me ask you ·this:· You said a moment ago that in your mind ·parole might be synonymous with post-release Page 92 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·supervision.· Am I characterizing that ·correctly? · · ·A.· Yes.· I think that's accurate. ·Correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So do you see number 4 here ·says:· "I have not been convicted of a felony, ·or if I have been convicted of a felony, I have ·completed my sentence, including any ·probation"? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And so that doesn't even mention ·parole, does it, Ms. Bell? · · ·A.· It does not. · · ·Q.· And it does not mention post-release ·supervision? · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· So, again, I'll ask, if you put ·yourself -- well, if you put yourself in the ·shoes of somebody who is on post-release ·supervision who reads this, could you ·understand why such a person would think ·they're eligible to vote, because neither ·parole nor post-release supervision is ·mentioned here? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·of the notice of deposition. · · · · ·Objection.· Calls for speculation. · · · · ·If you are able to answer based upon · · ·your personal knowledge, you can. · · ·A.· I can't -- I can't determine what ·someone would be able to understand or not ·understand. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, as the executive director of ·the State Board of Elections, you have ·authority over the contents of these forms, ·right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Do you think it would be advisable for ·the State Board of Elections to clarify on here ·that it applies to people on post-release ·supervision? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· Do I think it would be advisable for ·the form to be altered?· Is that what you're ·asking? · · ·Q.· Correct. · · ·A.· I don't -- if it's advisable, who is ·providing the advice? · · ·Q.· Well, you're in charge of the State ·Board of Elections, right? Page 91 Page 93 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 94..97 Page 94 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· As the executive director of the State ·Board of Elections, do you think this form ·should be altered to include post-release ·supervision? · · ·A.· Before we change any forms, I actually ·prefer to consult with our general counsel to ·ensure that we're in compliance with the laws. ·And we are also in the process of updating many ·of our forms to be more user-friendly.· But ·that -- that extends beyond the question that ·you're asking me. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll move on. · · · · ·I'm going to pull up now what's been ·marked as Exhibit F. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' F premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, do you recognize this ·document? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And I should have said, this is a ·document that's titled Absentee Application and ·Certificate; is that right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Can you confirm, to the best of your ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·knowledge, that this is a true and accurate ·copy of a document that the State Board ·produced this discovery? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Assumes facts not · · ·in evidence. · · ·A.· I can't see an indication -- there we ·go.· I do see a notation at the bottom that ·does appear to have been provided. · · ·Q.· And, Ms. Bell, is this the State Board ·of Elections form for voters to apply for an ·absentee ballot? · · ·A.· This is a prior iteration of the form. · · ·Q.· When was the form updated since then? · · ·A.· We are currently updating due to a ·change in the law and the number of witnesses ·because of coronavirus. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And is that the only change that ·you expect to make to this form currently? · · ·A.· We have actually redesigned it to make ·it -- it's one of the forms I was meaning when ·I said we were trying to develop a more ·user-friendly format. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Understood. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, is it fair to say that you ·would expect, at least, hundreds of thousands Page 96 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·of people to apply for absentee ballots in this ·year's November elections? · · ·A.· Yes.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Potentially, millions of people? · · ·A.· I would have to do the math on that. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· I hope it's not that much. · · ·Q.· We can agree -· · ·A.· Well, I shouldn't say I hope.· We're -·yeah, we're expecting a 30 to 40 percent ·possible participation. · · ·Q.· It's going to be a lot of people, ·correct? · · ·A.· Yes.· Exactly. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to direct your ·attention to the "Voter's Certification" ·section on the left side of this form.· Do you ·see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And do you see that it says right here ·in the final sentence of that first paragraph: ·"I have not been convicted of a felony, or if I ·have been convicted of a felony, I have ·completed my sentence, including any probation ·or parole"? ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· I do see that. · · ·Q.· Again, that does not mention ·post-release supervision, correct? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And to the best -- as you sit here ·today, the Board currently does not intend to ·change this language on this form, does it? · · ·A.· Actually, I don't recall whether that's ·been changed. · · ·Q.· You're not aware of any intent to ·change this form currently to include ·post-release supervision, are you? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I would have to look at the new proof ·to determine whether the language has been ·changed or not.· I don't know off the top of my ·head. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to skip ahead now and ·pull up what's been marked as Exhibit H. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' H premarked.) · · · · ·MR. COX:· And, Dan, one thing that · · ·could be helpful to me is if you list the · · ·Bates stamp number as we're going through · · ·this. Page 95 Page 97 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 98..101 Page 98 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Exhibit H is a document that starts on ·Bates stamp 537. · · · · ·Do you see that, Ms. Bell? · · ·A.· Actually, I don't see the number, but I ·do see the -- I would have to move everything ·off of zoom. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Don't worry. · · ·A.· Okay.· Thank you. · · ·Q.· I'll just state for the record, it ·starts on page 537. · · ·A.· Thank you. · · ·Q.· And I'll try to make sure to do that ·for future ones, but if I don't, just remind ·me. · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, this is a document titled ·"Voting Site Station Guide"; is that right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And have you seen this document before? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And can you confirm, to the best of ·your knowledge, that this is a true and ·accurate copy of a document that the State ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·Board produced in discovery in this case? · · ·A.· It does appear to be, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And, Ms. Bell, is this a guide ·that's developed by the State Board that's ·given to poll workers in every polling place in ·North Carolina? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· It indicates here on the cover page ·that it was last updated in 2020, right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn now to what's ·been marked as -- or not what's been marked -·to Bates stamp page 557.· I can't see my own... · · ·A.· You're having the same problem I was. · · ·Q.· Yeah.· It's on the right side of the ·screen. · · ·A.· Yeah, underneath everyone's video. · · ·Q.· One more page.· Okay. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you see that this page -·this slide is titled "Step 6: Determination of ·Voter Eligibility and Voting Authorization"? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Is this the final step for a poll ·worker to determine whether a voter who shows ·up at a polling place is eligible to vote? Page 100 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· It is stated as that, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn now to two ·pages later.· So Bates stamp page 558.· And ·I'll give you a moment to read this, Ms. Bell. · · ·A.· (Reviewing.) · · ·Q.· Do you see here that it says that a ·poll worker must review certain eligibility ·statements with the voter, with the final one ·being:· "Have not been convicted of a felony, ·or if they have been convicted of a felony, ·they have completed their sentence, including ·any probation or parole"? · · ·A.· I do see that. · · ·Q.· And, again, it just says probation or ·parole without mentioning post-release ·supervision, right? · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Would you concede that this may confuse ·a poll worker as to whether a person is on ·post-release supervision or eligible to vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· As I've stated, I don't think I can ·attest to someone's confusion or clarity. · · ·Q.· Let's say, hypothetically, a person who ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·is on post-release supervision shows up to the ·polls and asks the poll worker, "I've finished ·serving my prison sentence, but I'm on ·post-release supervision.· Can I vote?"· The ·poll worker might consult this document and say ·"Yes," right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· The poll worker could consult this ·document.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And the poll worker might say, "Yes, ·you're eligible to vote," because it doesn't ·mention anything about post-release ·supervision, right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· They may say yes or they may say no. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to pull up now what's ·been marked as Exhibit I. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' I premarked.) · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· And, Paul, and others, · · ·this is one where the file is so large, I · · ·think that it might be that Daryl is not · · ·able to send it to you.· But I'll try · · ·sending it, after the deposition, to Page 99 Page 101 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 102..105 Page 102 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·everyone.· And if we don't get it, we could · · ·use our FTP file transfer or something like · · ·that.· Is that okay? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay.· Is it a document · · ·produced in discovery? · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Correct. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· And I should say, along · · ·those lines, that this document starts at · · ·Bates stamp number 132. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, this document doesn't have a ·title to it, but do you recognize this ·document? · · ·A.· I believe I do.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And can you confirm, to the best of ·your ability, that this is a true and accurate ·copy of a document produced by the State Board ·in discovery in this case? · · ·A.· I believe so, yes. · · ·Q.· And am I correct that this is a -·pardon me -- this is a manual that's given to ·local election officials and poll workers?· Is ·that right? · · ·A.· It is made available to the county ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·board of elections to provide, yes. · · ·Q.· And this is developed by the State ·Board of Elections? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to go now to Bates ·stamp page 256. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, my understanding is that this ·page shows the script that a poll worker is ·supposed to read from if a voter's eligibility ·to vote is challenged at the polling place.· Is ·that right? · · ·A.· Would you scroll just a little bit so I ·can see what's above the -· · ·Q.· Sure.· Do you want me to go on to the ·prior page? · · ·A.· Thank you.· Yes.· That does help. · · · · ·Okay.· Then, yes, this is the script ·for a challenge. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And if we look at the fourth ·bullet here, it says that the poll worker is ·supposed to ask the voter:· "Are you currently ·on probation or parole for a felony ·conviction?" · · · · ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do see that. Page 104 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, if somebody is currently on ·post-release supervision, and they're asked ·this question, they would truthfully answer ·"no," right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I do not know. · · ·Q.· If I represent to you or if I ask you ·to assume for purposes of this question that ·post-release supervision is different from ·probation and different from parole, wouldn't ·the truthful answer to this question for ·somebody who is on post-release supervision be ·"no"? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I think we determined earlier, I have ·an association of parole as being ·post-sentencing supervision.· I don't know if ·that would be the case for an individual ·answering this question.· They may have the ·same understanding or assumption. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So it sounds like we agree, ·though, that it's possible a person on ·post-release supervision could answer this ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·question "no"? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the · · ·testimony. · · ·A.· A person could answer "yes" or "no." · · ·Q.· But it would be reasonable for a person ·to answer "no" who is on post-release ·supervision? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation.· Vague. · · ·A.· They can answer "yes" or "no" depending ·on their understanding. · · ·Q.· Okay.· If somebody who is on ·post-release supervision did answer this ·question "no," they would be allowed to vote, ·right, by the poll worker? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Incomplete · · ·hypothetical. · · ·A.· If an individual -- if any individual ·answers "no" to this question, then they would ·be allowed to vote. · · ·Q.· So if a person who is on post-release ·supervision answered "no," they would be ·allowed to vote? · · ·A.· That is correct. · · ·Q.· And that person could then be Page 103 Page 105 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 106..109 Page 106 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·prosecuted for the crime of illegally voting, ·right? · · ·A.· If someone who has not completed their ·felony, votes, then they could be prosecuted, ·correct. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, do you want to take a · · ·quick break? · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I was about to ask.· If · · ·you think we're wrapping up on some of this · · ·soon, then I can keep going.· But if not, · · ·I'd like to take a break. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Paul, I've got maybe, I · · ·would say, about two more minutes of · · ·questions on this module.· Can we get · · ·through that and then take a break? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Sure.· Sure. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My Apple watch is telling · · ·me to stand. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· I'll skip ahead one exhibit to ·Exhibit K.· And this is a document that starts ·with Bates stamp number 303. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' K premarked.) ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, do you recognize this ·document? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And to the best of your knowledge, is ·this a document produced by the State Board in ·discovery in this case? · · ·A.· I believe it is.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And this is a document that's produced ·by the State Board of Elections, right, looking ·at the top right corner here? · · ·A.· It was -- yes, it has been produced at ·a point in time by the State Board, yes. · · ·Q.· And am I correct that this is a ·document that's made specifically for ·individuals convicted of felonies to inform ·them about their voting rights? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn your attention ·now to the second page of this document and the ·top right column, the part that's been ·highlighted. · · · · ·Do you see the sentence that reads: ·"However, after completing all terms of your ·sentence, including parole, probation, and Page 108 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·restitution, you do not have to do anything to ·have your citizenship right restored"? · · ·A.· That is how it reads, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And so, once again, this says ·"including probation or parole."· It doesn't ·mention post-release supervision, correct? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And this one, unlike the other ones we ·looked at, also mentions restitution, right? · · ·A.· It does. · · ·Q.· None of the other documents we looked ·at before mention restitution? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection. · · ·A.· Not that I recall. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, are you aware that ·individuals convicted of felonies in ·North Carolina are often required to pay fees ·for court costs that are different from ·restitution? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay.· Calls for a legal · · ·conclusion. · · · · ·Objection.· Speculation. · · ·A.· Could you state your question again, ·please? · · ·Q.· Sure.· Are you aware that individuals ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·convicted of felonies in North Carolina are ·often required to pay fees for court costs that ·are different from restitution? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for a legal · · ·conclusion.· Calls for speculation. · · ·A.· I actually -- I'm not -- I'm not clear ·on that matter.· I actually personally ·associate restitution and fees and so forth as ·being of the same language.· I don't know the ·distinction there. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So a person who has paid back ·their restitution, but still owes other fees ·from their court case, who reads this, they ·might think they're eligible to vote, right, ·because it only mentions restitution? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation and outside the scope of the · · ·notice. · · ·A.· I don't know what someone else's ·understanding would be.· Obviously, I don't ·have a clear understanding. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· Should we take a · · ·break? · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That sounds good. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Do you want to do five Page 107 Page 109 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 110..113 Page 110 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·or ten minutes? · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can we do ten minutes? · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure.· So we'll come ·back at 11:26. · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sounds fine.· Thank you. · · ·(Recess from 11:16 to 11:28 a.m.) · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· So, Ms. Bell, are ·you ready to go back on the record? · · ·THE WITNESS:· I am. · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Court reporter, are you ·all set? · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes, sir.· Thank you. · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· All right. · · ·THE WITNESS:· Dan, before we go back ·into questions, can we just amend the ·record, or whatever the right phrase would ·be? · · ·I did confirm during the break that we ·took that we have amended or requested to ·be amended, in the new versions of our ·absentee by mail envelope and voter ·registration form, to include -- it does ·say probation, parole, and ·post-sentencing -· · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Post-release ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·supervision? · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you.· Sorry.· I am · · ·stumbling over that, because I have -- in · · ·real estate, it's post-licensing.· So all · · ·of these things begin to run together. · · ·But, yes, post -- what is the phrase?· I'm · · ·sorry. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Post-release · · ·supervision. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Post-release, yeah, · · ·supervision.· Thank you. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Okay.· So let me clarify that.· Which ·forms did you say are being amended? · · ·A.· The new iterations of our voter ·registration forms.· And you showed the old ·version of our absentee by mail envelope that I ·indicated we had a new version.· That's in the ·process now, and that's been updated with that ·phrase. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is the One Stop form being ·updated as well; do you know? · · · · ·I'll just show you. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' G premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: Page 112 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· I'll go back now to what's been marked ·as Exhibit G.· And this is a document that ·starts at Bates stamp number 405. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you recognize this ·document? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And is -- to the best of your ·knowledge, is this a document produced by the ·State Board in discovery? · · ·A.· I believe so, yes. · · ·Q.· And is this One Stop Application that ·voters fill out when they want to vote -- what ·I think of as early voting? · · ·A.· Yes, it is part of our One Stop early ·voting.· It serves as the poll book document ·for that. · · ·Q.· And in section A here, the final thing ·that voters have to certify, it says:· "I have ·not been convicted of a felony, or if I have ·been convicted of a felony, I have completed my ·sentence, including any probation or parole." ·Is that right? · · ·A.· That is what it states.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And are you aware of any present ·efforts to update this form to include ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·post-release supervision? · · ·A.· I do not know whether this is -- I ·don't know if this one is being revised, but I ·can check and correct the record if need be. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And we spoke earlier about -- I ·can't remember the exact name, but a voting ·guide that's provided to coworkers.· Is that ·right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And that voting guide did not mention ·post-release supervision, right? · · ·A.· I believe that's correct.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And are you aware of any current ·modifications being made to that guide to ·include post-release supervision? · · ·A.· We are not scheduled to do revisions to ·that, but that does not mean that we would not. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· These other things had to be sent to ·printers and so forth, so they are first in the ·order. · · ·Q.· And we looked at this document a moment ·ago titled -- you know, a document that's put ·out or has been put out by the State Board of ·Elections, you know, to inform individuals Page 111 Page 113 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 114..117 Page 114 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·convicted of felonies of (inaudible)? · · ·A.· I should state that this is actually an ·older brochure.· We have a flyer that we have ·been working to substitute.· I do know that ·there are actually more current versions of ·this -- even this brochure, because this does ·not have our correct website address, and there ·are versions that do have the correct website ·address. · · ·Q.· I will pull up what's been marked as ·Exhibit J, which I think might be the current ·version.· It's one of the documents ·(inaudible). · · · · ·MR. COX:· Sorry, Dan.· You trailed off · · ·there. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· All right.· I'm pulling · · ·up what's been marked as Exhibit J, which · · ·is one of the documents I skipped earlier. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' J premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, do you recognize this ·document? · · ·A.· Could you make more of the page ·visible?· Reduce? · · ·Q.· Sure. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· Thank you. · · · · ·Yes, that is the flyer that was ·designed and is being substituted for that ·brochure. · · ·Q.· And to the best of your knowledge, is ·this a document that was produced -- a true and ·accurate copy of a document produced by the ·State Board in discovery? · · ·A.· Yes, I believe so. · · ·Q.· And I think you just said this, but is ·this the more current version of the document ·that the State Board makes available to ·individuals convicted of felonies to notify ·them of their voting rights? · · ·A.· Yes, it is intended that this would be ·introduced into the system over the brochure. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And if we go -- and so this ·document is intended specifically for people ·convicted of felonies as sort of an educational ·document?· Do I have that right? · · ·A.· It would serve for someone convicted of ·a felony.· Or if someone is not, and is serving ·a misdemeanor, it would clarify for them as ·well. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Fair enough.· So do you see the Page 116 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·very first sentence of this document says: ·"When you are convicted of a felony in North ·Carolina, you cannot register" -- sorry -- "you ·cannot vote or register to vote until you have ·completed all the terms of your felony ·sentence, including any probation or parole." · · · · ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And that does not mention post-release ·supervision, right? · · ·A.· It does not. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And if we scroll down to the ·fourth row here titled "Am I eligible to vote." · · · · ·Do you see that row? · · ·A.· I do.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And do you see that it says:· "You must ·not be serving an active felony sentence, ·including any probation or parole"? · · ·A.· That's correct.· That is what it ·states. · · ·Q.· And it does not mention post-release ·supervision? · · ·A.· It does not. · · ·Q.· And I think you said a moment ago, ·you're planning on putting this document into ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·circulation or you've sort of started that ·process? · · ·A.· It has been introduced. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· It's just a matter of getting ·everything updated. · · ·Q.· And you're not aware of any current ·intentions to modify this document, are you? · · ·A.· It is not scheduled, to my knowledge, ·no. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'll switch gears now. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, beyond the documents that we ·just looked at, just now and before the break, ·beyond those documents, isn't it the case that ·the information provided to felons about their ·voting rights is not standard and often ·excludes references to loss of voting rights? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Assume facts not · · ·in evidence.· Calls for speculation. · · ·A.· Actually, would you restate your ·question or ask it again, please? · · ·Q.· Sure.· Isn't it the case that the ·information provided to felons about their ·voting rights is not standard and often ·excludes references to the loss of voting Page 115 Page 117 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 118..121 Page 118 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·rights? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· Actually, I do think that's a rather ·broad statement.· I can only indicate what is ·done in elections. · · ·Q.· So do you disagree with that statement? · · ·A.· I neither agree or disagree. I ·don't -- I can't speak for what other entities ·might provide to felons. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Isn't it the case that when ·registered to vote, or actually voting, not all ·voters read the language that we looked at ·earlier requiring them to affirm that they are ·not serving a felony sentence? · · ·A.· We provide the information to any ·voter, and it is up to that individual whether ·they read all the material or not. · · ·Q.· So I'll just ask it one more time. · · · · ·Isn't it the case that when registering ·to vote or actually voting, not all voters read ·the language requiring them to affirm that they ·are not serving a felony sentence? · · ·A.· I can't determine if an individual or ·all individuals read all of the information. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to pull up now what's ·been marked as Exhibit Q. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' Q premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· And this is not a document produced in ·discovery, but it's a document of the State ·Board of Elections that's just available from ·other sources.· And I'll zoom out to try to let ·you see it, Ms. Bell. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, just for the record, I · · ·believe that document was provided in · · ·discovery.· It's an attachment to the audit · · ·report for 2017. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· Fair enough.· We · · ·will -- fair enough. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's appendix 7 of that · · ·document. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, have you seen this ·document before? · · ·A.· I have. · · ·Q.· And is this a letter from Kim Westbrook ·Strach to the secretary of the Department of ·Public Safety -- Page 120 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· Uh-huh. · · ·Q.· -- and the director of the ·Administrative Office of the Courts? · · ·A.· I believe you asked if it was from ·Kim Westbrook Strach to Secretary Hooks and ·Administrative Officer Warren?· You cut out, so ·I was just clarifying. · · ·Q.· Yes.· Is that what this is? · · ·A.· Yes, it is. · · ·Q.· And Kim Strach is your predecessor as ·executive director of the State Board of ·Elections; is that right? · · ·A.· You cut out again, but I believe you ·asked if she was my predecessor.· Yes, she is ·my predecessor. · · ·Q.· Okay.· She was the previous executive ·director of the State Board of Elections? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Are you able to hear me?· Is this ·better? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· For the record, I -- last -- a ·couple days ago, I went to four different ·stores in DC to try to buy a microphone to fix ·these issues, and they were all sold out ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·because, apparently, everyone in the world is ·trying to buy microphones for their computer. ·So just for the record, efforts were made to ·address the situation. · · ·A.· Understood. · · ·Q.· But I apologize. · · · · ·So the subject line of this letter is ·"Uniform notice to felons regarding voting ·rights in North Carolina."· Correct? · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, can I ask you to read the ·second paragraph of this letter, the one that ·starts with the word "Beyond," into the record? · · ·A.· Read aloud or read it -· · ·Q.· Read it aloud, please. · · ·A.· Okay.· The paragraph that begins with ·"Beyond"? · · ·Q.· Correct. · · ·A.· Okay.· "Beyond the promising future in ·our data-sharing relationship, I want to make ·sure you are aware that the State Board's ·in-house investigations staff have become aware ·that the information provided to felons serving ·active sentences does not appear to be standard ·and often excludes references to the loss of Page 119 Page 121 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 122..125 Page 122 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·voting rights.· This issue arises at the ·referral phase of our investigations, when some ·district attorneys express understandable ·concern that a felon who has voted may not have ·been aware of the unlawfulness of his actions. ·Although individuals are required to affirm ·that they are not serving an active felony ·sentence, both when registering and presenting ·to vote, we have received feedback that not all ·voters read this language prior to signing. ·Establishing that the subject of an ·investigation may have knowingly and willingly ·violated North Carolina election laws ·prohibiting felons from voting will support ·successful prosecutions." · · ·Q.· And this letter, Ms. Bell, is from ·2017; is that right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· So based on what you just read, isn't ·it the case that the State Board of Elections ·has long known that the information provided to ·felons serving active sentences does not appear ·to be standard and often excludes references to ·loss of voting rights? · · · · ·MR. COX:· You trailed out, Dan. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Isn't it the case, Ms. Bell, that the ·State Board of Elections has long known that ·the information provided to felons serving ·active sentences does not appear to be standard ·and often excludes references to the loss of ·voting rights? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the · · ·evidence. · · ·A.· I don't think that this paragraph says ·that it's long known or shortly known. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So this letter was written in ·2017? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· So since, at least, 2017, the State ·Board of Elections has known that the ·information provided to felons serving active ·sentences does not appear to be standard and ·often excludes references to the loss of voting ·rights; is that right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the · · ·evidence. · · ·A.· Yeah.· I don't think that that's what ·this states at all. Page 124 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Can you tell me how that's ·wrong? · · ·A.· This -- a letter written in 2017 cannot ·assert what the status is from '17 until 2020. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So as of 2017, at least, the ·State Board of Elections was of the opinion ·that the information provided to voters -- to ·felons serving active sentences does not appear ·to be standard and often excludes references to ·the loss of voting rights? · · ·A.· That is what this states.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And as of 2017, the State Board ·of Elections determined that although ·individuals are required to affirm that they ·are not serving an active felony sentence, both ·when registering to vote and presenting to ·vote, not all voters read this language prior ·to signing? · · ·A.· That is the feedback they had received ·at that time, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And does the State Board, ·sitting here today, in 2020, have any ·information to change the conclusion reached in ·that sentence I just read? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·Sorry, Dan.· I just wanted to -- do you · · ·mind if I ask you to clarify which sentence · · ·you're talking about. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I was about to ask · · ·that.· Which part were you talking about? ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· The sentence that read:· "Although ·individual voters are required to affirm," dah, ·dah, dah, dah, "we have received feedback that ·not all voters read this language prior to ·signing." · · · · ·That was the sentence written by the ·State Board in 2017, right? · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Does the State Board, sitting here ·today in 2020, have any new information that ·would alter this conclusion? · · ·A.· The conclusion that not all voters read ·this language prior to signing? · · ·Q.· Correct. · · ·A.· I don't believe we have any new ·information to that effect or against that. · · ·Q.· And how about the prior sentence, that ·the State Board has become aware of ·information -- sorry -- the State Board has Page 123 Page 125 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 126..129 Page 126 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·become aware that the information provided to ·felons serving active sentences does not appear ·to be standard and often excludes references to ·the loss of voting rights? · · · · ·That was what they wrote as of 2017, ·right? · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Sitting here today in 2020, does the ·State Board have any new information that would ·alter this conclusion? · · ·A.· I believe we have information that ·would say that there do appear to be standards ·that have been implemented since this time. · · ·Q.· And we just discussed, Ms. Bell, that ·some of your forms are being updated to include ·the reference to post-release supervision, but ·some are not; is that correct? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· So, at least, as to that issue, the ·information provided is not standard? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Argumentative. · · ·A.· I don't believe that the question of ·standard, given that this is being written to ·Secretary Hooks and Judge Warren, I don't ·believe that the State Board is questioning the ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·uniformity of State Board documents.· I think ·they're questioning the uniformity of documents ·that would be DPS and AOC. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, do you understand that ·under the current law, if a person votes while ·on felony probation or post-release ·supervision, that's a crime for which a person ·can face up to two years in prison? · · ·A.· That is my understanding, yes. · · ·Q.· And do you understand this is what's ·known as a strict liability crime, meaning that ·it does not matter whether or not the person ·knew he was ineligible to vote to be convicted? · · ·A.· Actually, I don't know it by that ·terminology. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I'm going to go back now to ·what was Exhibit C, which was the Post Election ·Audit. · · · · ·And I'm going to -- well, I should say, ·at the top, Ms. Bell, this is one of the ·documents we looked at earlier titled ·"Post-Election Audit Report"; is that right? · · ·A.· It is, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And this is a document that ·starts at Bates stamp page 406? Page 128 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· You faded out. · · ·Q.· This document starts at Bates stamp ·page 406? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I'm going to turn now to ·409.· Do you see here the sentence I'm hovering ·over that says:· "Under state law, felon voting ·is a strict liability offense, and thus a felon ·may be convicted of a crime even if he or she ·does not know that voting while serving an ·active sentence is wrong"?· Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And so you understand that to mean that ·a person can be convicted of this crime even if ·he or she did not know that they were ·ineligible to vote when they voted? · · ·A.· I do see that.· I did not recall when ·you asked the previous question. · · ·Q.· Sure.· But that's -- you understand ·that that's what the current law provides? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And this same paragraph says ·that the State Board refers suspected cases of ·voting by persons who are serving felony ·sentences to local district attorneys for ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·potential prosecution; is that right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And is that something the State Board ·still does, refer people who are suspected of ·illegally voting with felony sentences to the ·local prosecutors? · · ·A.· That would be the process, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And does the State Board refer ·everyone who it believes may have voted ·illegally while serving a felony sentence to ·local prosecutors, or does it use any sort of ·discretion in deciding who to refer? · · ·A.· We actually have developed a policy ·about our priority areas and how we determine ·investigations. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And how does the State Board -·scratch that. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, are you aware that local ·prosecutors have, in fact, prosecuted people in ·recent years for voting while on probation or ·post-release supervision? · · ·A.· Yes, I am aware that such prosecutions ·have taken place. · · ·Q.· Are you familiar with the so-called ·Alamance 12? Page 127 Page 129 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 130..133 Page 130 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· I am. · · ·Q.· And so that you're aware that 12 people ·in Alamance County were criminally prosecuted ·for voting in the 2016 general election while ·they were serving probation or post-release ·supervision? · · ·A.· That is my understanding of the case -·or the -- the reference. · · ·Q.· Are you aware that 9 of those 12 people ·are African American? · · ·A.· I believe I have some knowledge of ·that, yes. · · ·Q.· And are you aware that most or maybe ·even all of those 12 people said that they did ·not know that they were ineligible to vote? · · ·A.· That is my recollection from these ·articles, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And are you aware that the ·district attorney in Hoke County has prosecuted ·four people referred by the State Board of ·Elections for allegedly voting before their ·rights were restored? · · ·A.· I am familiar with that, yes. · · ·Q.· Are you aware that all four persons ·indicted in Hoke County are African American? ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· I do believe I had that understanding, ·yes. · · ·Q.· You would agree that those prosecutions ·in Alamance and Hoke County were very high ·profile?· Received a lot of media attention? · · ·A.· I won't determine whether they're high ·profile, but they did receive media attention, ·yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· They were "in the news," as we ·say? · · ·A.· There was news coverage, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Can you understand how, given ·those prosecutions that received news coverage, ·someone who was previously convicted of a ·felony, who is not 100 percent certain of their ·voting rights, might be afraid to vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope · · ·of the deposition notice and calls for · · ·speculation. · · · · ·Karen, if you have knowledge and are · · ·able to answer it, you can. · · ·A.· I don't know if I have knowledge of ·what would cause fear for someone. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to pull up what's been ·marked as Exhibit D, which is an article from Page 132 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·the Huffington Post. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' D premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Do you see this on the screen? · · ·A.· I do.· I don't -- it's -- you can zoom ·out some, because I don't see "Huffington" or ·anything to identify that.· But, yes. · · ·Q.· Sure.· Do you see here in the top right ·corner it says "HuffPost"? · · ·A.· Yes, I do. · · ·Q.· And so this is an article written by a ·journalist named Sam Levine dated August 13, ·2018, titled "They Didn't Know They Were ·Ineligible to Vote.· A Prosecutor Went After ·Them Anyway."· Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to scroll down now to ·the bottom five paragraphs of this article. ·And so starting with the paragraph that says: ·"The cases of the 12 voters."· Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· So I'm going to give you a moment to ·read from there to the end of the story.· And ·just let me know whenever you're ready. · · ·A.· (Reviewing.)· Okay. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, you see in those ·paragraphs there's quotes reflecting that ·individuals with felony convictions said they ·wouldn't vote again because they were afraid of ·being prosecuted?· Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And wouldn't you agree that that's a ·reasonable fear given the potential of going to ·prison if you're prosecuted for mistakenly ·voting while ineligible? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope · · ·of this deposition.· Calls for speculation. · · ·A.· I don't think I can determine ·reasonable fear when I know that there are ·people who have continued to register who are ·former felons. · · ·Q.· Could you understand the fear? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Same objection. · · ·A.· Personally, I can't say one way or the ·other.· I am not a former felon, so I don't ·know what that fear would be. · · ·Q.· Okay.· In your capacity as the ·executive director of the State Board of ·Elections, if one of these individuals came to ·you and told you that they were afraid of Page 131 Page 133 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 134..137 Page 134 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·voting, for the reasons set forth in this ·article, would you tell that person that ·they're being irrational? · · ·A.· I would not tell any voter that they're ·being irrational. · · ·Q.· Would you tell that voter that you ·think that their fears are unreasonable? · · ·A.· Again, that's not how I would work with ·any voter. · · ·Q.· Would you agree with me, Ms. Bell, that ·if individuals are uncertain or confused about ·their eligibility to vote with a felony ·conviction, that could be a deterrent to them ·voting? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· Would you restate your question or ·state it again? · · ·Q.· Sure.· Would you agree that if an ·individual who has a felony conviction is ·uncertain or confused about whether they're ·eligible to vote, that may deter them from ·voting? · · ·A.· I think the best answer I can give you ·is to not state one way or the other except to ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·express my own personal experience as an ·elections director. · · · · ·I vividly recall -- from time to ·time -- one of the greatest experiences of my ·life as an elections administrator was the ·trust that a gentleman instilled in me when he ·finished his felony conviction, came into our ·board of elections, was of the minority race in ·the county where I worked, and yet trusted that ·I would help him in his application to ·reregister to vote.· And even learned that he ·was still illiterate, and yet trusted that I ·would help him through that process, and I did. ·That's the best answer that I can give you to ·these questions, is that there have certainly ·been individuals who have entrusted in me to ·ensure that they became a registered individual ·after completing their felony. · · ·Q.· As the executive director of the State ·Board of Elections, you're familiar with -·give me a moment.· Let me make sure I can ask ·this question in a way that, hopefully, will ·not prompt your counsel to object.· But I might ·be wrong about that no matter what. · · · · ·In your capacity as the director, as Page 136 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·the executive director of the State Board of ·Elections, do you have a general familiarity ·with the reasons why voters may or may not ·vote? · · ·A.· Are you -- is this a general question ·to any -- to all voters or voters in general ·that may or may not vote? · · ·Q.· Yeah. · · ·A.· Yes, I think that falls within our ·capacity. · · ·Q.· And you have -- just, generally ·speaking, you have familiarity with the reasons ·why an individual may or may not register to ·vote? · · ·A.· Yes, we have a general familiarity with ·that. · · ·Q.· And as a matter of -- based on that ·familiarity, in your role as the executive ·director, wouldn't you agree that if a person ·is unsure about whether they're lawfully ·allowed to vote, that may deter them from ·voting? · · ·A.· Yeah, I think the way that I have to ·answer that question is that we -- we ·facilitate voter registration as the State ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·Board of Elections and the county boards of ·elections.· And we do so in a manner that we ·continue to see individuals register to vote. ·We try to make that opportunity available in as ·many ways as possible, and we continue to have ·registration.· So it is not deterring people ·from registering to vote. · · ·Q.· And is it your goal as the executive ·director of the Board of Elections to educate ·as many people as possible about their ·eligibility to vote? · · ·A.· Yes, that is one of the goals I have ·set as executive director of the State Board of ·Elections. · · ·Q.· And is one of the reasons you do that ·is because you want to make sure, as much as ·possible, that everyone who is eligible to vote ·does vote, and everyone who is not eligible to ·vote doesn't mistakenly vote?· Fair? · · ·A.· Even in the mission statement that was ·in the county where I was a county director, we ·had within that, and I still hold, that it is ·our job as an election administrator to ensure ·everyone's fundamental right to vote. · · ·Q.· And is one of the reasons why you try Page 135 Page 137 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 138..141 Page 138 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·to educate everybody, as many people as ·possible, about their eligibility to vote is ·because eliminating confusion promotes more ·voting? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Confusing. · · ·Q.· Would you agree with me that the less ·confused people are about their eligibility to ·vote, the more likely they are to vote? · · ·A.· I don't know that there's a direct ·correlation there.· We inform people about ·voting, about the voter registration processes. ·There can be other influences that keep someone ·from voting, including -- I mean, they may not ·like any of the candidates, quite frankly. · · ·Q.· Yeah.· Okay.· I'll move on, Ms. Bell. · · · · ·Are you aware of the relief that ·plaintiffs are seeking in this case? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I have read some of the court ·documents.· It might be best if you state to me ·what the relief is that plaintiffs seek. · · ·Q.· Sure.· So are you aware that plaintiffs ·are seeking -- that plaintiffs are asking that ·people who are not incarcerated, but are on ·some form of community supervision, be allowed ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·to vote? · · ·A.· That is my understanding. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to refer, for the ·remainder of this deposition, to what I just ·described as the regime that plaintiffs seek in ·this case.· Is that fair? · · ·A.· That's fine. · · ·Q.· I'll use that as shorthand just so I ·don't have to repeat that whole thing every ·time for all of my questions. · · ·A.· Understandable. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, could I ask a · · ·clarification question?· Did you say the · · ·"regime" that plaintiffs seek? · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Correct. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Are you aware that at least 17 states, ·plus the District of Columbia, have a regime ·like the one plaintiffs are seeking where ·you're eligible to vote if you're not in ·prison? · · ·A.· I have not researched to determine ·exact number. Page 140 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Are you aware that many states have ·such a regime? · · ·A.· I'm aware that there are states with ·such a regime. · · ·Q.· And election officials in those states ·implement those systems, right? · · ·A.· Just as we do as election ·administrators, they administer as their law is ·written. · · ·Q.· I'm going to show you now a few ·examples of the forms that election officials ·in those states use to implement the type of ·regime that plaintiffs are seeking. · · ·A.· Okay. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' M premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· I'm going to call up now what's been ·marked as Exhibit M. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, this is a voter registration ·form used in Michigan.· Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do see that, and the title implies ·that, yes. · · ·Q.· I'll represent to you that to the best ·of my knowledge this is Michigan's current ·version of their voter registration ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·application. · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· I'm going to point you to the left side ·of this page, which says -- which is titled ·"Criminal convictions and registering to vote." ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And do you see that it says:· "If you ·have a past criminal conviction and are no ·longer in jail or prison, you can register and ·vote.· You also can register and vote if you ·are in jail and awaiting trial and sentencing. ·If you are currently serving a sentence in jail ·or prison you can't register to vote." · · · · ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, if the Court ruled for ·plaintiffs in this case, your office could ·change its form to say something like this, ·right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I think the best way for me to answer ·is that when laws are changed, we do change the ·laws to reflect what the law allows for, and Page 139 Page 141 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 142..145 Page 142 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·the same would be true if there were a court ·decision. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Would you agree with me that the ·three short sentences I just read are ·language -- is language that is used by ·election officials in a state that had a regime ·like the one plaintiffs are seeking? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I will agree that you've indicated to ·me that the state of Michigan allows that this ·is the regime that they allow for and, ·therefore, they have provided this information ·on their voter registration form. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Fair enough.· I'm going to pull ·up now Exhibit N. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' N premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· And I will represent to you, Ms. Bell, ·that this is a voter -- the most recent copy of ·the voter registration form used in the ·District of Columbia, where I live.· Do you see ·that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And I will also represent to you that, ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·at least as of last week -- I think they ·actually just voted to change it this week -·the District of Columbia has had a system like ·the one plaintiffs -- a regime like the one ·plaintiffs seek in this case. · · · · ·Will you accept that representation? · · ·A.· I will. · · ·Q.· And I think they -- just, ·incidentally -- I think they actually just ·voted to allow people in prison to vote.· But ·that is not -· · ·A.· Okay.· That's what I was going to ask ·is, what was the change?· But, okay. · · ·Q.· Yeah.· If that -· · ·A.· So it is beyond the regime that ·you're -- you're seeking. · · ·Q.· Exactly.· Exactly.· But that's -- I'll ·represent to you that that is not yet reflected ·on this form.· Okay? · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· Do you see here -- I'm going to point ·you to section 13 here.· Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And do you see that there's a box for ·voters to check that says:· "I am not in jail Page 144 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·on a felony conviction"? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Would you agree that's pretty ·straightforward and clear? · · ·A.· It is clear to me.· I don't know ·whether it's clear to everyone. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then the last one I'll show ·you here, I'm going to pull up, is Exhibit O. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' O premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· And this is a voter application -- or ·voter registration form for New Jersey.· Do you ·see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And I'll represent to you that, to the ·best of my knowledge, this is the current ·version of New Jersey's voter registration ·application.· Okay? · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, are you aware that New Jersey ·changed its laws in December of 2019 -- so last ·year -- from a system that was like the one ·that North Carolina currently uses to one ·that's like plaintiffs seek in this case? · · ·A.· I actually did not recall that ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·New Jersey had done that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So you're not aware and you've ·not heard of any problems that New Jersey ·election officials have had in transitioning to ·such a regime, are you? · · ·A.· That has not been discussed with me. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· Nor have I read anything to that ·effect, one way or the other. · · ·Q.· And so I'm going to point your ·attention to section 14 here of this ·application. · · · · ·And do you see here in the ·"Declaration" section, in the middle, there's a ·bullet that says:· "I am not serving a sentence ·of incarceration as the result of a conviction ·of any indictable offense under the laws of ·this or another state or of the United States"? · · ·A.· I see that bullet point, yes. · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, we've now looked at three ·different examples of how states implement a ·regime like the one plaintiffs are seeking. · · · · ·Isn't it fair to say that the Board ·would have a number of ways to implement such a ·regime on its forms if the Court did rule for Page 143 Page 145 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 146..149 Page 146 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·plaintiffs in this case? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· The method by which we change forms in ·North Carolina is based upon the law or the ·decision of the Court.· And we would alter or ·change our forms based upon the wording of the ·law or the decision of the Court in ·North Carolina and not based upon another ·state. · · ·Q.· Sure.· But if the Court -- just using ·these as examples -- if the Court said, "Yes ·we're going to implement the regime that ·plaintiffs seek in this case," just from an ·administrative perspective, you would be able ·to administer that on your forms, correct? · · ·A.· I would like you to state your question ·again.· I'm sorry. · · ·Q.· Sure.· So, currently, your forms ·implements North Carolina's current law with ·respect to when felons are allowed to vote, ·right? · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· If the Court ruled for plaintiffs in ·this case and said North Carolina has to ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·implement a regime like the one plaintiffs seek ·in this case, it wouldn't be very difficult for ·you to make that change on your forms, right? · · ·A.· I actually need to give some, I guess, ·clarity to the word "difficult." · · · · ·Altering a form may be as simple as ·changing it in a word-processing program. ·Printing it and making it available, the level ·of difficulty can vary. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· I can give you an example, that even ·trying to update the current forms, the printer ·has difficulty because of COVID-19 and the ·ability for their workers to be available.· So ·what could cause difficulty or not cause ·difficulty could vary at a given time. · · ·Q.· Is it fair to say it would be feasible, ·though? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I think feasibility is, as well, ·about -- the feasibility to change a form is ·very different than implementing a form.· So ·there could be variables that could impact the ·ability to immediately pivot and do that. Page 148 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Sitting here today, however, you ·can't give me a reason why the State Board of ·Elections wouldn't be able to change and ·implement a change to its forms if the Court ·said you had to implement a regime like the one ·plaintiffs seek, right? · · ·A.· Actually, depending on when that ·occurred, I might be able to give you reasons ·why that could be difficult to implement or ·change, or feasible.· There is nothing about ·this discussion that is in a vacuum or in a ·bubble. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· There are other court cases.· There are ·other deadlines.· There are other variables ·that can impact our ability to implement ·anything in elections administration. · · ·Q.· Okay.· We talked earlier about how ·you -- and by "you," I mean the State Board of ·Elections -- receives data on an ongoing basis ·from the Department of Public Safety; is that ·right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, are you aware that people who ·are sentenced to probation in North Carolina do ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·not receive a term of incarceration before ·their probation begins? · · ·A.· Again, I don't work in the probation -·I don't work in the court system.· I don't -·that's -- that's out of my knowledge. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Fair enough.· I'll just ·represent to you -- and, again, I'll just ask ·you to accept my representation.· And if I'm ·wrong about this, then it's on me, and my ·questions are worthless. · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· But I'll represent to you that people ·in North Carolina who are sentenced to ·probation do not receive a term of ·incarceration in prison before their probation ·begins. · · · · ·Will you accept that representation? · · ·A.· Fair enough. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So under the regime that ·plaintiffs seek in this case, such people ·wouldn't be ineligible to vote for any period ·of time, right, because they've never been ·incarcerated? · · ·A.· I believe that's what you've described. ·Right. Page 147 Page 149 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 150..153 Page 150 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· And for such people, then, if we're ·living in a world where it's the regime that ·plaintiffs seek, the Department of Public ·Safety wouldn't need to send you any data about ·those people at all, right, because they would ·never be subject to the period of ·disenfranchisement? · · ·A.· I think I would need to know more ·information and work with those agencies to ·ensure that we're properly -- I don't know that ·process well enough to say that we would not ·need to receive information. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Am I correct that under the ·current system, you only receive information ·from the Department of Public Safety about ·people who are ineligible to vote because of ·their convictions?· Right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the · · ·evidence. · · ·A.· Actually, what I think we've ·established is that they provide us a list of ·who are active felons, and then we determine ·their eligibility. · · ·Q.· Sure.· You don't receive a list of ·people convicted of misdemeanors in ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·North Carolina, right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And is the reason you don't receive a ·list of people convicted of misdemeanors ·because such people are still allowed to vote, ·so you don't need to know their information? · · ·A.· That sounds correct, yes. · · ·Q.· So if somebody convicted of probation ·never becomes ineligible to vote, then like the ·people convicted of misdemeanors, you would ·never need to receive their information from ·DPS, right? · · ·A.· I think the answer to your question is ·that seems reasonable.· What we have ·established that there are other factors that ·I'm not aware of in probation that would make ·them ineligible to vote. · · ·Q.· And let's say, hypothetically, that ·under the regime plaintiffs seek, everyone who ·is on probation is allowed to vote.· So there's ·no other factors that might prevent them as it ·relates to their conviction.· Okay? · · ·A.· Okay.· Meaning there's no fees or ·anything associated with that? · · ·Q.· Right. Page 152 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· And they -- and your regime is -- it ·moves forward. · · ·Q.· Right.· Plaintiffs' dream comes true ·and our regime is implemented.· That means ·everyone who is on probation is allowed to ·vote. · · · · ·Will you accept that for my ·hypothetical? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· So in that world, you wouldn't need to ·receive information from the Department of ·Public Safety about people on probation, right? · · ·A.· That seems logical.· Correct. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'm going to also represent ·to you -- again, I'll just ask you to accept ·this representation -- that about half the ·people convicted of felonies in North Carolina ·are sentenced to probation and no terms of ·incarceration. · · · · ·Will you accept that representation? · · ·A.· Sure. · · ·Q.· Roughly half, I'll say. · · ·A.· I don't know any different. · · ·Q.· Sure.· We talked earlier about how the ·State Board has a list of all the people who ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·are serving an active felony sentence and are ·ineligible to vote; is that right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· So under the regime that plaintiffs ·seek, there would be about half as many people ·who the Board would need to put on that list, ·right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I'll answer yes based upon what you ·represented. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And we talked earlier about how ·the county boards of elections take that list ·that we just mentioned, and then they notify ·people that their registration is canceled, or ·has been denied if they're trying to register ·for the first time; is that right? · · ·A.· I would answer to your -- the way you ·stated it, yes. · · ·Q.· So under the regime that the plaintiffs ·seek, the county boards of elections would only ·need to send such notifications to about half ·the people that they currently do, right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. Page 151 Page 153 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 154..157 Page 154 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· The county boards of elections would ·send notice to those who are being removed or ·denied, no matter whether that's 50 percent ·or -· · ·Q.· Right. · · ·A.· -- or 80 percent. · · ·Q.· And just as a logical matter, as you ·put it before, if only about half the people ·become ineligible to vote from what is the case ·currently, then the county boards of elections ·would only need to send about half the number ·of notification letters, right? · · ·A.· I mean, you are in a hypothetical, but ·if it's -- I mean, like, whatever the list is ·is what they're going to -- to mail. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'm going to transition now ·from people who are on probation and talk about ·people who did receive a term of incarceration. · · · · ·And as we talked before, people in ·North Carolina, currently, who are released ·from incarceration are released on something ·called "post-release supervision."· I'm sure ·you recall that discussion? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And are you aware that the ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·Department of Public Safety maintains data on ·when such people are released from prison under ·post-release supervision? · · ·A.· Well, actually, I'm not aware of what ·they maintain.· I know what we receive. · · ·Q.· Sure.· You have no reason to doubt, ·though, that the Department of Public Safety ·keeps data of when people are let out of ·prison, right? · · ·A.· That seems logical. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And so if, in fact, the ·Department of Safety has that data, that's ·information that the Board could receive from ·the Department of Safety if it needed to, ·right? · · ·A.· To the best of my knowledge, yes. I ·don't know if there's any restrictions on us ·receiving that data or anything that might ·prohibit it. · · ·Q.· Fair enough.· We talked earlier about ·the, quote, Felon Completed List, I believe it ·was called, that the State Board maintains ·about people who had been ineligible to vote ·but have since completed their felony sentences ·and are now reeligible to vote.· Do you recall Page 156 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Under the regime that plaintiffs seek, ·instead of adding people to that list when they ·finish their post-release supervision, you ·could just add them to that list when they ·finish their term of incarceration, right? · · ·A.· I think -- it's not -- well, I would ·rely on DPS to provide the correct status to -·in order for us to receive that data on that ·list. · · ·Q.· Sitting here today, you're not aware of ·any reason that, instead of using the date that ·somebody finishes their post-release ·supervision, you couldn't use the date that ·they finished their term of incarceration; is ·that right? · · ·A.· Provided that -- again, I think I would ·need to have more information of what the ·decision by the Court or the law allowed for ·and whether there are any other conditions in ·that. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· But provided that that's the, you know, ·the criteria, and that's -- but that status ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·conveys that criteria, then we could receive it ·and process. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, sitting here today, you have ·no basis to believe that the State Board ·couldn't implement the regime that plaintiffs ·seek in this case, right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· Actually, I think I stated that there ·probably is information that we would need to ·learn in order to know whether we could ·implement.· I think -- I think that -- but to ·do the caliber of job that I would want to do, ·I would want to have other conversation to make ·sure that we all understand the definitions and ·what that status means.· I would not want to ·say that we could just immediately implement. ·I think there's additional steps in there. · · ·Q.· But sitting here today, you can't cite ·for me any information that you wouldn't be ·able to obtain that would make it impossible ·for you to implement that regime, right? · · ·A.· I have no knowledge, but I would want ·to assert that there's nothing. · · ·Q.· Okay.· There's nothing specific you can ·cite for me today that would prevent you from Page 155 Page 157 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 158..161 Page 158 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·implementing that regime? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· As I said, there's -- there's -- I do ·not have knowledge of that, no. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Thank you. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, what were you thinking · · ·in terms of timing?· This might be a good · · ·time for a break. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Yeah.· I was about to · · ·say.· I suspect I have somewhere in the · · ·area of a half hour left. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Although, I hate giving · · ·quotes, because I might be wrong, but · · ·that's what I would suspect. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Well, let me ask Karen, then. · · · · ·Karen, do you want to take a break and · · ·come back, if it's going to be half an · · ·hour, plus or minus?· Do you want to take a · · ·break for lunch and come back? · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Is it within reason to · · ·ask Brian if he -- the amount of time that · · ·he would need? · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Would you like to stay ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·on the record here? · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· We can go off the · · ·record. · · · · ·(Brief discussion off the record.) · · · · ·(Recess from 12:24 to 12:32 p.m.) · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Everybody ready to go · · ·back on the record? · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes, sir. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Good to go. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, this will be the final ·exhibit I show you today, I promise. · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' P premarked.) ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· So this exhibit has been marked as ·Exhibit P.· And it is the State Board's Amended ·Response to Interrogatory Number 7 of the ·Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. · · · · ·Do you see that, Ms. Bell? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Have you seen this document before? · · ·A.· I believe I have, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to scroll down now to ·Interrogatory Number 7. · · · · ·And do you see that the first sentence Page 160 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·of this interrogatory asks the State Board to: ·"State with specificity the purported ·governmental interests in denying ·disenfranchised persons the right to vote"? · · · · ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Can you hear me? · · ·A.· I can. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And, Ms. Bell, I'll represent to ·you that in the actual interrogatories ·themselves, which is not part of this document, ·the definition section at least, the term ·"Disenfranchised Persons," with a capital D and ·a capital P, that was defined as persons on ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·who are not eligible to vote in North Carolina. · · · · ·Will you accept that representation? · · ·A.· I will. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So this interrogatory asks the ·State Board to identify the governmental ·interest in denying the right to vote to ·persons on probation, parole, or post-release ·supervision for a felony conviction; is that ·right? · · ·A.· That is what it states, yes. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then the interrogatory -·I'm going to scroll down here to page 4. I ·think this is page 4. · · · · ·And right above where the bullet point ·starts, do you see that it says, for the ·record:· "The State Board" -- I'm sorry -- "The ·State Board responds that the State may have a ·number of legitimate governmental interests in ·enacting and enforcing the citizenship ·restoration statute in question."· And it then ·lists nine such governmental interests.· Do you ·see that? · · ·A.· I do.· I see three of them, yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· There's four and then there's ·the other five.· Do you see that? · · ·A.· Yes, I see that. · · ·Q.· Did you contribute to putting together ·this list of -· · · · ·(Interruption.) · · ·A.· I'm sorry.· I didn't hear your ·question. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, did you contribute to putting ·together this list of purported governmental ·interests? · · ·A.· No, I did not. Page 159 Page 161 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 162..165 Page 162 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Other than your attorneys from ·the Attorney General's Office, who else was ·involved in putting this list together? · · ·A.· I'm not aware of who outside of the ·Attorney General's Office. · · ·Q.· Was anyone at the State Board of ·Elections involved in putting this list ·together? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I would have to ask the counsel from ·the Attorney General's Office who they worked ·with.· I don't... · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is it fair to say that to the ·best of your knowledge sitting here today, ·nobody from the Attorney General's Office -·sorry.· To the best of your knowledge sitting ·here today, nobody from the State Board of ·Elections was involved in putting this list ·together? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I don't know one way or the other. · · ·Q.· So you're not affirmatively aware of ·anyone from the State Board in particular who ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·was involved? · · ·A.· Again, I would have to -- I would want ·to ask counsel from the Attorney General's ·Office who they worked with. · · ·Q.· Did you review this list before -- even ·though you weren't involved in putting it ·together, did you review this list before it ·was sent to the plaintiffs as part of this ·interrogatory response? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I don't recall reviewing this list, and ·it's in a draft form. · · ·Q.· To the best of your knowledge, did ·anyone from the State Board of Elections review ·this list before it was sent to plaintiffs? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I do not know if that would have been ·a -- if the -- who the AG's office would have ·worked with from our agency on that matter -·on this matter, sorry. · · ·Q.· But sitting here today, you can't tell ·me that you affirmatively know that any ·individual person from the State Board of Page 164 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·Elections reviewed this list before it was ·provided to plaintiffs? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I don't know.· I do not know. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to, for the purposes ·of my next questions, I'm going to exclude what ·you see here as the first and the third ·bullets.· Do you want to just take a second to ·read those bullets? · · ·A.· So you want me to read the first and ·the third bullets? · · ·Q.· Just to yourself, so you know what I'm ·talking about. · · ·A.· But just those two, is what you're ·saying? · · ·Q.· Correct.· Correct. · · ·A.· Okay.· (Reviewing.)· Okay. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So my next questions are going ·to relate to only the other seven bullets -·interests listed in the other seven bullets, ·but not those two.· Okay? · · ·A.· Okay.· So you just asked me to read two ·that you don't want me to refer to? · · ·Q.· How about this?· Do you want me to -- ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·do you want to just take a second to read all ·nine bullets so we make sure we're on the same ·page? · · ·A.· I think that's the better method, if ·you don't mind.· If I'm going to answer ·questions, I'd like to know what I'm answering ·the questions about.· So, yes, I'd like to read ·the others. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Just tell me when you want me to ·scroll to the next page. · · ·A.· Okay.· (Reviewing.) · · · · ·You can scroll to the next page. · · ·Q.· (Scrolling.) · · ·A.· (Reviewing.)· Okay. · · · · ·MR. COX:· And, Dan, just for · · ·clarification, are you going to be asking · · ·questions about the last bullet as well? · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· This bullet? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Yeah. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· I believe that's -· · ·yeah, the seven of -- the seven of the · · ·nine. · · · · ·MR. COX:· So the Court's order said you · · ·can ask questions about A through F, and · · ·that's number G in your notice of Page 163 Page 165 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 166..169 Page 166 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·deposition. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· I hadn't picked · · ·up on that.· But how about this?· I'll · · ·exclude those three, then.· So include the · · ·first, the third, and the last bullet. · · ·Okay? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Exclude those three, right? · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Exclude those three.· So · · ·I'm only asking about the other six.· Okay? · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, putting aside any ·research that was done by your lawyers at the ·Attorney General's Office, did the State Board ·of Elections do any factual research or ·investigation into the interests served by the ·current disenfranchisement scheme -- today, in ·present day -- in order to generate this list ·of six bullets? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection. · · · · ·Karen, if answering this question might · · ·require you to divulge any communication · · ·between the State Board and its outside · · ·counsel in creating this document, then · · ·don't answer that.· If you have knowledge ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·otherwise, you can answer it. · · ·A.· Dan, if you'll state your question ·again. · · ·Q.· Yeah. · · ·A.· I don't know if I can say "yes" or "no" ·to it, but... · · ·Q.· Okay.· Subject to Mr. Cox's ·qualification, and putting aside any research ·that was done by your lawyers at the Attorney ·General's Office, did the State Board of ·Elections itself conduct any factual research ·or investigation into the interests served by ·the current disenfranchisement scheme, in ·present day, in order to generate this list of ·six government interests listed in those six ·bullets? · · ·A.· I do not know. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Putting aside any discussions ·with your lawyers at the Attorney General's ·Office, did the State Board engage in any ·discussions about the interests that the ·current disenfranchisement scheme actually ·serves in practice today before providing this ·list? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. Page 168 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Dan, can I ask a clarifying question? · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, I was going to say, ·I need you to clarify that. · · ·But go ahead, Paul. · · ·MR. COX:· Well, Dan, do you mind if I ·ask you to clarify? · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Yeah.· Go ahead.· Go ·ahead. · · ·MR. COX:· When you said the State ·Board, are you referring to the Board as ·the board, or the Board as a whole agency ·or what?· Because -· · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure. · · ·MR. COX:· Do you understand the ·difference? · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Yeah.· So I'm ·referring -- when I say the State Board, ·I'm referring to the entire agency that you ·oversee. · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· And now will you ·state your question? · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure. · · ·THE WITNESS:· I might need you to ·clarify something that you're asking me. · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Go ahead. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Putting aside any discussions with your ·lawyers at the Attorney General's Office, did ·the State Board engage in any discussions about ·the interests that the current ·disenfranchisement scheme actually serves in ·practice today before providing this list? · · ·A.· I don't know what the right process for ·me to do here is, but that -- you're -- you're ·asking a question in a very legal format, but I ·don't know if I need clarification from my ·counsel to understand or if I need you to ·clarify more. · · ·Q.· How about I try to ask it a little bit ·differently? · · ·A.· Thank you. · · ·Q.· Are you aware of any discussions, ·internal discussions within the State Board of ·Elections, about the interests -- that occurred ·about the interests that the current ·disenfranchisement scheme serves in practice ·today before this list was provided? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· Yeah.· I mean, what do you mean by the Page 167 Page 169 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 170..173 Page 170 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·practices? · · ·Q.· We talked about a moment ago that the ·interrogatory asks about the governmental ·interests that support the current ·disenfranchisement scheme, right? · · ·A.· That we administer the law as it's ·written. · · ·Q.· Right.· But the interrogatory that we ·talked about up here asks for to state with ·specificity the purported government interests ·in denying disenfranchisement, right? · · ·A.· Correct. · · ·Q.· And so my question is:· Are you aware ·of any discussions within the State Board of ·Elections about what are the current -- the ·purported government interests in denying ·disenfranchised persons the right to vote today ·before this list was provided? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Same objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· The only way I know -- the best answer ·I can give you is no.· The reason I asked about ·practices is because -- so we've established ·that we are updating some of our forms.· So ·that would indicate discussion, but I don't ·believe it's to -- I don't think it is to the ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·legal framework that you're presenting. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Did the State Board undertake ·any research or investigation into whether the ·regime that plaintiffs seek would better serve ·the interests listed in those six bullets that ·we're talking about in the current ·disenfranchisement scheme? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection. · · · · ·Karen, in answering this, if you have · · ·knowledge about any research that was done · · ·in connection with representation in this · · ·case, then don't answer that question.· If · · ·you have information independent of that, · · ·that you can provide, you can answer that · · ·question. · · ·A.· Actually, I do not have knowledge of ·such. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Putting aside any discussions ·you had with your counsel at the Attorney ·General's Office, has the State Board engaged ·in any deliberations about whether the regime ·that plaintiffs seek in this case would better ·serve the interests listed in those six bullets ·than the current disenfranchisement scheme? · · ·A.· And in this case -- Page 172 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· In this case do you mean the agency or ·the Board? · · ·Q.· The agency. · · ·A.· Then I do not know of such, no. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm now going to turn to each of ·the interests, the six interests that we're ·talking about. · · · · ·Can you hear me? · · ·A.· Now we can. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I have a mumbling problem that I ·try to fight as much as I can. · · · · ·So do you see these interests listed ·here on the bottom of page 4, onto page 5, that ·says:· "Regulating, streamlining, and promoting ·voter registration and electoral participation ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies ·who have been reformed"? · · ·A.· I see that bullet point, yes. · · ·Q.· The State Board of Elections is the ·primary agency in North Carolina that oversees ·voter registration, right? · · ·A.· That's correct, along with the county ·boards of elections. · · ·Q.· And the State Board is an agency that ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·is knowledgeable about, quote, electoral ·participation of North Carolinians? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I was going to ask:· What do you define ·"electoral participation"?· Does that mean the ·percentage of turnout, or do you have another ·definition? · · ·Q.· Well, so this -- this -- you understand ·this bullet point was written by the State ·Board of Elections, right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague and calls · · ·for a legal conclusion. · · ·A.· Actually, my assumption is that it was ·written by the Attorney General's Office and ·not by the State Board of Elections. · · ·Q.· What was meant in this bullet point by ·the words "electoral participation"? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· Any explanation of electoral ·participation would be voter turnout and ·participation in an election, what percentage ·of participation. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So is the State Board of ·Elections asserting that, as a factual matter Page 171 Page 173 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 174..177 Page 174 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·in present day, that disenfranchisement of ·persons on probation, parole, or post-release ·supervision regulates, streamlines, and ·promotes voter registration and electoral ·participation among North Carolinians convicted ·of felonies? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Compound.· Vague. · · ·A.· Actually, I would like to take a ·moment.· I would like to speak with counsel to ·make sure that I'm understanding what I'm ·representing here.· Not to your question, but ·to this line of questioning. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Karen, do you need to talk to · · ·make sure that you're not revealing any · · ·attorney-client information? · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's right. · · · · ·MR. COX:· All right. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Paul, my understanding · · ·is that communications during depositions · · ·are not privileged.· So I want to find that · · ·out. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Well, if that's your -- if · · ·that's what you're -- if that's the · · ·position you're going to take, then I won't · · ·have a conversation with my client, but I ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·will instruct her, if she is worried that ·she is going to reveal attorney-client ·communications, not to answer the question. ·And then I can find out whether she's wrong ·with that. · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· So, Paul, under the ·protective order that was issued yesterday, ·Ms. Bell has to answer questions about ·these bullet points as they relate to ·factual assertions, and that's exactly what ·my question was.· So she can't -- you can't ·instruct her not to answer. · · ·MR. COX:· I can instruct her -- I can ·always instruct her not to answer a ·question if it's going to reveal ·attorney-client communications.· Nothing ·about this court order abridges the ·attorney-client privilege. · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· Do you want to ·take a break to talk with Ms. Bell, and ·then we can resume? · · ·MR. COX:· Yeah.· Do you agree that I ·can talk with Ms. Bell and you're not going ·to seek the information disclosed between ·us? Page 176 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Or may I request a break · · ·to speak with my general counsel and not · · ·with Mr. Cox? · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Paul, I will agree to · · ·that, that you can talk with her and I · · ·won't seek that information. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay? · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you. · · · · ·(Recess from 12:51 to 12:55 p.m.) · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm back.· I apologize. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· That's okay. · · · · ·Madam Court Reporter, are you ready? · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· Would you like me · · ·to ask the question again, Ms. Bell? · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, please.· Thank you. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, the disenfranchisement of persons on ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·regulates, streamlines, and promotes voter ·registration and electoral participation among ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague and · · ·compound. · · ·A.· I know you're going to get tired of ·repeating, but I'd like to make sure that I'm ·hearing you correctly.· Will you state it ·again? · · ·Q.· Okay.· Sure.· And before I state it ·again, maybe I'll just -- what I'm asking is, ·is the State Board asserting -- well, I'll just ·read the question again, actually -· · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· -- rather than characterizing my own ·questions. · · · · ·Is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, the disenfranchisement of persons on ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·regulates, streamlines, and promotes voter ·registration and electoral participation among ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Compound.· Vague. · · ·A.· If you're asking whether the State has ·had a policy -- the State Board has developed a ·policy about this, I would answer no. Page 175 Page 177 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 178..181 Page 178 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Could you define to me what you mean by ·the word "policy"? · · ·A.· Outside of administering the law, as it ·is written, the State Board has not developed ·other policy. · · ·Q.· Okay.· How about this?· I'm going to ·take the three verbs in here one at a time. ·Because you see there's three verbs in here. · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Regulating, streamlining, and ·promoting.· So I'm going to start with ·"promoting" or "promotes." · · · · ·Is the State Board asserting that, as a ·factual matter, in present day, the ·disenfranchisement of persons on probation, ·parole, or post-release supervision promotes ·voter registration and electoral participation ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies? · · ·A.· I don't believe the State Board has ·asserted one way or the other.· So I would ·defer to the Attorney General's Office who ·wrote this interrogatory. · · ·Q.· But, Ms. Bell, respectfully, I'm asking ·for the State Board's position, not the ·position of the Attorney General's Office. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Is the State Board asserting that, as a ·factual matter, sitting here today, the ·disenfranchisement of people on community ·supervision promotes voter registration and ·electoral participation among North Carolinians ·convicted of felonies? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I believe I stated that I don't believe ·the State Board has asserted that one way or ·the other -- has asserted or not. · · ·Q.· Does the State Board of Elections have ·any factual evidence that the ·disenfranchisement of people on probation, ·parole, or post-release supervision promotes ·voter registration and electoral participation ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· What do you mean by "factual ·information"? · · ·Q.· So if one were to say, as an assertion, ·that the disenfranchisement of the people we're Page 180 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·talking about promotes voter registration and ·electoral participation among North Carolinians ·convicted of felonies -- so let's say somebody ·asserts that -- and then the question is:· What ·factual evidence do you have to support that ·assertion? · · · · ·And so what I'm asking is:· Does the ·State Board have any factual evidence that the ·disenfranchisement of people on community ·supervision promotes voter registration and ·electoral participation among North Carolinians ·convicted of felonies? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· So my previous response to you is that ·I don't believe the State Board has asserted or ·taken a position that disenfranchisement ·promotes voter registration. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· So if we have not taken a position or ·asserted, then I don't believe I can say that ·we have factual information one way or the ·other either. · · ·Q.· So when you say "one way or the other," ·am I correct that sitting here today, you do ·not have factual evidence you can cite to me ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·that would support such an assertion? · · ·A.· Not that I'm aware of. · · ·Q.· Okay.· In fact, Ms. Bell, doesn't ·disenfranchising people on probation, parole, ·or post-release supervision prevent such people ·registering to vote and participating in ·elections? · · ·A.· I believe when you asked this earlier ·in your questioning, I identified that I don't ·know whether it promotes or discourages.· We ·administer the law as it's written. · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, if somebody is ·disenfranchised, they're not allowed to vote, ·right? · · ·A.· That's correct. · · ·Q.· And they're not allowed to register to ·vote? · · ·A.· They can complete a voter registration ·form, but they may not be processed as a ·registered voter. · · ·Q.· So if you disenfranchise a person, it ·prevents them from registering to vote and ·voting, correct? · · ·A.· It prevents them from voting. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And wouldn't the regime that Page 179 Page 181 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 182..185 Page 182 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·plaintiffs seek in this case, in which persons ·on community supervision are allowed to vote, ·wouldn't that better promote voter registration ·and electoral participation among such persons? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I do believe you're asking me to make a ·correlation that I don't know if there's a ·direct correlation or not. · · ·Q.· What does the word "promote" mean to ·you? · · ·A.· "Promote" means to encourage or to ·publicize -- it depends on what -- in what ·context, but to promote means to -- it's -·it's a forward motion.· It's a -- it's a move ·in that direction, so... · · ·Q.· So if you take somebody who is ·currently not allowed to vote, and you tell ·them that they are allowed to vote, doesn't ·that promote their voter registration and ·electoral participation? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'd like to now think of it ·from the standpoint under the current law after ·somebody's rights have been restored.· So when ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·they finish their felony probation, for ·instance, or post-release supervision. · · · · ·Does the State Board have any factual ·evidence that having withheld that person's ·voting rights for the duration of their ·community supervision promotes their voter ·registration or electoral participation after ·their rights are restored? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague and · · ·confusing. · · ·A.· I don't know that we have that ·information.· No, I do not know. · · ·Q.· I'll move on now to "streamline," the ·verb "streamline" or "streamlining." · · · · ·Is the State Board asserting that, as a ·factual, in present day, the disenfranchisement ·of persons on probation, parole, or ·post-release supervision streamlines voter ·registration and electoral participation among ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies? · · ·A.· I think -- actually, will you state ·your question one more time, please? · · ·Q.· Sure.· Is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, today, the ·disenfranchisement of people on probation, Page 184 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·parole, or post-release supervision streamlines ·voter registration and electoral participation ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies? · · ·A.· I don't know that we are asserting ·that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board have any ·factual evidence that disenfranchising people ·on probation, parole, or post-release ·supervision streamlines voter registration and ·electoral participation among North Carolinians ·convicted of felonies? · · ·A.· I cannot say yes to the question that ·you're asking. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board of ·Elections believe that the current ·disenfranchisement scheme streamlines voter ·registration and electoral participation among ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies more ·than the regime sought by plaintiffs? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· And this is · · ·outside the scope and it violates the · · ·Court's order. · · · · ·Karen, I'm going to instruct you not to · · ·answer that question, because it requires · · ·you to do some legal analysis. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Paul, I'm asking as a · · ·factual matter with the word · · ·"streamlining." · · · · ·MR. COX:· I understand, Dan.· But · · ·you're asking her to interpret two · · ·different legal schemes and to apply those · · ·legal schemes to a set of facts.· That's · · ·why I'm objecting.· If you want to ask a · · ·question that's purely factual in nature, I · · ·won't object. ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· Okay.· You recall how I defined the ·regime that plaintiffs are seeking in this ·case; is that right? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Does the State Board have any reason to ·doubt that such a regime would streamline voter ·registration and electoral participation among ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies? · · ·A.· The Board has not taken a position on ·that regime, because that is not the law as we ·would administer.· So our ability to streamline ·that process is not determined. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And finally on the verb ·"regulates."· Would you agree with me, Page 183 Page 185 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 186..189 Page 186 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·Ms. Bell, that the regime that plaintiffs seek ·in this case would also, quote, regulate the ·voter registration and electoral participation ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· Be it your regime, or as it stands, ·that that is the administrative capacity of our ·agency, is to regulate the law in that -- as ·it's written. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· So that's all I can answer to is, we ·would administer the law as it's written. · · ·Q.· That's fine.· I'll move on now to ·another bullet point.· And let's look at the ·second one here, which is:· "Simplifying the ·administration of the process to restore the ·rights of citizenship to North Carolinians ·convicted of felonies who have served their ·sentences."· Do you see that one? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And, Ms. Bell, isn't it the case that ·the State Board of Elections administers the ·process of both preventing people with felony ·convictions from voting and then allowing them ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·to reregister to vote once they've completed ·their sentences? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· That is -- we do administer. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, the disenfranchisement of persons on ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·simplifies the administration of the process of ·restoring voting rights to persons with felony ·convictions? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· As I read this bullet point, what the ·State Board is asserting is that we are charged ·with the administration of the process. · · ·Q.· Well, Ms. Bell, the bullet point says ·"simplify."· And so what I'm asking is:· Is the ·State Board asserting, as a factual matter, ·today, disenfranchising people on community ·supervision, simplifies the administration of ·the process of restoring voting rights? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.· Misstates · · ·the evidence. Page 188 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· State your question again, please. · · ·Q.· Sure.· Is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, the disenfranchisement of persons on ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·simplifies the administration of the process of ·restoring voting rights to people with felony ·convictions? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I don't -- I don't know that that's the ·assertion that's being made here. · · ·Q.· What is the assertion that's being made ·here, in your view? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for a legal · · ·conclusion. · · ·Q.· Let me ask it this way:· Ms. Bell, are ·you -- I just want to make sure I understand ·your last answer -- are you saying that the ·second bullet point listed here is asserting ·something different from what I asked? · · ·A.· I'm saying that what you may define as ·simplifying may not be what I define as ·simplifying. · · ·Q.· Okay.· How would you define ·"simplifying"? ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· My perspective, as the executive ·director, is that simplifying could be ·efficiencies in how we administer a process. ·Or it could be -- simplified could be the fact ·that we use technology even though that's not a ·simple process. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And so under your definition of ·"simplify," whatever that is, is the State ·Board of Elections asserting that, as a factual ·matter, in present day, the disenfranchisement ·of people on community supervision simplifies ·the administration of the process of restoring ·voting rights to people with felony ·convictions? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I will state that I don't believe the ·State Board has issued a policy or made an ·assertion to that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board of ·Elections have any factual evidence that ·disenfranchising people on probation, parole, ·or post-release supervision simplifies the ·administration of the process of restoring ·voting rights? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. Page 187 Page 189 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 190..193 Page 190 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· I do not know. · · ·Q.· So sitting here today, there's no ·factual evidence you could point me to? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I do not know.· I would defer to the ·Attorney General's Office. · · ·Q.· But in your capacity -- and I'm sorry ·to keep asking -- but in your capacity as, you ·know, a designated witness for the State Board ·of Elections, sitting here today, you can't ·personally point me to any evidence, factual ·evidence, that disenfranchising people on ·community supervision simplifies administration ·of the process of restoring voting rights? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · ·A.· I cannot.· To me, the question is about ·the administration of elections. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· Or bullet point, rather.· I'm sorry. · · ·Q.· That's okay.· You recall that we talked ·about earlier about how, under the regime that ·plaintiffs seek, the state and county boards of ·elections may need to process data on far fewer ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·people, maybe as much as half as many people, ·because those people wouldn't be sentenced to a ·term of imprisonment?· Do you remember that? · · ·A.· I believe you presented that as a ·hypothetical. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So assuming, again, that that ·hypothetical, you know, under that ·hypothetical, processing data on fewer people ·makes administration of the process easier, ·right? · · ·A.· I believe I answered your previous ·question to say that I would want to look into ·that more and make sure that I understand what ·those changes would mean and whether that would ·change our processes. · · ·Q.· Okay.· But everything else being ·equal -- and I hear what you're saying -- but ·everything else being equal, processing data on ·fewer people makes administration of any ·process easier, right? · · ·A.· I don't believe I can concur with that, ·because it -- are we comparing apples to ·apples?· Are the procedures going to change in ·terms of what we would need to administer? ·Reducing the quantity doesn't necessarily Page 192 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·simplify the process or reduce the process. ·There may be other elements introduced. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll turn now to another bullet ·in the top -- the first full bullet on page 5, ·which says:· "Avoiding confusion among North ·Carolinians convicted of felonies as to when ·their rights are restored." · · · · ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· And is it correct, Ms. Bell, that the ·State Board of Elections interacts with voters ·who may have confusion about their eligibility ·to vote due to a felony conviction? · · ·A.· It's correct that the State Board of ·Elections interacts with voters, felon or not ·felon. · · ·Q.· But including voters who may have ·confusion about their eligibility, right? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· Is the Board of Elections asserting ·that, as a factual matter, in present day, the ·disenfranchisement of people on probation, ·parole, or post-release supervision avoids ·confusion among North Carolinians convicted of ·felonies as to when their rights are restored? ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· State your question again, please. · · ·Q.· Is the North Carolina Board of ·Elections asserting that, as a factual matter, ·in present day, the disenfranchisement of ·people on probation, parole, or post-release ·supervision avoids confusion among North ·Carolinians convicted of felonies as to when ·their rights are restored? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I don't believe that the State Board ·has stated one way or the other that the ·disenfranchisement of felons avoids confusion, ·if that's your question. · · ·Q.· So I just want to clarify, because you ·said the disenfranchisement of felons, and my ·question is specific to the disenfranchisement ·of people with felony convictions who are on ·some form of community service. · · ·A.· Okay.· So your clarification, go ahead, ·please. · · ·Q.· So with that clarification, is the ·State Board asserting that, as a factual ·matter, in present day, the disenfranchisement ·of such people who are on community supervision Page 191 Page 193 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 194..197 Page 194 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·avoids confusion among North Carolinians ·convicted of felonies as to when their rights ·are restored? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I don't believe that the State Board ·has asserted that disenfranchising such persons ·avoids confusion. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board have any ·factual evidence that disenfranchising people ·on probation, parole, or post-release ·supervision avoids confusion among persons ·convicted of felonies about their eligibility ·to vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I don't know of factual evidence about ·the enfranchise or disenfranchisement, if such ·person exists. · · ·Q.· So my question was a little bit ·different.· It was about avoiding confusion. · · · · ·And so my question is:· Does the State ·Board have any factual evidence that ·disenfranchising people on community ·supervision avoids confusion? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I don't know of factual evidence -- ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· -- that we have to that effect of ·disenfranchising such persons avoids confusion. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And do you recall that we talked ·earlier about the examples and high-profile ·examples of whether people who voted who ·weren't allowed to vote and were prosecuted who ·said that they just didn't know that they ·ineligible?· Do you remember that? · · ·A.· I remember that news article, yes. · · ·Q.· And, you know, with the Alamance 12 and ·the four individuals in Hoke County?· Do you ·remember that? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· So as to those individuals, the current ·disenfranchisement scheme did not avoid ·confusion, right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I don't think I can make that ·determination based upon one news article. · · ·Q.· Okay.· You recall that we talked ·earlier about how some of the State Board's ·forms and manuals failed to mention ·post-release supervision, right? Page 196 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· And you can correct me if I'm wrong, ·but I think you've acknowledged that it's at ·least possible that some persons would be -- on ·post-release supervision would be confused by ·that omission? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates prior · · ·testimony. · · ·A.· I don't -- I don't recall that I stated ·that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll just ask you, then.· Do you ·believe it's, at least, possible that some ·people on post-release supervision could be ·confused by the omission of post-release ·supervision on those forms and manuals? · · ·A.· I believe I stated that I don't know ·whether that creates confusion or not. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, do you agree that ·compared to the current disenfranchisement ·scheme, a much less confusing role would be ·that if you're not in prison, you're allowed to ·vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· Would you state your question one more ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·time, please? · · ·Q.· Sure.· Would you agree that compared to ·the current scheme, a much less confusing role ·would be that if you're not incarcerated or in ·prison, you're allowed to vote? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I don't -- one, I don't think I have a ·point of comparison, because we have not had ·the regime that you suggest to determine ·whether that would create confusion or not. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Well, let's think about this ·from the perspective of election administrators ·and poll workers and so on.· And, actually, I ·think they're active workers. · · · · ·Wouldn't it be much less confusing for ·them to just know that if somebody is not ·incarcerated, they're allowed to vote? · · ·A.· As compared to? · · ·Q.· Just in general.· If somebody shows up ·to vote in person, that means they're not ·incarcerated, right? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Is that a question? ·BY MR. JACOBSON: · · ·Q.· I'll ask a question.· If somebody shows Page 195 Page 197 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 198..201 Page 198 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·up at a polling place, they're not ·incarcerated, right?· We can agree on that? · · ·A.· We would assume that. · · ·Q.· I mean, unless -· · ·A.· There was a gentleman who was ·incarcerated who was out and about last week, ·so... · · ·Q.· Okay.· As a general matter, unless the ·State Board of Elections is planning on opening ·polling places in prisons, we can agree that if ·a person shows up at a polling place, they're ·not physically incarcerated, right? · · ·A.· That would -- I think that would be the ·assumption, yes. · · ·Q.· And so wouldn't it be very simple for ·election officials to know that because that ·person is not incarcerated, they're not ·disqualified by virtue of a felony conviction? · · ·A.· Did you ask if it would be easier?· Was ·that your question? · · ·Q.· Would it be straightforward?· You're an ·election official, right?· You can just know, ·if the person is here physically, they're not ·incarcerated, and so they're not disqualified ·because of any felony conviction. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· No matter -· · ·Q.· When that -· · ·A.· No matter the circumstance, it's going ·to still be our job to ensure that they meet ·the qualifications. · · ·Q.· Okay. · · ·A.· So I don't determine -- just like I ·don't determine age by looking at someone. I ·ask that question. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll turn to the next bullet -·or a bullet here:· "Eliminating burdens on ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies to take ·extra steps to have their rights restored after ·having completed their sentences." · · · · ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, the disenfranchisement of people on ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·eliminates burdens on North Carolinians ·convicted of felonies to take extra steps to ·have their rights restored after having ·completed their sentence? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the Page 200 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·evidence and is vague. · · · · ·Actually, I'll withdraw the "Misstates · · ·the evidence," because I don't think that · · ·you're referring to that.· My bad, Dan. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· No problem. · · ·A.· State your question one more time. · · ·Q.· Sure.· Is the State Board of Election ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, the disenfranchisement of people on ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·eliminates burdens on North Carolinians ·convicted of felonies to take extra steps to ·have their rights restored after having ·completed their sentences? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I don't believe the State Board is ·asserting that.· I think -- I don't believe the ·State Board is asserting that. · · ·Q.· Does the State Board of Elections have ·any factual evidence that disenfranchising ·people on probation, parole, or post-release ·supervision eliminates burdens on North ·Carolinians convicted of felonies to take extra ·steps to have their rights restored? · · ·A.· I do not know. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· So sitting here today, you can't point ·me to any factual evidence of such? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and · · ·answered. · · · · ·Karen, you can answer that question · · ·again. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I'm reading the · · ·statement. · · ·A.· I do not know. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Under the regime that plaintiffs ·seek in this case, where you're eligible to ·vote if you're not in prison, does the State ·Board have any evidence or reason to believe ·that that would impose additional burdens on ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies to take ·extra steps to have their rights restored? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· Since that has not been the law, we ·would not have anything to come to for that. · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll turn to the second-to-last ·one now:· "Encouraging compliance with court ·orders." · · · · ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· I do. Page 199 Page 201 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 202..205 Page 202 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, the disenfranchisement of people on ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·encourages compliance with court orders? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· Do you want to clarify? · · ·Q.· I can repeat the question. · · ·A.· Okay. · · ·Q.· Does the State Board of Elections -·I'm sorry.· Is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, the disenfranchisement of people on ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·encourages compliance with court orders? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. · · ·A.· I don't think that there's an assertion ·here.· I think that what this states is that we ·are ensuring the compliance with court orders ·that would not allow someone to vote if they ·are a felon as the law is written. · · ·Q.· So I'm going to ask you to assume that ·"court orders" in this sentence refers to the ·terms of somebody's probation or parole or ·post-release supervision.· You know, you have ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·to be present once a week before your officer, ·you owe this amount of money, et cetera, ·et cetera. · · · · ·Will you accept that representation? · · ·A.· I will. · · ·Q.· Okay.· So if that's what "court orders" ·means here, is the State Board asserting that, ·as a factual matter, in present day, the ·disenfranchisement of people on community ·supervision encourages compliance with court ·orders? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation.· Vague. · · ·A.· If the court order is that they have ·not completed their sentence, then we are ·administering the law as it's written. · · ·Q.· But is the State Board asserting that ·the fact that disenfranchisement encourages ·individuals convicted of felonies to comply ·with the terms of their probation, parole, or ·post-release supervision? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation.· Vague. · · ·A.· I don't know that the State Board has ·asserted that. Page 204 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board have any ·factual evidence that withholding voting rights ·to people on probation, parole, or post-release ·supervision leads to greater compliance with ·court orders? · · ·A.· I don't know that we have evidence one ·way or the other. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board have any ·evidence that the disenfranchisement regime ·that plaintiffs are seeking in this case would ·be to less compliance with court orders? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for · · ·speculation. · · ·A.· I don't know that we have anything one ·way or the other. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Last one:· "Ensuring that all ·persons convicted of felonies fully satisfy ·their obligations before their citizenship ·rights are restored." · · · · ·Do you see that? · · ·A.· Yes. · · ·Q.· What does "obligations" mean in this ·bullet point? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for a legal · · ·conclusion.· Calls for speculation. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· The way I read this bullet point is ·that the State Board and, therefore, the county ·boards of elections, ensure that all persons ·convicted of felony offenses fully satisfy ·their obligations before their rights of ·citizenship are restored.· So if they are ·registering to vote, if they are able to answer ·the question regarding their status of -- their ·felony status. · · ·Q.· Okay.· And that's -- and just to ·clarify, that's what "obligation" means here? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Call for a legal · · ·conclusion.· Calls for speculation. · · ·A.· That would be my interpretation, that ·that is not -- I don't know what the legal ·definition would be. · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, disenfranchising people on community ·supervision ensures that all people convicted ·of felonies fully satisfy their obligations ·before their rights of citizenship are ·restored? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.· Calls for · · ·speculation. Page 203 Page 205 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 206..209 Page 206 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·A.· State your question one more time, ·please. · · ·Q.· Sure.· Is the State Board of Elections ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·day, ensuring that disenfranchising people on ·community supervision ensures that all people ·convicted of felony offenses fully satisfy ·their obligations before their rights of ·citizenship are restored? · · · · ·MR. COX:· Same objections. · · ·A.· As the law is written currently, which ·we administer, community supervision or ·community -- I believe you said community ·supervision or community service? · · ·Q.· Community supervision, yeah. · · ·A.· Community supervision would mean that ·they had not fulfilled their obligations and, ·therefore, would not be allowed to register to ·vote. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· I believe I'm · · ·done with questions, but I'd like to take · · ·two minutes just to confer with my · · ·colleagues to make sure I didn't miss · · ·anything. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay. ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Let's go off the record · · ·for two minutes. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Sure. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Thanks. · · · · ·(Recess from 1:33 to 1:36 p.m.) · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Back on the record. · · · · ·Plaintiffs have no further questions · · ·for now subject to reserving the right to · · ·re-cross if anyone else asks questions. · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION ·BY MR. COX: · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll ask just a couple of ·questions, Karen. · · · · ·And for the record, this is Paul Cox ·from the Attorney General's Office. · · · · ·Do you recall that you and Mr. Jacobson ·were discussing a 2017 audit report produced by ·the State Board of Elections? · · ·A.· I do. · · ·Q.· Do you recall that there was a ·discussion about false positives in terms of ·the number of people that the investigators ·determined had voted illegally because they ·were serving a felony sentence? · · ·A.· I do. Page 208 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· · · ·Q.· Do you know whether those investigators ·were relying on the same data that the State ·Board of Elections gets to identify people ·serving an active sentence and are registered ·voters when they perform that audit to make ·those determinations about people who voted ·while serving a felony sentence? · · ·A.· I don't know precisely what all data ·was used.· I would assume that that was part of ·the data, if not all.· I don't know. · · ·Q.· But you don't know for sure? · · ·A.· I don't know for sure. · · ·Q.· Just a couple of quick questions. · · · · ·Roughly how long do you think you spent ·preparing for this deposition between ·conversations with attorneys, conversations ·with staff, reviewing the materials, and any ·other preparation you undertook? · · ·A.· I would say, including the time that I ·spent reading documents, 8 to 10, maybe ·12 hours. · · ·Q.· And if you can just kind of give us a ·general synopsis of the things you weren't able ·to do today because you were preparing -- or ·today or yesterday or any day before that -- ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20· 21· 22· 23· 24· 25· ·because you were preparing for this deposition ·or upon conducting your deposition? · · ·A.· I postponed meetings pertaining to the ·absentee by mail envelope that we need to have ·sent to printers this week. · · · · ·I've postponed a meeting dealing with ·voter registration and enhancements in our ·SEIMS system that we need to have out.· We need ·to have tested, developed -- or excuse me -·developed, tested, and ready to go out during ·our release on August 28th. · · · · ·I postponed a meeting dealing with our ·help desk process improvement and incident ·escalation. · · · · ·I am not able to work on the tracking ·of our responses to COVID-19. · · · · ·We have numerous follow-ups after ·awarding our CARES Act funds to the counties. · · · · ·I am currently trying to work with ·possible income contributions for our PPE, and ·I can't do that while I'm in depositions. · · · · ·We have a new director of training ·going on that I could not further participate ·in. · · · · ·We have a state conference that's Page 207 Page 209 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 210..211 Page 210 ·1· ·2· ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18· 19· 20 21 22 23 24 25 ·coming up that I need to be prepared for. · · · · ·I could go on, but that's some of the ·things that immediately come to mind. · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay.· Thank you.· No further · · ·questions. · · · · ·Brian, do you have any questions? · · · · ·MR. RABINOVITZ:· There are no questions · · ·from the legislative defendants. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Nothing further from the · · ·plaintiffs. · · · · ·Ms. Bell, I truly do appreciate your · · ·time today.· Thank you. · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you. · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· So plaintiffs will take · · ·one copy, and you can send it to me. · · · · ·MR. COX:· And defendants will take one · · ·copy, electronic. · · · · ·(Time noted: 1:42 p.m.) · · · · ·(Signature waived.) ·1· ·2 ·3· ·4· ·5 ·6· · · ·7· · · ·8· · · ·9 · · 10· · · 11· · · 12 · · 13· · · 14· · · 15· 16· · · 17 18 · · 19· · · 20· 21 · · 22· 23 24 25 · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE Page 211 ·NORTH CAROLINA· ) ·WAKE COUNTY· · ·) · · · · · I, Denise Y. Meek, a Court Reporter and ·Notary Public in and for the State of North Carolina, ·do hereby certify that prior to the commencement of ·the examination, KAREN BRINSON BELL, was duly ·remotely sworn by me to testify to the truth, the ·whole truth, and nothing but the truth. · · · · · I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is a ·verbatim transcript of the testimony as taken ·stenographically by me at the time, place, and on the ·date hereinbefore set forth, to the best of my ·ability. · · · · · I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a ·relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any ·of the parties to this action, and that I am neither ·a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel ·hereto, and that I am not financially interested in ·the action. · · · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my ·hand this 31st day of July 2020. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ____________________________ DENISE Y. MEEK Court Reporter/Notary Public State of North Carolina · · · · · · · · · · · · · COMMISSION:· 201519500202 · · · · · · · · · · · · · EXPIRATION:· July 8, 2025 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: 1..7 102:10 132 1 145:11 14 1 7:23 8:25 12:23 83:13 86:23 1.a 7:25 1.f 8:1 91:2 208:20 10 13:8,10 77:19,20, 25 78:5 131:15 124:4 139:19 17 83:20, 25 84:16 52:3 11:16 110:6 11:26 110:4 11:28 110:6 2018 1:33 207:5 1:36 207:5 1:42 210:18 51:20 2 78:4 80:1,8 81:19 82:4 20 2006 19:13, 24 72:12 99:9 124:4,22 125:16 126:8 2020 12:24 159:5 12:32 159:5 12:51 176:10 12:55 176:10 132:12 143:22 13 13-1 15 8:7,9, 17:12 16:3 71:20 72:1,3 80:21 81:17 130:4 2016 71:22 119:13 122:17 123:14,16 124:3,5,12 125:13 126:5 405 96:10 112:3 127:25 128:3 406 408 76:16 72:24 128:6 409 76:19 77:4,20 441 103:6 282 34:7 283 39:18 28:13 40:16 286 28th 17:12 19:14 2015 40 71:22 256 2011 19:21 129:25 130:2,9,14 132:20 195:11 208:21 12 132:13 12:23 16:4 144:21 21 2 23 92:5 161:2,3 172:14 2019 1994 100 10:02 207:17 72:23 30 5 209:11 3 3 5 96:10 83:13 86:23 172:14 192:4 50 537 154:3 98:4,12 77:3,4, 16,20 78:5 541 30(b)(6) 7:22 8:3, 13 303 106:24 333 53:10 351 91:1 352 83:11 2017 557 99:13 558 100:3 6 6 99:20 7 4 4 91:5,21, 7 119:16 159:17,24 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: 8..advising accept 8 8 208:20 80 154:6 9 9 130:9 9:55 52:3 A 52:3 110:6 a.m. abbreviated 73:11 abbreviation 73:12 ability 27:12,20 43:17 52:24 53:5 87:9 102:17 147:14,25 148:16 185:22 abridges 175:17 absentee 94:22 95:11 96:1 110:21 111:17 209:4 65:19,21, 23 143:6 149:8,17 152:7,15, 20 160:17 203:4 access 39:5 accurate 10:8 27:12,20 52:25 53:5 71:15 83:1 92:3 95:1 98:25 102:17 115:7 acknowledged 196:3 83:20 84:17 209:18 Act actions 122:5 active 31:10,20 32:5,9,20 33:15,19 34:2 38:6, 17 42:7,8 74:9 75:11 76:1 78:23 116:17 121:24 122:7,22 123:6,18 124:8,15 126:2 128:11 150:22 153:1 197:15 208:4 20:2 160:10 actual add 156:6 adding 156:4 additional 157:17 201:14 address 42:11,17, 25 114:7,9 121:4 administer 14:6,7 17:21 18:9 45:6 140:8 146:16 170:6 181:11 185:22 186:13 187:4 189:3 191:24 206:12 administering 178:3 203:16 186:23 administration 13:7 16:13,16, 21 17:23 22:25 45:10 148:17 186:17 187:11,17, 22 188:6 189:12,23 190:14,19 191:9,19 administrative 14:12 120:3,6 146:15 186:8 administrator 135:5 137:23 administrators 16:12 140:8 197:13 admit 73:16 75:5 advice 93:23 advisable 93:13,18, 22 advise 54:19 advising administers 41:2,6 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: affirm..application affirm 118:14,22 122:6 124:14 125:8 affirmation 91:4 affirmatively 80:25 162:24 163:24 afraid African 130:10,25 age 163:20 199:8 agencies 150:9 15:20 17:5,8 50:4,18 51:11 73:17 163:21 168:11,18 172:2,4, 21,25 186:9 agency agree 32:14 59:21 97:19 106:22 168:4,7,8 169:1 193:20 ahead 131:16 133:4,25 AG's 133:7 134:10,19 136:19 138:6 142:3,10 144:3 175:22 176:4 185:25 196:18 197:2 198:2,10 48:1,6 96:8 104:23 118:8 131:3 Alamance 129:25 130:3 131:4 195:11 allegedly 130:21 allowed 13:25 15:5 58:13 59:19,24 85:22 105:14,20, 23 136:21 138:25 146:21 151:5,20 152:5 156:20 181:13,16 182:2,18, 19 195:7 196:21 197:5,18 206:18 allowing 186:25 76:20 121:14,15 aloud 125:17 126:10 146:6 alter altered another's 48:12 answering 50:20 104:21 165:6 166:21 171:9 answers 24:19 105:19 AOC 127:3 apologize 93:19 94:4 Altering 147:6 amend 83:17 86:5 87:1 and/or 110:15 amended 110:19,20 111:14 159:16 American 121:6 176:11 apparently 121:1 appears 82:25 appendix 119:16 Apple 130:10,25 106:19 apples amount 158:23 203:2 analogous 63:1 analysis 81:10 184:25 191:22,23 application 54:21 94:22 112:11 135:10 141:1 144:11,18 145:12 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: applies..attorney's applies 93:15 85:21 95:10 96:1 185:6 apply 71:22 April area 158:12 areas 129:14 Argumentative 126:21 arises 122:1 Arnold 6:10 article 131:25 132:11,18 134:2 195:10,21 articles 130:17 101:2 160:1,19 170:3,9 207:9 asks aspect 15:4 21:5 Assembly 84:1 80:17 90:7 124:4 157:23 assert 180:15,20 194:6 203:25 asserting 173:25 176:21 177:10,16 178:13 179:4 183:15,24 184:4 187:8,16, 20 188:3, 19 189:9 192:20 193:4,23 199:18 200:8,17, 18 202:2, 12 203:7, 17 205:18 206:4 assertion 49:3 179:24 180:6 181:1 188:11,12 189:18 202:17 assertions 7:25 175:10 asserts asserted 178:20 179:13,14 180:4 assigned 19:19 attention 83:12 96:16 107:19 131:5,7 145:11 assisted 20:14 associate 109:8 association 104:18 56:7, 11 77:25 82:1,2 104:9 117:18 198:3 202:22 208:9 assume assumed 16:3 Assumes 13:20 48:21 95:4 assuming 81:12 191:6 assumption 104:22 173:13 198:14 assurance 50:19,23 Atkinson 6:13 26:18 attachment 119:12 attempts 58:18 36:3 59:22 60:3 61:4 76:7 100:24 attest attested 61:7 62:9 attesting 63:10 attests 60:2,10 attorney 6:5,22 9:9 21:24 22:13 44:15 130:19 162:2,5, 12,16 163:3 166:14 167:9,19 169:4 171:19 173:14 178:21,25 190:7 207:15 attorney's 53:15,24 54:8 57:21 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: attorney-client..Bates 58:10 59:9,16 60:12 61:3 attorneyclient 174:15 175:2,16, 18 attorneys 122:3 128:25 162:1 208:16 audio 27:15 71:8, 19 72:2, 10,12,19 74:12 75:20 76:4,5,6 79:25 80:5,15, 22,24 81:25 119:12 127:18,22 207:17 208:5 audit 72:8, 17 74:1,5 75:19,23 76:8 78:12 79:5 81:6, 9 82:13,14 audits August 132:12 209:11 authority 55:24 93:10 Authorization 99:21 73:21 195:16 avoid avoiding 192:5 194:19 avoids 192:23 193:7,13 194:1,7, 11,23 195:3 126:1 129:18,22 130:2,9, 13,18,24 138:16,22 139:19 140:1,3 144:20 145:2 148:24 151:16 154:25 155:4 156:12 162:4,24 169:18 170:13 181:2 B awaiting 141:12 34:6 38:1 40:16 62:13 76:15 90:25 109:11 110:4,8,14 112:1 127:16 158:19,21 159:7 176:11 207:6 back awarding 209:18 9:21 10:5 23:13 44:19,25 45:12 66:5 69:20 83:25 97:10 108:15,25 112:24 113:13 117:7 121:21,22 122:5 125:24 aware 46:2 200:4 bad ballot 20:9 95:11 ballots 20:4 96:1 ballpark 35:23 18:10, 12 40:12 44:7,8 62:16 63:5 78:2 82:5 93:3 122:19 136:17 146:5,7,9 153:10 195:21 based 36:6, 12 56:24 74:16 75:9 78:22 80:18 148:20 157:4 basis 28:13 34:7 53:10 72:24 76:16 83:11 97:24 98:4 99:13 100:3 102:10 103:5 106:24 112:3 127:25 Bates www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Bear..board 128:2 Bear 78:18 began 12:23 begin 111:5 begins 121:16 149:2,16 begun 11:8 behalf 6:23 believes 129:9 7:1,9 9:2,7,12 13:23 14:24 15:11 23:12 34:8 35:16 39:19 40:23 41:5 49:10 51:14 52:6,14 53:11 62:4,10 63:19 64:17 66:15 71:2,7,18, 25 73:1 78:15,17, 20 82:22 83:5,12,19 84:7,15 85:19 86:1 Bell 88:12,18 90:3 91:2, 22 92:12 93:8 94:18 95:9,24 98:5,18 99:3,19 100:4 102:12 103:7 104:1 107:2 108:15 110:7 112:4 114:21 117:12 119:9,20 121:11 122:16 123:3 126:14 127:4,20 129:18 133:1 134:10 138:15 140:19 141:17 142:19 144:20 145:20 148:24 157:3 159:11,19 160:9 161:22 166:12 175:8,20, 23 176:16 178:23 181:3,12 186:1,22 187:18 188:16 192:10 196:18 210:11 Biennial 52:10 26:14 52:17 53:3 82:16 103:12 169:15 194:18 bit blanket 80:14 6:6 8:5,22 12:20 13:6,9 14:10 15:3,11 19:12 21:6 23:14,22 25:4,5,13 26:2 27:13,21, 23 28:2,3, 18,24 29:11,23 36:19 37:1 40:9,14 41:10,17, board 18 43:2 44:4 46:5, 12,13,17, 23 47:3,7, 17,20,21 49:17,24 50:12 53:1,6,13 55:4,12,16 56:2,12, 17,18,22 57:5,10 62:4,5,25 64:2 67:4, 14,22 68:3 69:7,17 70:4,5,18, 19 71:16, 19 72:2,7, 11,13,20 73:7,13 75:9 77:2, 15 78:10, 21,25 79:13 83:2,6 89:7 90:5 93:9,14,25 94:3 95:2, 9 97:6 99:1,4 102:18 103:1,3 107:6,10, 13 112:9 113:24 115:8,12 119:7 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Board's..bullet 120:11,17 122:20 123:4,17 124:6,12, 21 125:13, 15,24,25 126:9,25 127:1 128:23 129:3,8,16 130:20 133:23 135:8,20 136:1 137:1,9,13 145:23 148:2,19 152:25 153:6 155:13,22 157:4 160:1,20 161:6,7 162:6,18, 25 163:15, 25 166:14, 23 167:10, 20 168:10, 11,17 169:5,19 170:14 171:2,20 172:3,20, 25 173:10, 15,24 176:20 177:10,15, 24 178:4, 13,19 179:4,13, 15 180:8, 15 183:3, 15,23 184:6,14 185:16,20 186:23 187:7,16, 20 188:2 189:9,17, 19 190:10 192:11,14, 20 193:3, 11,23 194:5,8,21 198:9 199:17 200:7,16, 18,19 201:13 202:1,10, 11 203:7, 17,24 204:1,8 205:2,17 206:3 207:18 208:3 7:22 8:3,8,12 13:13,17 14:3 21:17 121:21 159:16 178:24 195:23 Board's 13:8, 10 43:12 44:10 45:1 53:21 54:5,11 56:3,6 67:15 68:13 69:15,20 72:21 137:1 153:13,21 154:1,10 172:24 190:24 205:3 boards 112:15 book border 68:9 95:7 132:18 172:14 bottom bounds box 8:21 143:24 10:10, 11 51:23 106:8,12, 16 109:23 110:18 117:13 158:9,18, 21 175:20 176:1 break 6:21 158:23 210:6 Brian briefed 21:12 bring 23:4 9:2, 12 90:2 Brinson broad 118:5 16:9 broadly brochure 114:3,6 115:4,16 brochures 47:14 bubble 148:12 bullet 30:14 41:25 76:18,22, 25 77:13 78:3 103:20 145:15,19 161:4 165:17,18 166:5 172:19 173:9,16 175:9 186:15 187:15,18 188:19 190:21 192:3,4 199:10,11 204:23 205:1 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: bullets..Carolina's bullets 164:9,10, 12,20,21 165:2 166:19 167:16 171:5,23 burdens 199:11,21 200:11,22 201:14 120:24 121:2 buy C caliber 157:12 140:17 205:12 call 30:24 32:16 33:9 37:7 62:13 64:3 84:18 154:22 155:22 called 34:25 36:1 43:6 44:13 45:22 47:10 48:10 65:2 84:11 87:8 93:2 100:21 101:7,15 calls 104:5,15 105:8 108:20 109:4,5,16 117:19 118:2 131:18 133:12 134:15 141:21 142:8 146:2 153:8,24 173:11,18 182:5 186:5 188:14 195:18 196:23 197:6 201:17 203:12,22 204:12,24, 25 205:13, 24 campaign 13:11 17:22 53:22 54:6 57:24 cancel canceled 74:19 79:10 80:9 81:5,20 82:5,7 153:15 cancellation 79:2 candidates 138:14 capability 43:18 capacity 10:17,19 12:3,9 14:18 15:8,17 16:2 19:8 20:23 133:22 135:25 136:10 186:8 190:8,9 capital 160:13,14 capitals 73:5 45:9 careful CARES 209:18 Carolina 6:5,22 12:20 13:5,25 17:10,17, 24 18:4,12 28:19 29:1,13 30:5,8,20 31:11,21, 25 32:1,6, 22,23 33:6,8,13, 21 34:3 45:16 51:16 55:5 56:2 57:10 59:1 62:17 64:1 65:9 66:13,19, 25 67:2,17 68:8,10, 11,12,14, 16,19,21, 24,25 69:1,2,4, 18 70:11, 12 73:13 84:1,9,17 99:6 108:17 109:1 116:3 121:9 122:13 144:23 146:5,9,25 148:25 149:13 151:1 152:17 154:20 160:16 172:21 193:3 Carolina's 19:23 69:13 85:20 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Carolinians..clarify 146:20 Carolinians 172:17 173:2 174:5 177:1,21 178:18 179:8,20 180:2,11 183:20 184:3,10, 18 185:19 186:4,18 192:6,24 193:8 194:1 199:12,21 200:11,23 201:15 Carpenter 6:17 9:9 10:25 11:2,3,9, 10,12,17 12:8 21:13 22:7,10 23:16,24 25:14,20 26:2 27:22 53:2,7 71:16 83:3 99:1 102:19 104:20 107:7 109:13 case 117:14,22 118:11,20 122:20 123:3 130:7 138:17 139:6 141:18 143:5 144:24 146:1,14, 25 147:2 149:20 154:9 157:6 171:12,22, 25 172:2 182:1 185:14 186:2,22 201:11 204:10 12:1 73:25 76:19 77:20 128:23 132:20 148:14 cases cast 20:3,8 Center 15:25 Certificate 94:23 Certification 96:16 certify 112:18 50:6,8 cetera 203:2,3 challenge 103:18 challenged 103:10 60:17 85:1 94:6 95:15,17 97:7,11 124:23 141:19,24 143:2,13 146:4,7 147:3,22 148:3,4,10 191:15,23 change changed 88:4,9 97:9,17 141:24 144:21 changing 147:7 92:1 177:13 93:24 charged 16:18 187:16 13:4 chief 15:25 choice 16:18 circulation 117:1 circumstance 199:3 circumstances 79:1 cite 157:18,25 180:25 citizen 88:2 citizenship 61:24 108:2 161:9 186:18 204:18 205:6,22 206:9 city characterizing charge checklist 16:15 clarification 48:24 89:5,8,10 139:14 165:16 169:12 193:20,22 clarify 113:4 143:25 check 30:21 37:25 39:8 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: clarifying..conclusion 68:5,20 73:6 93:14 111:13 115:23 125:2 168:3,6,24 169:14 193:15 202:7 205:11 clarifying 120:7 168:1 clarity 49:8 58:14 87:13 109:6,21 144:4,5,6 clear client 174:25 colleagues 206:23 collecting Columbia 139:20 142:22 143:3 column 107:21 committed 57:7 85:4 communication 45:18 47:6,16 48:3,15 50:5,18 166:22 communications 50:23 174:19 175:3,16 community 100:24 147:5 23:19 common 66:18,24 138:25 179:6 180:9 182:2 183:6 187:21 189:11 190:14 193:19,25 194:22 203:9 205:19 206:6,12, 13,14,15, 16 company 17:2 comparable 64:12 compared 196:19 197:2,19 191:22 completing comparison 107:24 135:18 197:9 complete 10:4,7 51:6 181:18 completed 14:25 15:6 33:10,11, 25 41:7 42:1 47:15 50:3,9 55:7,14,18 61:4,18 62:13,15, 16 63:4,12 64:3,4 70:6,23 72:10 83:16 85:24 86:4,25 88:25 89:19 92:8 96:24 100:11 106:3 112:20 116:5 155:21,24 187:1 199:14,24 200:14 203:15 comparing completes 78:23 60:1 completion 65:7 compliance 13:10 94:8 201:22 202:5,15, 19 203:10 204:4,11 comply 203:19 components 20:8 compound 174:7 177:3,22 computer 121:2 concede 100:18 concern 122:4 conclusion 44:14 84:11 108:21 109:5 124:23 125:17,18 126:10 173:12 188:15 204:25 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: concur..convicted 205:13 concur 191:21 conditions 156:21 conduct 11:14 13:8 72:7,16 78:25 82:14 167:11 conducted 24:15 72:2 80:23 81:9 conducting confuse 100:18 confused 48:8,18 90:20 134:11,21 138:7 196:5,14 confuses 49:4 confusing 41:13 49:7 138:5 183:10 196:20 197:3,16 209:2 15:12 confer 206:22 conference 22:23 209:25 confirm 27:11,19 44:16 52:23 53:4 71:13 79:16 82:25 94:25 98:23 102:16 110:18 94:7 101:5,9 consult consultant 15:24 contact 42:10,16, 24 43:3, 10,13 44:5 contacting 44:10,20 45:2 48:25 90:8,9 100:24 138:3 192:5,12, 18,24 193:7,13 194:1,7, 11,19,23 195:3,17 196:17 197:11 connection 171:11 6:8, 11,15,19, 24 consent considered continues 56:22 contribute 161:17,22 contributions 209:20 conversation 157:13 174:25 conversations 24:10 208:16 conveys 157:1 convicted contents confusion conducts 11:22 17:17 33:15,19 34:2 42:8 93:10 context 62:11 63:8,25 78:17,20, 24 79:25 182:14 continual 36:12 74:15 75:9 78:22 80:18 81:14 continue 56:7 137:3,5 continued 133:15 13:13,18 18:2 28:19,25 29:12 30:4,8,11 31:13 34:14 45:16 46:4,9,11, 16 51:18 52:7 53:16 54:14 55:7,18 56:14 57:13,25 58:8,18 59:5 64:1 65:10,17 66:11,16, 22 68:7,23 70:10 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: conviction..correct 74:16 79:17 83:15 91:6,7 92:6,7 96:22,23 100:9,10 107:16 108:16 109:1 112:19,20 114:1 115:13,19, 21 116:2 127:13 128:9,14 131:14 150:25 151:4,8,10 152:17 172:17 174:5 177:1,21 178:18 179:9,20 180:3,12 183:20 184:3,11, 18 185:19 186:4,19 192:6,24 193:8 194:2,12 199:12,22 200:12,23 201:15 203:19 204:17 205:4,20 206:7 conviction 31:11,15, 16,25 32:5,21 33:12 34:20,23 35:5,25 37:16 38:25 40:2 61:3 62:2, 11 63:9 69:1 72:4 77:4,17 103:23 134:13,20 135:7 141:9 144:1 145:16 151:22 160:23 192:13 198:18,25 convictions 14:14 40:25 41:2 51:16 55:2 57:23 133:3 141:5 150:17 186:25 187:13 188:8 189:14 193:18 copied 24:7 26:19 29:23,24 copies 7:17 8:17 26:22 27:12,20 52:25 53:5 71:15 83:1 95:2 98:25 102:18 115:7 142:20 210:15,17 copy corner 107:11 132:9 coronavirus 11:13,15 95:16 correct 10:24 12:5 14:22 15:7,11 17:16 23:11 26:5 27:17 28:11 29:5,25 30:5,19 31:7,22 32:25 34:5,20,21 35:16,20, 21 36:17, 18,21 40:18 41:9 42:7,9,15, 23 43:1 46:7,14,20 49:15,16 56:21 57:15 58:20 62:10 64:16,21 65:1 66:20 67:3 68:22 69:3 70:3, 17 71:23, 24 72:6 74:21 75:17 76:23 78:8 79:21 92:4,16 93:21 94:24 96:3,13 97:3,4 98:20 99:7 100:17 101:10 102:6,21 103:4 105:24 106:5 107:14,18 108:6,7 113:4,12 114:7,8 116:19 120:18 121:9,10, www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Corrections..coverage 18 122:18 123:15 124:11 125:14,20 126:7,17, 18 129:2 139:16 146:16,23 148:23 150:13 151:2,7 152:13 156:9 164:17 170:12 172:23 180:24 181:15,23 192:10,14 196:2 Corrections 29:19 correctly 33:4 92:2 177:6 correlation 138:10 182:8,9 correspondence 55:24 108:18 109:2 costs council 16:15 counsel 6:14,18 7:14 9:22, 24 21:3,7, 17 24:1,5, 6 25:18,21 26:18 44:16 94:7 135:23 162:11 163:3 166:24 169:13 171:19 174:9 176:2 counties 19:21 20:14 36:6,23 37:5,11,20 38:23 39:3,11 40:18 44:20 209:18 13:8, 10 17:10, 16,23 18:18 19:2,4,7, 13 28:2 30:24 31:13,15 36:11,19, 20 37:22 39:6 40:9, 19 41:10, 18 43:12 county 44:4,9 45:1 46:5, 17,23 47:3,7,17, 21 53:21 54:5,11 56:3,18 61:17 62:5 67:14,22 68:3,13 69:7,15,20 70:5,19 102:25 130:3,19, 25 131:4 135:9 137:1,21 153:13,21 154:1,10 172:23 190:24 195:12 205:2 couple 120:23 207:12 208:13 7:13, 17 8:16 11:2,3 28:20 29:1,13 30:5,9,12, 20 31:12 32:1,22 33:13 47:24 court 51:16 53:17 55:2 62:11 63:8 64:2,18 66:13 69:12,18 89:3 108:18 109:2,13 110:10 138:19 141:17 142:1 145:25 146:6,8, 11,12,24 148:4,14 149:4 156:20 175:17 176:13 201:22 202:5,15, 19,23 203:6,10, 14 204:5, 11 Court's 165:23 184:22 courts 66:12,17, 23 120:3 cover 27:24 99:8 coverage 131:11,13 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: COVID..current COVID 22:22 COVID-19 147:13 209:16 coworkers 113:7 6:4 7:10 13:20 21:15,19 24:5 26:24 28:21 29:3 34:25 36:1 41:13 43:6 44:13 45:22 46:25 47:10 48:10,21 49:21 53:25 63:13 65:2 69:22 70:1 75:2 78:6 80:12 81:7 82:9 83:21 84:10,22 86:10,15 87:6 90:12 92:25 93:17 95:4 97:13,22 100:21 101:7,15 102:4,7 104:5,15 105:2,8,16 106:7,17 Cox 108:13,20 109:4,16 114:14 117:18 118:2 119:10 122:25 123:9,22 124:25 126:21 131:17 133:11,18 134:15 138:5,18 139:13,17 141:21 142:8 146:2 147:19 150:18 153:8,24 157:7 158:2,7, 13,17 162:9,21 163:10,17 164:3 165:15,19, 23 166:7, 20 167:25 168:5,9,14 169:24 170:19 171:8 172:1 173:3,11, 18 174:7, 13,17,22 175:13,22 176:3,7 177:2,22 179:1,10, 21 180:13 182:5 183:9 184:20 185:4 186:5 187:3,14, 24 188:9, 14 189:15, 25 190:4, 16 193:1, 10 194:4, 14,24 195:18 196:7,23 197:6,23 199:25 200:15 201:3,17 202:6,16 203:12,22 204:12,24 205:12,24 206:10,25 207:3,11, 14 210:4, 16 Cox's 167:7 48:24 197:11 create creates 196:17 creating 166:24 53:16 55:7 57:7, 8 58:9 59:5 64:1 68:8,23 106:1 127:7,11 128:9,14 crime 51:18 52:8 54:15 55:18 65:11,17 66:11,16 74:17 crimes criminal 141:5,9 criminally 130:3 criteria 75:16 76:10 79:4,5,7 156:25 157:1 CSI_NCSBE_ 000048 25:1 cumbersome 26:15 8:8 12:10,18 15:21,23 17:4 19:8 28:1 31:1, current www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: cut..defendants' 9,24 32:19 33:11 34:1 38:16 57:5 72:21 73:15 81:3,23 113:13 114:5,11 115:11 117:7 127:5 128:20 140:24 144:16 146:20 147:12 150:14 166:17 167:13,22 169:6,21 170:4,15 171:6,24 182:24 184:15 195:15 196:19 197:3 42:12 53:3 120:6,13 cut cutting 38:8 D dah 125:8,9 29:8, 11 36:6 daily 7:10 97:22 106:7 110:14 114:14 119:10 122:25 125:1 139:13 158:7 165:15 167:2 168:1,5 185:4 200:4 Dan Daniel 6:9 9:8 database 29:9 33:3, 7 37:6,16 56:11 58:22 74:6,14, 18,24 75:13,24 78:24 80:10 databases 28:2,17,24 42:9,15,23 56:7 62:12 64:3,5 date 156:13,15 Darryl 6:13 Daryl 101:23 37:11 62:16 73:25 74:5 75:18,23 77:1,14 78:2,4,12 80:3,17 148:20 150:4 155:1,8, 12,18 156:10 190:25 191:8,18 208:2,8,10 data data-sharing 121:20 71:22 132:12 dated 23:2 166:18 167:14 174:1 176:22 177:17 178:14 183:16 187:9 188:4 189:10 192:21 193:5,24 199:19 200:9 202:3,13 203:8 205:19 day 206:5 208:25 35:8, 11 120:23 days DC 120:24 deadline 11:20 deadlines 148:15 dealing 11:1,12, 13,15 209:6,12 dealt 19:22 December 144:21 deciding 129:12 decision 44:17 142:2 146:6,8 156:20 Declaration 145:14 Defendant 7:21 8:2, 5,7,12 defendants 6:24 210:8,16 defendants' 8:25 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: defer..differently 178:21 190:6 defer define 173:4 178:1 188:21,22, 24 defined 89:10 160:14 185:12 definition 31:4 33:16 160:12 173:7 189:7 205:16 definitions 160:3,21 170:11,16 Department 29:18,20 49:11,18, 25 55:6 62:17 64:19,23 65:9 68:1 119:24 148:21 150:3,15 152:11 155:1,7, 12,14 depending 105:10 148:7 157:14 depends Degraffenreid 182:13 25:3 depicting deliberations 34:16 171:21 deposed 39:20 40:4,17 54:13 60:13 denial 54:22 57:4 60:6 153:16 154:3 denied 56:18 57:12,16, 19 58:3 deny denying 10:13,16 12:6 deposition 6:8,12,16, 20,25 7:24 10:20 11:7 12:2,8 21:2,9 22:4 23:6 86:11 87:7 93:1 101:25 131:18 133:12 139:4 166:1 208:15 209:1,2 depositions 42:14 174:19 209:21 21:21 25:17,23 93:5 97:16 99:24 118:24 129:14 131:6 133:13 139:24 150:22 197:10 199:7,8 deputy describe 29:6 describes 75:18 190:10 134:13 deterring 137:6 designed 115:3 develop 95:21 designee 7:22 8:3, 13 209:13 details 104:17 124:13 185:23 207:23 deterrent designated desk determined 42:4 134:22 136:21 deter determination 99:20 195:21 determinations 208:6 determine 74:18 76:3 developed 40:13 99:4 103:2 129:13 177:24 178:4 209:9,10 develops 37:2 difference 168:15 differently 34:17 82:14 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: difficult..disqualified 169:16 difficult 13:1 90:7 147:2,5 148:9 difficulty 147:9,13, 15,16 direct 20:13,15 83:12 96:15 138:9 182:9 25 136:1, 19 137:9, 13,21 189:2 209:22 72:14 direction 182:16 directly 48:4 director 10:18,19 12:4,19 14:19 15:9,18 17:9,14 19:14 21:21 25:17,23 72:15,18 76:6 85:8 93:8 94:2 120:2,11, 17 133:23 135:2,19, discussing directors 51:15 207:17 17:18 discussion disagree 118:7,8 disclosed 175:24 148:11 154:23 159:4 170:24 207:21 discourages 181:10 discovery directed 77:2,15 126:14 145:6 22:11,16 23:15,24 25:14,24 27:14,22 53:1 71:16 82:18 83:2 95:3 99:1 102:5,19 107:7 112:9 115:8 119:6,12 discretion 129:12 discuss 51:17 discussed 20:18 55:4 56:12 63:7 74:7,13,14 75:1,8 discussions 167:18,21 169:3,5, 18,19 170:14 171:18 disenfranchise 181:21 disenfranchise d 160:4,13 170:17 181:13 disenfranchise ment 20:24 25:6,9 85:20 150:7 166:17 167:13,22 169:7,22 170:5,11 171:7,24 174:1 176:22 177:17 178:15 179:6,17, 25 180:9, 16 183:16, 25 184:16 187:9 188:4 189:10 192:22 193:5,13, 16,17,24 194:16 195:16 196:19 199:19 200:9 202:3,13 203:9,18 204:9 disenfranchisi ng 181:4 184:7 187:21 189:21 190:13 194:6,9,22 195:3 200:20 205:19 206:5 displayed 35:11 displays 29:5 disqualified 198:18,24 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: distinction..efficiencies distinction 89:13 109:10 distributes 49:19 50:1,14 51:5 distributing 50:24 district 19:17 122:3 128:25 130:19 139:20 142:22 143:3 division 15:15,19, 20 19:4 79:23 84:6 divulge 166:22 28:15 39:7 DOC document 27:5,6,9, 13,17,21, 23,25 28:7 41:6 52:13,20, 25 53:6 55:11 61:11,14 71:8,11,15 72:1,23 76:4,17 82:23 83:1 94:19,22 95:2 98:3, 18,21,25 101:5,10 102:4,9, 12,14,18 106:23 107:3,6,9, 15,20 112:2,5,8, 15 113:22, 23 114:22 115:6,7, 11,18,20 116:1,25 117:8 119:5,6, 11,17,21 127:24 128:2 159:21 160:11 166:24 documents 21:6 22:4, 6,8,14,16, 20 23:4,7, 14,19,23 24:4,12 26:1,7 28:5,8 29:22 51:10 55:11 108:11 114:12,18 117:12,14 127:1,2,21 138:20 208:20 58:17, 25 60:8,19 Doe double-check 55:20,23 155:6 185:17 doubt 29:20 47:13,24 49:25 50:11,13, 23 51:5 74:6,7,15, 24 127:3 151:12 156:9 DPS draft 163:13 dream 152:3 31:10, 20,25 32:5 72:4 77:3, 16 95:14 192:13 due duly 9:3 duration 183:5 41:24 54:13 55:4 62:12 64:17 74:13,14 75:1 78:15,21 104:17 113:5 114:18 118:14 127:21 148:18 152:24 153:12 155:20 181:8 190:23 195:5,23 early 112:13,14 88:5 191:9,20 198:19 easier educate 137:9 138:1 educational 115:19 effect 125:22 145:9 195:2 E efficiencies earlier 189:3 11:11 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: efforts..eligible efforts 13:13 112:25 121:3 election 15:16 16:11,12, 16,21 17:18,22 22:25 27:7 40:24 45:19 48:4,15 64:8 71:20 72:1,3,12 74:24 76:2 80:21 81:18 89:16 102:23 122:13 127:17 130:4 137:23 140:5,7,11 142:6 145:4 173:22 197:13 198:16,22 200:7 elections 6:6 11:14 12:20 13:4,6,7,9 17:2,9,14 18:10 19:13,14, 17 28:3,24 33:22 36:8,20 37:1 40:10 41:10,11, 18 44:4,10 45:2 46:6, 13,17,23 47:3,4,7, 8,17,18, 20,21 53:1,22 54:6,12 56:3 57:11 64:2 67:2, 14,15,17, 22,23 68:3,13,16 69:7,16, 17,21 70:5,18,19 71:20 72:8,17 73:7,14 75:9 89:8, 17 90:5 93:9,14,25 94:3 95:10 96:2 103:1,3 107:10 113:25 118:6 119:7 120:12,17 122:20 123:4,17 124:6,13 130:21 133:24 135:2,5,8, 20 136:2 137:1,2,9, 14 148:3, 17,20 153:13,21 154:1,10 162:7,19 163:15 164:1 166:15 167:11 169:20 170:15 172:20,24 173:10,15, 25 176:20 177:15 179:15 181:7 183:23 184:15 186:23 187:7 188:2 189:9,20 190:11,19, 25 192:11, 15,20 193:4 198:9 199:17 200:19 202:1,10, 11 205:3, 17 206:3 207:18 208:3 electoral 172:16 173:1,5, 17,20 174:4 176:25 177:20 178:17 179:8,19 180:2,11 182:4,21 183:7,19 184:2,10, 17 185:18 186:3 electronic 24:12,16, 21 210:17 elements 192:2 eligibility 28:20 29:2 48:8,19 89:9 99:21 100:7 103:9 134:12 137:11 138:2,7 150:23 192:12,18 194:12 eligible www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: eliminated..evidence 31:18 32:4,11 33:21,23 41:8,20 42:6 43:4, 15 44:11, 21 45:4,20 46:7,18,24 47:9 48:17 56:8 60:10 62:6,23 64:9 66:19 68:15 69:9 70:21 86:8 87:3,20 88:19,23 89:23 90:21 92:22 99:25 100:20 101:12 109:14 116:13 134:22 137:17,18 139:22 160:16 201:11 194:16 else's 87:12,25 109:19 24:18, 20,22 25:1,5,8, 10,11 26:18,20 email 84:2 eliminates 199:21 200:11,22 138:3 199:11 167:20 169:5 88:3 88:1 engaged 171:20 enhancements emails 49:25 50:13 94:8 135:17 137:23 150:10 199:4 205:3 ensure 7:16 24:7 25:13 enabling 18:19 enacting 161:9 enactment 8:14 encourage 182:12 encourages 202:5,15 203:10,18 205:20 206:6 49:18 202:19 204:16 206:5 enter 16:4 42:18 132:23 entered enfranchise envelope 110:21 111:17 209:4 81:24 191:17,18 equal erroneously 80:11 82:7 78:9 escalation 209:14 essentially ensuring 201:22 161:9 135:16 error 19:18 entail 8:6,14 entrusted ensures Encouraging enforcement 85:17 entity 209:7 enforcing eliminating 27:7 engage emailing end eliminated entitled 7:17 84:2,8 established 150:21 151:15 170:22 Establishing 122:11 7:13,16 8:17 27:5 168:18 entire entities 16:14 118:9 estate 111:4 everyone's 7:19 99:17 137:24 evidence 13:21 48:22 54:1 84:11 95:5 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: exact..factual 117:19 123:10,23 150:19 179:16 180:5,8,25 183:4 184:7 187:25 189:20 190:3,12, 13 194:9, 15,21,25 200:1,3,20 201:2,13 204:2,6,9 35:8 54:25 70:9 113:6 139:25 exact examination 7:21 8:2 9:5 207:10 9:4 examined examining 8:12 examples 140:11 145:21 146:12 195:5,6 exceed 45:10 exclude 164:7 166:4,7,8 excludes 117:17,25 121:25 122:23 123:7,20 124:9 126:3 144:8 159:12,15, 16 exhibits 38:7 209:9 existing 38:18 8:17 51:20,21 52:10 71:3 82:19 94:15 97:20 98:3 101:19 106:22,23 112:2 114:11,17 119:2 127:17 131:25 140:18 142:16 exhibit F 84:8 executive 10:17,19 12:4,19 14:19 15:8,18 72:14,18 76:6 85:8 93:8 94:2 120:11,16 133:23 135:19 136:1,18 137:8,13 189:1 199:13,22 200:12,23 201:16 26:10 exist excuse extra exists 194:17 expanding 16:23 expect 95:18,25 expecting 96:10 experience 16:20 135:1 experiences 135:4 31:6 49:1 50:21 explain explanation 173:20 express 122:3 135:1 expressed 72:20 90:6 extends 94:11 face 127:8 facilitate 136:25 39:11 49:5 79:17 87:25 129:19 155:11 181:3 189:4 203:18 fact factors 151:15,21 13:20 48:21 84:10 95:4 117:18 185:7 facts factual 7:25 166:15 167:11 173:25 175:10 176:21 177:16 178:14 179:5,16, 22 180:5, 8,21,25 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: faded..felons 183:3,16, 24 184:7 185:2,9 187:8,20 188:3 189:9,20 190:3,12 192:21 193:4,23 194:9,15, 21,25 199:18 200:8,20 201:2 202:2,12 203:8 204:2 205:18 206:4 27:15 128:1 faded failed 195:24 23:1 35:23 72:22 76:9,13,14 95:24 115:25 119:14,15 137:19 139:6 142:15 145:23 147:17 149:6,18 155:20 fair 162:14 78:8 fairly 14:19 136:9 falls 78:3 80:4,11,19 81:2,13, 16,20,23 82:3,7 207:21 false familiar 24:3 83:19 84:24,25 85:5,9 129:24 130:23 135:20 familiarity 136:2,12, 15,18 fault 65:21 131:23 133:8,14, 17,21 fear fears 134:7 feasibility 147:21,22 feasible 147:17 148:10 federal 11:1,2 52:8 53:14,16, 24 54:8,14 55:2,13, 14,17,18, 24 56:4,9, 14 57:2,7, 9 58:9,12 59:5,18 60:19,20 62:7,22 63:2,3 64:13,16, 25 65:5,6, 11,13,18, 24 66:7,20 feedback 122:9 124:19 125:9 108:17 109:2,8,12 151:23 fees 28:15 30:24 32:16 33:10,19, 25 37:7 38:4,15 39:4,6,7, 16 40:19 42:1 57:10 59:23 61:6 62:13,15 63:11 64:3,4 65:14 67:25 88:25 felon 122:4 128:7,8 133:20 155:21 192:15,16 202:21 felonies 13:14,19 18:2 56:15 107:16 108:16 109:1 114:1 115:13,19 152:17 172:17 174:6 177:1,21 178:18 179:9,20 180:3,12 183:20 184:3,11, 18 185:19 186:4,19 192:6,25 193:8 194:2,12 199:12,22 200:12,23 201:15 203:19 204:17 205:21 13:16 14:8 33:15 34:2 42:8 felons www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: felony..finishes 65:5,6 73:4,25 74:9 75:25 117:15,23 118:10 121:8,23 122:14,22 123:5,18 124:8 126:2 133:16 146:21 150:22 193:13,16 13:24 14:14,25 15:6,14 18:8,14,19 19:1 20:12,24 25:6,9 28:19 29:1,12 30:4,8,11 31:3,10, 11,14,20, 21 32:5,6, 9,20 33:12 34:9,15,19 37:15 38:6,17,25 40:2,25 41:1,17 42:5 45:16 46:4,9,11 51:6,18 52:8 53:16 54:15 55:2 felony 56:6 57:2, 14,22 58:1,18 61:5,18 62:1 64:14 65:17 66:23 67:23 72:4 74:17 75:12 76:11 77:4,17 78:23 79:18 83:15 85:20 88:25 91:6,7 92:6,7 96:22,23 100:9,10 103:22 106:4 112:19,20 115:22 116:2,5,17 118:15,23 122:7 124:15 127:6 128:24 129:5,10 131:15 133:3 134:12,20 135:7,18 144:1 153:1 155:24 160:23 183:1 186:24 187:12 188:7 189:13 192:13 193:18 198:18,25 205:4,9 206:7 207:24 208:7 felt 55:22 80:19 190:25 191:8,19 fewer field 16:13 fight 172:12 figure 71:6 24:21 101:22 102:2 file files 24:12 82:17 112:12 fill fills 60:9 96:21 99:23 100:8 112:17 159:11 final finally 8:10 185:24 finance 13:11 17:22 55:10 60:5 61:11 174:20 175:4 find 35:9 78:19 110:5 139:7 186:14 fine finish 46:21 49:13 64:18,25 66:6 156:5,7 183:1 finished 18:19 42:5 45:17 47:23 48:19 56:5,9 57:1,3 62:8,21 63:2,10 64:7,13 66:1 70:17 101:2 135:7 156:16 finishes 41:16 60:19 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: firmware..gestures 156:14 firmware 20:5 fix flagged 77:20 114:3 115:2 flyer 18:22 follow-ups 209:17 47:18 57:12 59:23 60:2,5 83:6 86:4 87:17 93:19 94:3 95:10,12, 13,18 96:17 97:7,11 110:22 111:21 112:25 138:25 140:20 141:19 142:14,21 143:19 144:12 147:6,22, 23 163:13 181:19 193:19 form front 35:13 82:16 93:10 94:6,10 95:20 111:14,16 126:15 140:11 145:25 146:4,7, 16,19 147:3,12 148:4 170:23 195:24 196:15 FTP forms 120:24 follow 95:22 169:11 format 102:2 fulfilled 206:17 9:10 23:2 192:4 full full-time 6:14,18 152:2 182:15 81:24 33:24 fourth 83:16 86:25 204:17 205:4,21 206:7 fully function 26:11 137:24 209:18 funds 72:17 future 98:15 121:19 41:25 103:19 116:13 6:5,23 21:24 162:2,5, 12,16 163:3 166:14 167:10,19 169:4 171:20 173:14 178:21,25 190:7 207:15 generally 136:11 generate G gather frame 25:18,20 71:20 72:3 84:1 94:7 130:4 136:2,5,6, 15 176:2 197:20 198:8 208:23 General's 16:2 fundamental forward found 24:18 26:22 24:4 166:18 167:14 36:8 framework gathering gentleman 23:23 135:6 198:5 171:1 51:25 82:15 117:11 gears frankly 138:14 frequently 25:5,7 88:10 general 21:17 24:1,5,6 gesture 91:19 gestures 91:13 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: give..hundreds 7:4 10:3 14:7 35:7 50:15 67:23 78:16 87:15,23 89:10 100:4 132:22 134:24 135:14,21 147:4,11 148:2,8 170:21 208:22 give 10:7 158:14 giving greater 204:4 135:4 7:6 7:9 9:7 30:18 51:22 52:1 109:24 158:8 159:9 good Gotcha 36:9 government 16:16 17:5 19:8 20:18,19 55:17 167:15 170:10,16 governmental highlighted 81:17 107:22 52:19 63:20 happy 20:6 Hoke hate 158:14 he'll 26:20 37:25 147:4 hear 98:19 guide 99:3 113:7,10, 14 H hairs 32:2 half 152:16,22 153:5,22 154:8,11 158:12,19 191:1 7:2 51:9 64:20,24 65:25 hand handing 24:1 happen 87:18 79:8 130:19,25 131:4 195:12 11:6 15:22 19:16 137:22 hold 10:23 17:13 38:7,9 42:20 63:24 91:10,16, 20 120:19 160:7 161:20 172:9 191:17 42:22 49:11 91:21 145:3 heard hearing 91:8 177:6 held 20:19 helpful 97:23 13:2 131:4,6 handled 88:16 97:18 high 49:12 8:14 hit head guess historical hardware 16:11 group 137:12 goals happened greatest 137:8 goal God 8:4 16:14 88:2 160:3,20 161:8,11, 23 170:3 high-profile 195:5 home 36:20 honestly 11:4 120:5 126:24 Hooks hope 96:7,9 hour 158:12,20 hours 208:21 hovering 128:6 Huffington 132:1,6 Huffpost 132:9 hundred 51:10 77:6,22 hundreds 95:25 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: hung..indication hung 77:11 hypo 59:2 identifying 23:19 39:12 hypothetical 60:8,18,24 61:8 68:21 82:10 87:16 89:22 105:17 152:8 154:13 191:5,7,8 hypothetically 88:14 100:25 151:18 illegally 15:13 77:3,16 80:2,21 106:1 129:5,10 207:23 illiterate 135:12 immediately 147:25 157:16 210:3 impact I ID 11:1 identification 81:4 identified 77:2,15 80:2,11 181:9 identify 24:24 37:8,14 39:12 40:20 72:2 80:20 132:7 160:20 208:3 147:24 148:16 implement 15:4 140:6,12 145:21,24 146:13 147:1 148:4,5,9, 16 157:5, 11,16,21 implemented 126:13 152:4 implementing 16:18,23 18:1,7 147:23 158:1 implements 146:20 implies 140:21 imply 43:17 impose 201:14 impossible 157:20 imprisonment 191:3 improvement 209:13 in-house 121:22 inaudible 38:6 91:7 114:1,13 incarcerated 138:24 149:23 197:4,18, 22 198:2, 6,12,17,24 incidentally 143:9 include 94:4 97:11 110:22 112:25 113:15 126:15 166:4 included 18:13 24:7 includes 30:10 including 8:7 83:16 86:5 87:1 92:8 96:24 100:11 107:25 108:5 112:21 116:6,18 138:13 192:17 208:19 income 209:20 incarceration Incomplete 84:20 145:16 149:1,15 152:19 154:18,21 156:7,16 82:9 105:16 incident 209:13 independent 171:13 indicating 30:13 indication www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: indictable..interchange 95:6 indictable 145:17 indicted 130:25 individual 18:21 51:6 55:14 60:1 66:22 68:7 88:24 90:17 104:20 105:18 118:17,24 125:8 134:20 135:17 136:13 163:25 individual's 63:10 individuals 44:10 46:14 47:25 50:2 51:17 54:14 63:25 65:25 66:6,11,16 67:5,15 79:21 89:9 107:16 108:16,25 113:25 115:13 118:25 122:6 124:14 133:3,24 134:11 135:16 137:3 195:12,15 203:19 ineligible 31:2,21,24 32:8 34:19 40:1 67:2, 16 68:18 72:4 74:9 127:13 128:16 130:15 132:14 133:10 149:21 150:16 151:9,17 153:2 154:9 155:23 195:9 influences 138:12 64:8 107:16 113:25 138:10 inform information 19:3 36:5, 12 42:10, 16,24 43:3,13 49:13,20 50:1 55:5, 13,16 56:4 57:5 62:7, 21 63:5 64:20,25 65:25 66:6 67:5 68:2 69:15 70:6 81:2 117:15,23 118:16,25 121:23 122:21 123:5,18 124:7,23 125:16,22, 25 126:1, 9,11,20 142:13 150:9,12, 14 151:6, 11 152:11 155:13 156:19 157:9,19 171:13 174:15 175:24 176:6 179:23 180:21 183:12 initially 77:2,15,19 initiate 54:6 initiates 73:24 79:2 instance 66:12 183:2 instances 88:11 instilled 135:6 instruct 44:3 175:1,12, 13,14 184:23 instructing 8:23 instruction 44:2 68:1 83:12 86:23 instructs 9:24 intend 97:6 intended 115:15,18 intent 54:23 97:10 intentions 117:8 interacts 192:11,15 interchange www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: interest..Jersey 88:9 26:21 interest introduced 63:19 160:21 interests 8:4 160:3 161:8,11, 24 164:21 166:16 167:12,15, 21 169:6, 20,21 170:4,10, 16 171:5, 23 172:7, 13 internal 169:19 interpret 185:5 interpretation 205:14 interrogatorie s 159:18 160:10 interrogatory 159:17,24 160:1,19 161:1 163:9 170:3,8 178:22 Interruption 161:19 introduce 115:16 117:3 192:2 investigation 18:25 77:6 79:1,15, 20,25 122:12 166:16 167:12 171:3 investigations 15:12,15 19:4 73:24 79:22 121:22 122:2 129:15 investigative 78:12 investigator 74:1 investigators 79:14 80:1 207:22 208:1 involved 17:25 18:6,18,24 23:18,22 162:3,7,19 163:1,6 irrational 134:3,5 122:1 126:19 issue 175:7 189:17 issued 20:23 25:6,8 120:25 issues 7:25 39:1 50:8 items iteration 95:12 iterations 73:10 111:15 J 6:9 7:9 9:6,8 13:22 26:17,25 27:2 38:9, 12,13 51:24 52:2,5 62:3 71:1 82:21 91:9 94:17 98:1,2 101:21 102:6,8,11 106:13,18, 21 107:1 109:22,25 110:3,7, Jacobson 10,13,25 111:8,12, 25 114:16, 20 119:4, 14,18,19 123:2 125:6 132:3 139:16,18 140:16 142:18 144:10 158:10,14 159:2,6, 10,14 165:18,20 166:2,8,11 168:7,13, 16,22,25 169:2 174:18 175:6,19 176:4,8, 12,15,18, 19 179:3 185:1,11 197:24 200:5 206:20 207:1,4,6, 16 210:9, 14 jail 141:10,12, 13 143:25 Jersey 144:12,20 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Jersey's..left 145:1,3 Jersey's Katelyn 144:17 21:18 25:2 12:10, 18 15:21, 22,23 16:1,24,25 17:4 19:9, 18 20:13, 15 137:23 157:12 199:4 job jobs 20:21 58:17, 25 60:8,19 John journalist 132:12 75:7 126:24 judge 75:6 judging June 12:23 Justice 6:14,18 K Karen 207:13 9:2,12 90:2 131:20 158:17,18 166:21 171:9 174:13 184:23 201:5 kickoff 158:5 162:15,17 163:14 166:25 171:10,16 22:23 knowledgeable 119:23 120:5,10 65:5 173:1 11:16 208:22 L Kim kind 55:22 127:13 knew knowingly 122:12 knowledge 23:25 28:6 45:14 64:24 66:5 67:10,13, 19 69:20 71:14 84:14 86:16 87:9 89:11 93:4 95:1 98:24 107:5 112:8 115:5 117:9 130:11 131:20,22 140:24 144:16 149:5 155:16 157:22 land 73:22 language 97:7,16 109:9 118:13,22 122:10 124:17 125:10,19 142:5 22:19 79:22 101:22 large latest 28:6, 9 11:1 14:2,6,7 15:2,4,16 18:5,12,16 20:11 43:22,25 44:3,8,19, 25 45:6,8, 11,12 84:1,16, 23,25 88:9 95:15 law 127:5 128:7,20 140:8 141:25 146:5,8,20 156:20 170:6 178:3 181:11 182:24 185:21 186:9,13 201:19 202:21 203:16 206:11 lawfully 136:20 13:11 85:20 94:8 122:13 141:24,25 144:21 145:17 laws lawsuit 11:13 21:8 lawyers 166:13 167:9,19 169:4 leads 204:4 learn 157:10 learned 135:11 left 96:17 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: legal..logical 141:3 158:12 44:13 84:11 108:20 109:4 169:11 171:1 173:12 184:25 185:6,7 188:14 204:24 205:12,15 legal legally 19:1 legislative 6:24 210:8 legislature 16:15 legitimate 161:8 letter 34:11,18, 23 35:5, 17,24 36:19,22, 25 37:2,10 39:22,23 40:4,8,9, 12,21 41:6,21 43:10,11, 13 46:5, 12,17,22 47:2,8,19 48:23 49:4,6 54:25 70:22 79:9 119:23 121:7,12 122:16 123:13 124:3 letters 54:12,23 154:12 13:2 17:17 19:2 147:8 level 16:15 levels Levine 132:12 liability 127:11 128:8 lieu 85:15 life 135:5 limited 7:24 8:4 lines 102:9 30:24 31:1,2,9, 23,24 32:7,16, 17,19,20 33:5,9,10, 11,20,24, 25 34:1,13 37:8,9,17 list 38:5,14, 15,16,22 39:4,6,17 40:19 42:1,2 43:10 52:11 54:7,20 57:6,20 58:3,10 60:7 62:13,15, 16 63:1,3, 4 64:3,4, 12,16 74:7,8,9, 16 75:1, 11,12,25 76:11,12, 13 78:22 79:16 97:23 150:21,24 151:4 152:25 153:6,13 154:14 155:21 156:4,6,11 161:18,23 162:3,7,19 163:5,7, 12,16 164:1 166:18 167:14,24 169:8,23 170:18 listed 53:23 77:5 164:21 167:15 171:5,23 172:13 188:19 29:7 listing 29:7, 10,24 30:3 37:19 39:12 41:25 42:4 44:7 45:2 53:23 56:7,13, 17,18,23 57:19,22 63:12 64:6 161:11 lists 68:9, 11,24 69:1 142:22 live lives 68:21 living 66:18,25 70:11 150:2 loaded 16:9 102:23 128:25 129:6,11, 18 local logical 152:13 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: long..matching 154:7 155:10 12:21 16:1 35:4 122:21 123:4,12 208:14 lower 81:6 lunch 158:21 long machines 20:3 8:16 176:13 Madam longer 33:14,16, 19 34:2 42:7 141:10 looked 40:18,23 54:12 55:1 91:14 108:9,11 113:22 117:13 118:13 127:21 145:20 lose M 73:16 loss 117:17,25 121:25 122:24 123:7,20 124:10 126:4 52:16 96:12 131:5 102:25 107:15 113:14 121:3 188:11,12 189:17 made 110:21 111:17 154:15 209:4 mail main 11:23 maintain 30:2 56:23 62:12 64:12 155:5 44:5,17 58:14 62:14 68:5 80:13 89:6 95:18,19 98:14 114:23 121:20 135:21 137:4,16 147:3 151:16 157:13,20 165:2 174:10,14 177:5 182:7 188:17 191:13 195:20 206:23 208:5 28:18,25 29:23 64:2,6 155:1,22 21:18, 19 25:2 Love 52:11 7:11, 15 12:7 14:13 38:2 make 26:19 51:20 52:9 53:10 71:3 82:19 94:15 97:20 99:12 101:19 112:1 114:10,17 119:2 131:25 140:18 159:15 32:23 34:3 60:5, 11 61:1 74:23 75:10 76:10 match 35:18 38:17 80:10 81:5 matches 91:13 147:8 manner 137:2 manual 102:22 lot Maintenance 8:25 matched 83:7 87:13 115:12 191:9,19 makes making maintains marked manuals 195:24 196:15 March 17:12 38:5 74:16 79:15 matching 32:17 33:25 37:8 38:5,15 39:4,17 42:2 62:16 64:4 74:25 75:10,15, 23,24,25 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: material..misdemeanors 76:10 77:1,14 78:4 79:5, 7 80:3,17 81:15,17, 23 82:6 material 118:18 materials 50:6,12, 14,24 51:4,5 208:17 78:7 96:5 math 7:4, 23 12:5 109:7 117:5 127:12 135:24 136:17 154:3,7 163:21,22 173:25 176:21 177:16 178:14 179:5 183:24 185:2 187:8,20 188:3 189:10 192:21 193:4,24 198:8 matter 199:1,3,18 200:8 202:2,12 203:8 205:18 206:4 8:13 matters meaning 85:22 95:20 127:11 151:23 29:19 152:4 157:15 182:12,14 197:21 203:7 205:11 means meant 173:16 measure 82:12 measures 50:13 media 131:5, 7 medications 10:6 21:8, 11 33:16 199:4 meet meeting 21:16,25 209:6,12 meetings 209:3 6:7 24:8 25:5 members mention 87:2,21 88:20 89:24 92:11,14 97:2 101:13 108:6,12 113:10 116:9,21 195:24 mentioned 9:8 22:2 44:15 49:10 52:6 84:16 86:9 87:5 89:14 92:24 153:14 mentioning 86:6 100:15 mentions 108:9 109:15 met 21:14 method 16:19,20, 22 37:12, 13 146:4 165:4 Michigan 140:20 142:11 Michigan's 140:24 microphone 120:24 microphones 121:2 middle 145:14 millions 96:4 48:13 91:24 125:2 165:5 168:5 210:3 mind mine 73:22 minimum 48:2,6 minority 135:8 minus 158:20 minutes 58:3 106:14 110:1,2 206:22 207:2 misdemeanor 115:23 misdemeanors www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: misheard..North 150:25 151:4,10 misheard 17:15 mission 16:10 137:20 Misstates 53:25 84:22 105:2 123:9,22 150:18 187:24 196:7 199:25 200:2 mistakenly 133:9 137:19 misunderstood 58:6 91:24 100:4 113:22 116:24 132:22 135:21 170:2 174:9 22:23 Monday modify 117:8 67:7 41:23 nature 185:9 NCSBE 73:6, 24 203:2 necessarily month 31:16 29:8,21 191:25 35:25 months 7:9 9:7 22:23 morning 182:15 63:20 94:13 98:7 138:15 182:15 183:13 186:14 move moves 39:8 155:14 needed negatively 80:25 motion 152:2 network 67:8 131:9, 11,13 195:10,21 news no-contact 52:12 nonprofit 16:5,7 mumbling 172:11 module 106:15 12:14 22:3 37:5 52:6 53:12,21 55:20 63:15 76:17 84:16 national money modifications 113:14 73:17 75:12 N moment N.C.G.S. 8:6,9,15 named 132:12 37:9 54:19 62:14 names 6:5,22 12:20 13:5,25 17:10,17, 24 18:4,12 19:23 28:19 29:1,13 30:5,8,20 31:11,21, 25 32:1,6, North 22,23 33:6,8,13, 21 34:3 45:16 51:16 55:5 56:2 57:10 59:1 62:17 64:1 65:9 66:19,25 67:2,17 68:10,11, 12,14,16, 19,21,24 69:2,4,18 70:12 73:13 84:1,9,17 85:20 99:6 108:17 109:1 116:2 121:9 122:13 144:23 146:5,9, 20,25 148:25 149:13 151:1 152:17 154:20 160:16 172:17,21 173:2 174:5 177:1,21 178:18 179:8,20 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: notation..objection 180:2,11 183:20 184:3,10, 18 185:19 186:4,18 192:5,24 193:3,7 194:1 199:12,21 200:11,22 201:15 notation 95:7 7:11 91:14 note 39:4 210:18 noted 7:24 14:7 34:9 37:23 39:20 40:17 46:5,10 54:13,14 58:17 60:14 67:23 68:14 69:10,12, 14,21 86:11 87:7 93:1 109:18 121:8 131:18 154:2 165:25 notice notices 40:24 54:16,17, 18 207:22 numbers 77:12 numerous notification 41:11,19 69:8 70:20 154:12 11:18 73:11 209:17 nutshell notifications 153:22 13:13 67:9,11,15 68:17 115:13 153:14 79:11 notify notifying 18:1 34:12 39:25 November 96:2 24:24 35:8,11 77:25 86:23 91:5,21,23 92:5 95:15 97:24 98:6 102:10 106:24 112:3 139:25 145:24 154:11 159:17,24 161:8 165:25 number O oath 9:14 9:22 135:23 185:10 object objecting 8:22 185:8 objection 13:20 28:21 29:3 35:1 36:1 41:13 43:6 44:13 45:22 46:25 47:10 48:10,21 49:21 53:25 63:13 65:2 69:22 70:1 75:2 78:6 80:12 81:7 82:9 83:21 84:10,22 86:10,12 87:6,8 90:12 92:25 93:2,17 95:4 97:13 100:21 101:7,15 104:5,15 105:2,8,16 108:13,22 109:4,16 117:18 118:2 123:9,22 124:25 126:21 131:17 133:11,18 134:15 138:5,18 141:21 142:8 146:2 147:19 150:18 153:8,24 157:7 158:2 162:9,21 163:10,17 164:3 166:20 167:25 169:24 170:19 171:8 172:1 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: objections..outset 173:3,11, 18 174:7 177:2,22 179:1,10, 21 180:13 182:5 183:9 184:20 186:5 187:3,14, 24 188:9, 14 189:15, 25 190:4, 16 193:1, 10 194:4, 14,24 195:18 196:7,23 197:6 199:25 200:15 201:3,17 202:6,16 203:12,22 204:12,24 205:12,24 objections 206:10 objects 9:23 obligation 205:11 obligations 204:18,22 205:5,21 206:8,17 obtain 157:20 89:4,18 120:6 203:1 occurred 24:10 148:8 169:20 October officers 16:3 offense 66:20 128:8 145:17 offenses 205:4 206:7 offensive 91:18 6:5, 23 21:24 53:15 57:21 58:10 59:10,16 61:3 120:3 141:18 162:2,5, 12,16 163:4,20 166:14 167:10,20 169:4 171:20 173:14 178:21,25 190:7 207:15 office officer 65:18,25 89:2 Offices 124:6 opportunity 137:4 opposing 26:17 7:14 8:21,22 64:8 113:21 156:10 157:10 165:23 166:18 167:14 175:7,17 184:22 203:14 order 53:24 54:9 official 13:4 48:5, 16 89:16 198:22 officials 40:24 45:19 55:13 56:5 62:7 64:8 102:23 140:5,11 142:6 145:4 198:16 older opinion 114:3 orders 201:23 202:5,15, 19,23 203:6,11 204:5,11 omission 196:6,14 ongoing 50:18 56:23 81:3 82:6 148:20 76:19 77:20 open opening 198:9 organization 16:5,7,10 90:16,18 organizational 21:5 organized 16:6 outlining 58:15 outset 8:19 51:12 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: oversee..people oversee pardon 13:10,12, 17 14:3 15:9,18 168:19 102:22 parentheses 52:11 Parker 21:21 parole 47:13 overseeing 14:20 oversees 172:21 oversight 13:6 owe owes 203:2 109:12 P 159:5 176:10 207:5 210:18 p.m. pages paid paper 100:3 109:11 24:11 paragraph 53:11,20 54:3,5 96:21 121:12,16 123:11 128:22 132:19 paragraphs 132:18 133:2 51:12 83:17 84:2,4,8, 18 85:3,16 86:5 87:1 88:6 89:13 91:25 92:12,23 96:25 100:12,15 103:22 104:11,18 107:25 108:5 110:23 112:21 116:6,18 160:15,22 174:2 176:23 177:18 178:16 179:18 181:4 183:17 184:1,8 187:10 188:5 189:21 192:23 193:6 194:10 199:20 200:10,21 202:4,14, 24 203:20 204:3 19:20 20:13,15 22:11,16 23:24 53:1 107:21 112:14 125:5 160:11 163:8 208:9 part participate 209:23 participating 181:6 participation 96:11 172:16 173:2,5, 17,21,22, 23 174:5 176:25 177:20 178:17 179:8,19 180:2,11 182:4,21 183:7,19 184:2,10, 17 185:18 186:3 passed past 84:1 141:9 6:4 7:10 69:25 86:14 101:21 106:13 168:4 174:18 175:6 176:4 185:1 207:14 Paul 108:17 109:2 pay people 13:13,18, 23 14:4, 13,24 15:5,12 18:1,7,11, 19,25 20:11 30:10 31:2 32:20 33:7,21 34:1 35:17 37:14 38:5,16,24 39:12,23 40:5,20 42:4,16 43:3,14 44:20 45:2 47:22 49:12 52:7 53:15 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: percent..persons 55:1,17 56:5,14,19 57:19 58:4 63:1 64:7, 13,18,25 65:10,17 70:16 74:16,17, 23 75:11 76:1,11,12 77:3,5,6, 16 78:22 80:2,8,21 81:4,15,19 82:4 83:7 84:19 85:21 93:15 96:1,4,12 115:18 129:4,19 130:2,9, 14,20 133:15 137:6,10 138:1,7, 10,24 143:10 148:24 149:12,20 150:1,5, 16,25 151:4,5,10 152:12,17, 25 153:5, 15,23 154:8,17, 18,19 155:2,8,23 156:4 179:6,17, 25 180:9 181:4,5 183:25 184:7 186:24 187:21 188:7 189:11,13, 21 190:13 191:1,2,8, 19 192:22 193:6,18, 25 194:9, 22 195:6 196:13 199:19 200:9,21 202:3,13 203:9 204:3 205:19,20 206:5,6 207:22 208:3,6 percent 78:4 80:1,8 81:19 82:4 96:10 131:15 154:3,6 percentage 173:6,22 perform 208:5 76:5 performed 76:7,8 79:6 perils 42:13 person's period 149:21 150:6 person 194:17 197:21 198:11,17, 23 18:14 25:16 31:13 41:16 45:16 46:21 47:5 48:2,7,18 55:6 56:8 57:1 62:5, 8 68:14,20 69:8,21 70:6,9,19 79:2,8,15 84:4 86:7 87:3,22 88:13,21 89:22 90:19 92:21 100:19,25 104:24 105:4,5, 21,25 109:11 127:5,7,12 128:14 134:2 136:19 163:25 181:21 57:24 183:4 person-byperson 79:14 personal 12:5 86:16 93:4 135:1 personally 10:16 88:1 109:7 133:19 190:12 persons 28:18,25 29:12 30:4 31:10,24 33:11 37:8 72:3 128:24 130:24 160:4,13, 14,22 170:17 174:2 176:22 177:17 178:15 182:1,4 183:17 187:9,12 188:4 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: perspective..polls 194:6,11 195:3 196:4 204:17 205:3 129:23 198:1,11 places 198:10 190:24 201:10 204:10 207:7 210:10,14 plaintiff's perspective 146:15 189:1 197:13 perspectives 73:19 pertain 13:16 pertaining 7:25 14:8, 16 209:3 pertains 18:4 pertinent 24:9 phase 122:2 phone 24:9 phrase 110:16 111:6,20 physically 198:12,23 picked 166:2 pivot 147:25 14:11 34:24 35:5 99:5,25 103:10 place 52:4 159:18 plaintiffs 6:11,15,19 8:11 9:9 11:17 22:11,15 138:17,21, 22,23 139:5,15, 21 140:13 141:18 142:7 143:4,5 144:24 145:22 146:1,14, 24 147:1 148:6 149:20 150:3 151:19 153:4,20 156:3 157:5 163:8,16 164:2 171:4,22 182:1 184:19 185:13 186:1 plaintiffs' 7:21 8:2 23:15 27:1 51:20 70:25 82:20 94:16 97:21 101:20 106:25 111:24 114:19 119:3 132:2 140:15 142:17 144:9 152:3 159:13 planning 72:11 116:25 198:9 plans 72:19 10:10 11:4 26:11 51:14 76:18,22, 25 107:13 141:3 143:21 145:10,19 point 161:4 172:19 173:9,16 186:15 187:15,18 188:19 190:3,12, 21 197:9 201:1 204:23 205:1 30:14 points 41:25 175:9 policies 8:8 policy 129:13 177:24,25 178:2,5 189:17 11:25 99:5,23 100:7,19 101:2,5,9, 11 102:23 103:8,20 105:15 112:15 197:14 poll polling 99:5,25 103:10 198:1,10, 11 polls 101:2 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: pops..preparing pops 79:8 Porter 6:10 position 11:6 12:22 19:19 20:19 174:24 178:24,25 180:16,19 185:20 positions 20:18 positive 78:3 81:3, 14,16 82:3 positives 80:4,11,19 81:20,24 82:8 207:21 possess 29:16 63:1 possesses 29:11 111:6 127:17 132:1 post Post-election 127:22 post-licensing 88:6 89:13 111:4 post-release 84:19 85:6,21,23 86:3,6,8, 22 87:2,4, 17,21 88:15,20 89:24 90:22 91:25 92:14,19, 23 93:15 94:4 97:3, 12 100:15, 20 101:1, 4,13 104:2,10, 13,25 105:6,13, 21 108:6 110:25 111:8,10 113:1,11, 15 116:9, 21 126:16 127:6 129:21 130:5 154:22 155:3 156:5,14 160:15,22 174:2 176:23 177:18 178:16 179:18 181:5 183:2,18 184:1,8 187:10 188:5 189:22 192:23 193:6 194:10 195:25 196:5,13, 14 199:20 200:10,21 202:4,14, 25 203:21 204:3 Post-selection 71:8 postsentencing 104:19 110:24 postponed 209:3,6,12 potential 129:1 133:8 potentially 77:22 96:4 PPE 209:20 practice 167:23 169:8,22 practices 16:21 170:1,22 precinct 11:25 precise 84:25 precisely 208:8 precluded 8:11 predecessor 120:10,14, 15 prefer 94:7 premarked 26:19 27:1 52:4 70:25 82:20 94:16 97:21 101:20 106:25 111:24 114:19 119:3 132:2 140:15 142:17 144:9 159:13 preparation 208:18 prepare 21:1,9,13 22:4,17 prepared 210:1 preparing 208:15,24 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: present..problem 209:1 8:6 21:16,20, 24 112:24 166:18 167:14 174:1 176:21 177:16 178:14 183:16 187:8 188:3 189:10 192:21 193:5,24 199:18 200:8 202:2,12 203:1,8 205:18 206:4 present presented 191:4 presenting 122:8 124:16 171:1 13:18 14:4 18:7 186:24 prevents 181:22,24 previous 37:7,19 120:16 128:18 180:14 191:11 previously 61:19,24 74:7 75:8 83:15 131:14 primarily 16:10 19:21 37:21,24 39:5 172:21 printers prevent 10:7 45:1 61:20,22 151:21 157:25 181:5 preventing 129:14 prison 101:3 127:8 133:9 139:23 141:10,14 143:10 149:15 155:2,9 196:21 197:5 201:12 prisons primary 147:12 144:3 priority 39:16 printer pretty 103:15 122:10 124:17 125:10,19, 23 196:7 113:20 209:5 Printing 147:8 40:8, 12 61:8 73:7 91:1 95:12 prior 198:10 privilege 175:18 privileged 174:20 probation 47:13 51:12 65:18,24 68:11,25 70:13 83:17 87:1 89:2,15 92:9 96:24 100:12,14 103:22 104:11 107:25 108:5 110:23 112:21 116:6,18 127:6 129:20 130:5 148:25 149:2,3, 14,15 151:8,16, 20 152:5, 12,18 154:17 160:15,22 174:2 176:23 177:18 178:15 179:17 181:4 183:1,17, 25 184:8 187:10 188:5 189:21 192:22 193:6 194:10 199:20 200:10,21 202:4,14, 24 203:20 204:3 problem 99:14 172:11 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: problems..prosecutors 200:5 problems 145:3 procedural 22:6 procedure 43:9,22 63:14 procedures 8:8 13:18 14:4,11, 12,16,20 15:3,9 18:1,7,18, 23 22:6 26:15 35:7 49:18,23 191:23 proceed 86:13 21:4 23:18 24:4 32:10 35:12 36:4,7 37:22 52:12 60:4 70:14 74:25 75:24 77:1,14 79:3,6 80:20 81:14,17 82:6 94:9 111:19 process 117:2 129:7 135:13 150:11 157:2 169:9 185:23 186:17,24 187:11,17, 23 188:6 189:3,6, 12,23 190:15,25 191:9,20 192:1 209:13 27:13,21 52:25 53:6 55:11 71:15 80:15 82:18 83:2 95:3 99:1 102:5,18 107:6,9,12 112:8 115:6,7 119:5 207:17 produces 80:19 61:21 65:6,14 181:19 12:9 20:23 131:5,7 147:7 19:23 produced 23:14,20, 23 26:1,7 172:15 178:11,12 135:23 97:15 properly 150:10 16:23 20:14 85:17 138:11 191:15 procurement promoting proof processes 36:11 37:20 61:23 191:8,18 138:3 174:4 176:24 177:19 178:12,16 179:7,18 180:1,10, 17 181:10 183:6 profile program processing promotes prompt professional processed 12,14,20 prohibit 44:19 155:19 prohibiting 122:14 prohibits 44:9 45:13 promise 159:12 promising 121:19 promote 182:3,10, prosecuted 106:1,4 129:19 130:3,19 133:5,9 195:7 prosecution 129:1 prosecutions 122:15 129:22 131:3,13 Prosecutor 132:14 prosecutors www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: protective..question 129:6,11, 19 protective 7:14 175:7 protocols 28:1 prove 82:13 169:23 170:18 providing 50:11 93:23 167:23 169:8 29:20 49:12,19, 25 55:6 62:18 64:19,23 65:9 68:1 119:25 148:21 150:3,15 152:12 155:1,7 Public 42:4 47:13,25 49:8 50:5, 23 89:8 103:1 118:10,16 150:21 156:9 171:14 provide provided 21:6,7 22:7,9,10, 15 23:8 29:17,21 30:1 47:14,24 57:20 64:15 95:8 113:7 117:15,23 119:11 121:23 122:21 123:5,18 124:7 126:1,20 142:13 156:18,24 164:2 publicize 182:13 26:9, 10 51:19 82:18 94:14 97:20 101:18 114:10 119:1 131:24 142:15 144:8 pull pulled 52:9 pulling 160:2 161:23 170:10,16 purposes 30:2 40:17 65:16,20, 22 75:1,19 78:1 81:13 104:9 164:6 185:9 14:17 18:11,13 60:3 199:5 qualified 18:21 quantity 191:25 quarterly 53:14 59:9,17 61:2 purview 14:20 86:2,21 87:12,24 88:12 92:17,18 113:23,24 153:6 154:8 put putting 74:15 116:25 161:17,22 162:3,7,19 163:6 166:12 167:8,18 169:3 171:18 Q qualification 114:16 purely purported 167:8 qualifications question 9:23,25 13:1 16:9 28:22 41:14 42:19 43:16 44:23 45:25 46:2,10 48:5 50:20 54:2 57:9 58:6 61:12,16 63:16,22, 24 65:16, 20,22 67:21 75:3,4 77:9 78:1 81:13 82:2 86:20 89:21 90:14,24 94:11 104:3,9, www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: questioning..reasonable 12,21 105:1,14, 19 108:23 117:21 126:22 128:18 134:17 135:22 136:5,24 139:14 146:17 151:13 161:10,21 166:21 167:2 168:1,21 169:11 170:13 171:12,15 174:11 175:3,11, 15 176:16 177:11 180:4 183:22 184:12,24 185:9 188:1 190:18 191:12 193:2,14, 17 194:18, 20 196:25 197:23,25 198:20 199:9 200:6 201:5 202:8 205:8 206:1 questioning 126:25 127:2 174:12 181:9 questions 8:23 88:23 106:15 110:15 135:15 139:10 149:10 164:7,19 165:6,7, 17,24 175:8 177:14 206:21 207:7,9,13 208:13 210:5,6,7 106:8 208:13 quick 84:2,8 155:21 173:1 186:2 quote 133:2 158:15 quotes R Rabinovitz 6:21,22 21:23 210:7 race 135:8 raise 7:2 164:10,11, 23 165:1,7 177:11 187:15 205:1 reading 15:24 ranked 16:18 78:3,9 81:3 82:3 rate rates 81:14 rating 81:16 re-cross 207:9 reached 24:1,8 124:23 26:13 31:8 53:12,21 54:3 57:23 76:18,20, 21 90:21 100:4 103:9 118:13,18, 21,25 121:11,14, 15 122:10, 19 124:17, 24 125:7, 10,18 132:23 138:19 142:4 145:8 read 88:18 91:14 201:7 208:20 73:5, 23 86:3,23 87:17 88:16 92:20 107:23 108:3 109:13 reads 110:8 132:24 159:6 176:13 209:10 ready real 111:4 10:3 61:18 62:1 80:17 148:2 151:3 155:6 156:13 158:22 170:21 185:16 201:13 reason reasonable www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: reasons..reforms 105:5 133:8,14 151:14 reasons 134:1 136:3,12 137:15,25 148:8 11:4 22:18 55:8 97:8 108:14 128:17 135:3 144:25 154:23 155:25 163:12 185:12 190:22 195:4,22 196:9 207:16,20 recall receive 13:15 36:4 46:4,10, 12,16,22 47:2,6 49:6 55:16 56:4,13,25 57:22 58:9 59:8,15 61:2 62:6, 17 67:4 68:2 69:16 70:5 131:7 149:1,14 150:12,14, 24 151:3, 11 152:11 154:18 155:5,13 156:10 157:1 received receives 53:14 55:5,12 148:20 receiving 49:3 155:18 28:8 129:20 142:20 recent recently 130:16 6:3 7:12,16,18 8:18 9:11 24:18 32:24 34:4 35:19 38:18 98:11 110:8,16 113:4 119:10 120:22 121:3,13 159:1,3,4, 7 161:6 207:1,6,14 records 81:15 redesigned 95:19 reduce 88:3 52:3 110:6 159:5 176:10 207:5 recognize 82:22 recollection record 45:18 48:4,15 53:23 54:8 58:17 69:10,12 122:9 124:19 125:9 131:5,13 recess 94:18 102:13 107:2 112:4 114:21 114:24 192:1 Reducing 191:25 reeligible 15:1 41:12 155:25 129:4, 8,12 139:3 164:24 refer reference 126:16 130:8 references 117:17,25 121:25 122:23 123:7,20 124:9 126:3 referral 122:2 referred 130:20 referring 20:2 38:4 168:10,17, 18 200:4 74:4 128:23 202:23 refers reflect 28:1 141:25 reflected 143:18 reflecting 133:2 reformed 172:18 reforms 35:12,13 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: regime..released regime 139:5,15, 20 140:2, 4,13 142:6,12 143:4,15 145:5,22, 25 146:13 147:1 148:5 149:19 150:2 151:19 152:1,4 153:4,20 156:3 157:5,21 158:1 171:4,21 181:25 184:19 185:13,17, 21 186:1,7 190:23 197:10 201:10 204:9 regional 19:19 register 18:22 39:25 40:1,6 54:21 57:3 58:4,11, 13,19 59:12,17, 24 60:3,9, 21 83:8 116:3,4 133:15 136:13 137:3 141:10,11, 14 153:16 181:16 206:18 registered 33:6,8 34:13 35:18 37:10,14 39:24 46:8,15 49:7 54:20 58:22,25 59:11 69:5 74:8,17 118:12 135:17 181:20 208:4 registering 118:20 122:8 124:16 137:7 141:5 181:6,22 205:7 registration 11:20 17:22 18:10 32:24 34:4 35:12,19 38:18 39:13 40:4 49:5,9 54:7 56:19 57:4,11,25 58:24 59:22 60:2,4,6,7 61:20,23 79:10 81:4,15 82:7 83:6 110:22 111:16 136:25 137:6 138:11 140:19,25 142:14,21 144:12,17 153:15 172:16,22 174:4 176:25 177:20 178:17 179:7,19 180:1,10, 17 181:18 182:3,20 183:7,19 184:2,9,17 185:18 186:3 209:7 registrations 13:15 53:22 56:20 57:20 58:4 74:19 80:9,19 81:19 82:5 regulate 186:2,9 regulates 174:3 176:24 177:19 185:25 Regulating 172:15 178:10 30:4 164:20 175:9 relate relates 151:22 relating 7:23 8:9, 13 20:23 25:6,9 51:4 relationship 121:20 release 209:11 released 84:20 154:20,21 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: relevant..resident 155:2 80:18 relevant 176:13,14 removed 36:19 40:9 67:8 reliant relief 138:16,21 37:5 38:23 39:11,16 40:19 57:19 63:9,11 156:9 rely relying Reporting 34:13 37:9,15 39:13 46:9 54:20 58:23 60:7 61:19,24 79:18 154:2 repeat 28:22 38:11 139:9 202:8 repeating 38:22 208:2 177:5 rephrase remainder 48:5 139:4 replaced remember 84:18 113:6 191:3 195:9,10, 13 remind 98:15 6:8, 11,15,19, 25 26:15 42:13 remote remotely 9:3 removal 34:9 54:13 61:18 62:1 remove 56:19 38:24 31:5, 9,12 32:3 60:12 61:2 71:9,19 80:5 119:13 127:22 207:17 report 6:2 7:1,8,17 8:16 38:7, 11 91:8 110:10,12 158:25 159:8 reporter 67:25 reports 28:15 29:8,11 53:14 56:25 59:9,17 60:5 174:11 request 23:15 72:19 176:1 requested 110:19 requests 25:14 require represent 34:11 39:23 65:15 104:8 140:23 142:19,25 143:18 144:15 149:7,12 152:14 160:9 representation 65:19 143:6 149:8,17 152:16,20 160:17 171:11 203:4 representative 90:4,15 166:22 required 108:17 109:2 122:6 124:14 125:8 requires 184:24 requiring 118:14,22 reregister 135:11 187:1 research 166:13,15 167:8,11 171:3,10 researched 139:24 represented reserving 153:11 207:8 representing 6:6,10 78:7 resident 31:14 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Resource..role Resource 15:25 resources 39:2 respect 146:21 respectfully 178:23 responds 161:7 response 22:22 23:15 25:13 159:17 163:9 180:14 responses 209:16 responsibiliti es 13:2 17:19 19:22 restate 44:23 45:25 54:2 63:16 117:20 134:17 restoration 50:2 64:21 66:2,7 161:10 175:2,15 revealing 174:14 22:16 39:7,8 50:7,8 63:14 74:1 78:12 100:7 163:5,7,15 review restore 186:17 restored 61:25 108:2 130:22 182:25 183:8 192:7,25 193:9 194:3 199:13,23 200:13,24 201:16 204:19 205:6,23 206:9 restoring 187:12,23 188:7 189:12,23 190:15 reviewed 21:5 22:3, 5 25:25 39:6 63:5 164:1 reviewing 55:21 63:18 76:24 100:5 132:25 163:12 164:18 165:11,14 208:17 revised restrictions 155:17 113:3 revisions result 145:16 113:16 13:14 14:8 18:3 25:24 49:14 50:2 51:4 61:25 64:21 66:2,8 rights restitution 108:1,9, 12,19 109:3,8, 12,15 resulted 78:3 resume 175:21 reveal 107:17 115:14 117:16,17, 24 118:1 121:9 122:1,24 123:8,21 124:10 126:4 130:22 131:16 182:25 183:5,8 186:18 187:12,23 188:7 189:13,24 190:15 192:7,25 193:9 194:2 199:13,23 200:13,24 201:16 204:2,19 205:5,22 206:8 12:4 13:3,12 14:23 16:3 17:11,20, 25 18:6,9, 17,24 19:6,15 20:10 67:25 72:18 136:18 role www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: rollout..seeking 196:20 197:3 150:4,15 152:12 155:1,7, 12,14 rollout 19:24 38:24, 25 39:14 79:18 35:4 80:1,8 81:18 82:4 152:22 208:14 routine 50:16 row 116:13, 14 7:22 8:3,12 77:19 145:25 rule 77:6, 23 141:17 146:24 ruled run 111:5 S 29:20 49:12,19 50:1 55:6 62:18 64:19,23 65:9 119:25 148:21 Safety scratch 129:17 26:10 27:3,4 71:5 72:25 99:16 132:4 screen rolls roughly 184:21 7:19 82:2 sake Sam 132:12 sample 34:11 satisfy 204:17 205:4,21 206:7 schedule 7:23 50:16 scheduled 113:16 117:9 scheme 166:17 167:13,22 169:7,22 170:5 171:7,24 184:16 195:16 196:20 197:3 schemes 185:6,7 86:10 87:6 89:17 92:25 109:17 131:17 133:11 scope screen-share 26:11 120:5 126:24 8:7, 9,15 73:4 91:2,3 96:17 112:17 143:22 145:11,14 160:12 section 138:21 139:5,15 143:5 144:24 146:14 147:1 148:6 149:20 150:3 151:19 153:5,21 156:3 157:6 171:4,22 175:24 176:6 182:1 186:1 190:24 201:11 seek script 103:8,17 scroll 26:12 52:19 61:10 72:23 103:12 116:12 132:17 159:23 161:2 165:10,12 Scrolling 165:13 search 24:11 39:8 searched 25:13 searches 24:16 second-to-last 201:21 secretary 119:24 seeking 138:17,23 139:21 140:13 142:7 143:16 145:22 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: SEIMS..serving 185:13 204:10 33:2,8 35:19 61:20,22 74:18 75:13,24 78:24 80:10 209:8 SEIMS select 31:15,16 8:16 40:24 41:1,11, 18,21 43:10,11, 13 47:21 54:12,16 68:14 69:7,14,21 70:22 101:24 150:4 153:22 154:2,11 210:15 send sending 101:25 sends 70:19 sense 64:6 sentence 13:24 14:25 15:14 18:15,20 19:1 31:3 33:12,17 41:7,17 45:17 46:22 47:15 48:20 49:14 50:3,10 51:7 55:8, 15 56:9 57:2 58:12 59:18 60:20,21 61:5,18 62:8,22 63:4,11 70:7,17,23 73:5,23 75:12 77:5 83:16 86:5,25 88:16 89:1,19 92:8 96:21,24 100:11 101:3 107:23,25 112:21 116:1,6,17 118:15,23 122:8 124:15,24 125:2,7, 12,23 128:6,11 129:10 141:13 145:15 153:1 159:25 199:24 202:23 203:15 207:24 208:4,7 sentencing 83:20 84:17 141:12 separate 40:24 17:11 115:21 171:4,23 serve sentenced 19:7 166:16 167:12 186:19 148:25 149:13 152:18 191:2 served sentences serves 15:6 18:8 20:12 42:5 47:23 55:19 56:6 63:2 64:8, 14,19 65:1 66:1,7 76:1,11 78:23 121:24 122:22 123:6,19 124:8 126:2 128:25 129:5 142:4 155:24 186:20 187:2 199:14 200:14 112:15 167:23 169:7,22 service 193:19 206:14 serving 13:24 14:14 15:13 18:8,14 19:1 20:11 31:3,20 33:16 59:18 66:17,24 68:10,25 70:12 75:11,25 76:11 78:23 101:3 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: set..software 115:22 116:17 118:15,23 121:23 122:7,22 123:5,18 124:8,15 126:2 128:10,24 129:10 130:5 141:13 145:15 153:1 207:24 208:4,7 50:16 110:11 134:1 137:13 159:18 185:7 set share 71:5 sharing 16:21 shifting 51:25 34:23 35:3 123:12 28:17, 23 30:3 31:1,23 32:19 33:10 34:1 55:23 111:23 140:10 144:7 159:12 show 80:1 111:16 showed showing 80:22 31:9 38:16 57:13 62:21,22 99:24 101:1 103:8 197:20,25 198:11 shows 36:8 96:17 99:15 141:3 side 86:2, 21 87:12, 25 88:13, 14 92:19 shoes sign short 142:4 122:10 124:18 125:11,19 41:6 similar 54:17 72:12 74:24 75:23 147:6 simple 189:6 198:15 simplified 189:4 simplifies 37:18 64:7 shown signing 91:5 187:11,22 188:6 189:11,22 190:14 139:8 187:19 189:8 192:1 simplifying 186:16 188:22,23, 25 189:2 significant shortly 78:10 48:2,7 121:4 78:8 skills 97:19 106:22 skip 114:18 28:14 34:9 37:7, 19 38:2 39:2,20, 22,23 40:16 99:20 slide 89:21 simply slightly 110:12 159:8 sir sit 210:19 situation skipped simplify 97:5 signature shorthand 80:16 81:1 124:22 125:15 126:8 148:1 156:12 157:3,18 162:15,17 163:23 179:5 180:24 190:2,11 201:1 Site 98:19 sitting 44:18,24 34:17 60:18 smart 56:10 so-called 129:24 software www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: sold..stands 17:2 20:2, 6,7 sold 120:25 solely 63:9 solemnly 7:3 somebody's 182:25 202:24 someone's 100:24 19:7 28:9 75:10,15 76:10 115:19 117:1 129:11 sort sought 184:19 26:23 30:18 sound sounds 104:23 109:24 110:5 151:7 38:23 67:6 69:15 74:12 source sources 119:8 66:13 68:8,24 69:1,13 South 70:11 36:10 48:12 72:21 89:4,17 118:9 174:9 176:2 speak speaking 16:9 88:1 136:12 specific 157:24 193:17 specifically 9:24 23:5 107:15 115:18 specificity 160:2 170:10 speculate 81:22 88:7 speculation 34:25 36:2 43:7 45:23 47:11 48:11 65:3 80:12 87:8 93:2 100:22 101:8,16 104:6,16 105:9 108:22 109:5,17 117:19 118:3 131:19 133:12 134:16 141:22 142:9 146:3 153:9,25 173:19 182:6 186:6 195:19 196:24 197:7 201:18 203:13,23 204:13,25 205:13,25 Speculative 86:12 spent 208:14,20 split 32:2 64:17 113:5 spoke spoken 21:3 stack 22:19 staff 24:2,8 97:24 98:4 99:13 100:3 102:10 103:6 106:24 112:3 127:25 128:2 stamped 28:13 34:7 53:10 72:24 83:11 stand 106:20 standard 36:22,24 37:2 117:16,24 121:24 122:23 123:6,19 124:9 126:3,20, 23 standards 126:12 standing 87:19 88:17 25:5 121:22 208:17 standpoint 34:7 76:16 stands stamp 45:15 182:24 73:13 186:7 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: start..state 66:21 178:11 start started 7:11 117:1 starters 79:23 starting 91:19 132:19 76:19 98:3,12 102:9 106:23 112:3 121:13 127:25 128:2 161:5 starts 6:6 7:22 8:3, 5,7,12,22 9:10 11:3 12:20 13:5,7,9, 12,17 14:3 19:3,5,12, 20 21:6,17 23:14,22 25:4,12 26:2 27:13,21, 23 28:2, 18,19,24 29:1,11, 13,23 30:5,8,14, state 16,20,21 31:12,17 32:1,17,22 33:13,25 34:17 35:22 37:1,8 38:4,15 39:4,16 40:13 41:9,14,17 42:1 43:2 46:12 47:3,7,17, 20 48:4,13 49:4,17,24 50:12 51:16 53:1,6,13 54:10 55:7 56:6,17,22 62:4,11, 16,22,25 63:8,22 64:1,18 65:11 66:13 67:4,14, 20,22,24 68:3,18 69:17 70:4,8,18, 24 71:16, 19 72:2,7, 11,13 73:7,13 75:3,9 77:2,8,15, 21 78:10, 14,21,25 79:13 83:2,6 86:19 88:22 89:7 90:5 93:9, 14,24 94:2 95:2,9 98:11,25 99:4 102:18 103:2 107:6,10, 13 108:23 112:9 113:24 114:2 115:8,12 119:6 120:11,17 121:21 122:20 123:4,16 124:6,12, 21 125:13, 15,24,25 126:9,25 127:1 128:7,23 129:3,8,16 130:20 133:23 134:18,25 135:19 136:1,25 137:13 138:20 142:6,11 145:18 146:10,17 148:2,19 152:25 155:22 157:4 159:16 160:1,2,20 161:6,7 162:6,18, 25 163:15, 25 166:14, 23 167:2, 10,20 168:9,17, 21 169:5, 19 170:9, 14 171:2, 20 172:20, 25 173:9, 15,24 176:20 177:6,8, 10,15,23, 24 178:4, 13,19,24 179:4,13, 15 180:8, 15 183:3, 15,21,23 184:6,14 185:16 186:23 187:7,16, 20 188:1,2 189:8,16, 17,19 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: state's..supervised 190:10,24 192:11,14 193:2,11, 23 194:5, 8,20 195:23 196:25 198:9 199:17 200:6,7, 16,18,19 201:12 202:1,10, 11 203:7, 17,24 204:1,8 205:2,17 206:1,3 207:18 208:2 209:25 state's 66:12,17, 23 15:2 31:18 58:5 76:5 100:1,23 153:19 157:8 179:12 193:12 196:9,16 stated statement 80:14 118:5,7 137:20 201:8 statements 100:8 7:20 14:2 33:14 45:11 67:8,11 76:8 83:18 84:10 112:23 116:20 123:25 124:11 139:19 140:1,3,5, 12 145:18, 21 160:25 202:18 states stating 54:6 58:15 79:12 157:17 199:13,22 200:12,24 201:16 steps 8:19 49:6 Station 98:19 21:13 31:10,20 32:5,9,20 38:6,17 49:8 124:4 156:9,25 157:15 205:8,9 61:15 111:21 112:11,14 stop stores 120:24 story 132:23 Strach 119:24 120:5,10 straightforwar d 144:4 198:21 streamline 183:13,14 185:17,22 status statute 161:10 stay 158:25 step 99:20, 23 streamlines 174:3 176:24 177:19 183:18 184:1,9,16 streamlining 172:15 178:10 183:14 185:3 strict 127:11 128:8 Structured 83:20 84:17 stumbling 111:3 subject 63:21 84:20 121:7 122:11 150:6 167:7 207:8 submits 57:11 submitted 24:19 subpart 83:13 26:4 subset substitute 114:4 substituted 115:3 successful 122:15 80:7 suggest 81:2 197:10 super 91:18 supervised 65:18 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: supervises..talking supervises 65:10 supervision 66:18,24 84:19,21 85:6,22,23 86:3,6,9, 22 87:2,4, 17,21 88:7,15,20 89:24 90:22 92:1,15, 20,23 93:16 94:5 97:3,12 100:16,20 101:1,4,14 104:2,10, 13,19,25 105:7,13, 22 108:6 111:1,9,11 113:1,11, 15 116:10, 22 126:16 127:7 129:21 130:6 138:25 154:22 155:3 156:5,15 160:15,23 174:3 176:23 177:18 178:16 179:7,18 180:10 181:5 182:2 183:2,6,18 184:1,9 187:10,22 188:5 189:11,22 190:14 192:23 193:7,25 194:11,23 195:25 196:5,13, 15 199:20 200:10,22 202:4,14, 25 203:10, 21 204:4 205:20 206:6,12, 14,15,16 supplemental 28:5 support 81:10 122:14 170:4 180:5 181:1 supported 78:11 supporting 19:21 supposed 64:20 103:9,21 suspect tabulation 158:11,16 suspected 128:23 129:4 swear 7:3 82:15 117:11 switch sworn T 9:3 synonymous 91:25 synopsis 208:23 19:24 20:5 47:25 57:12 69:13,18 73:25 74:5,22 75:10,18, 23 115:16 143:3 144:22 149:4 150:14 209:8 system systematic 70:14 systems 19:22 20:1 140:6 20:7 tabulators 20:7 takes 34:24 35:5 taking 78:22 9:18 44:25 82:16 154:17 174:13 175:20,23 176:5 talk 20:22 37:6 38:14 41:24 46:3 48:3,7 57:6 62:12,20 78:15,17, 20 79:24 148:18 152:24 153:12 154:19 155:20 170:2,9 190:22 195:4,22 talked talking 50:25 70:10 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: tasked..today 91:15 125:3,5 164:14 171:6 172:8 180:1 49:12 tasked technical 64:6 technician 19:17 technology 27:7 28:1 189:5 160:12 191:3 terminology 29:4 85:2 88:4,8,10 127:15 107:24 116:5 152:18 158:8 191:24 202:24 203:20 207:21 terms terrible telling 75:4 41:19 43:14 45:3,19 46:6,18,23 47:8 48:16 61:9 70:20 79:9 106:19 tells 34:18 template 36:23,24 37:2 40:3, 13 ten 110:1,2 85:4, 5,8,9,12, 13,15,16, 18 149:1, 14 154:18 156:7,16 tested 209:9,10 testified 9:4 12:12, 16 testimony 7:3 10:4,8 105:3 196:8 60:15 89:15 97:22 112:17 139:9 thing term things 11:19,22 22:24 36:8 111:5 113:19 208:23 210:3 thinking 210:12,18 times timing 158:7 tired 21:11 158:8 177:4 thousand 17:6 thousands 95:25 10:21 11:7 18:16 19:16 20:16 26:13 31:14 36:7 40:3 51:22 52:1 58:5 60:22 61:9 63:20 72:10 83:24 89:21 107:13 118:19 124:20 126:13 135:3,4 139:10 147:16 149:22 153:17 158:9,23 178:7 183:22 197:1 200:6 206:1 208:19 time 12:18 28:14 29:19 34:8 52:10 71:21 102:13 140:21 title 39:20 71:8 73:4 94:22 98:18 99:20 113:23 116:13 127:21 132:13 141:4 titled 9:14 10:4,8 22:17 23:5 44:18,24 80:16 81:1 84:9 85:10 97:6 124:22 125:16 126:8 148:1 156:12 157:3,18, 25 159:12 162:15,18 today www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: today's..understanding 163:23 166:17 167:23 169:8,23 170:17 179:5 180:24 183:24 187:21 190:2,11 201:1 208:24,25 210:12 21:2 today's told 133:25 53:11 56:13 97:17 107:11,21 127:20 132:8 192:4 top touch 20:10 37:4 touched track 73:16 9:16 transfer 102:2 transition 154:16 transitioning 145:4 Transylvania 17:10,23 18:17 19:6 Trena 21:21 209:15 114:14 122:25 42:18 ultimately understandable 27:12, 20 52:24 53:5 71:14 83:1 95:1 98:24 102:17 115:6 142:1 152:3 turnout true trust 135:6 135:9,12 7:4,5 9:14 61:9 truthful 10:4,8 104:12 training 19:25 27:7 209:22 120:1 9:13 10:1 12:25 13:23 14:24 21:4 30:23 46:1 48:17 66:15 73:21 85:13,14 87:22 88:6,21 89:6,25 90:10,19 92:21 93:6,7 127:4,10 128:13,19 131:12 133:17 157:14 168:14 169:13 173:8 185:4 188:17 191:13 turned truth trailed 28:12 34:6 39:18 52:7 53:9 66:10 71:2 83:10 90:25 99:11 100:2 107:19 128:5 172:6 192:3 199:10 201:21 turn 12:13, 17 141:12 trial trusted tracking trails transcript truthfully 104:3 19:5 80:3 173:6,21 turns 19:2 type 140:12 U Uh-huh 69:6 26:1 122:3 139:11 uncertain 90:20 134:11,21 unclear 87:13 underneath 99:17 understand understanding 7:20 22:12 25:18 30:17 31:19 33:2 39:10 44:9 57:18 65:8 67:1 71:25 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Understood..vote 85:19,25 90:15,16, 17,18 103:7 104:22 105:11 109:20,21 127:9 130:7 131:1 139:2 174:10,18 Understood 95:23 121:5 undertake 61:17 112:25 147:12 update updated 28:15 95:13 99:9 111:19,22 117:6 126:15 updates 28:9 updating 58:23 94:9 95:14 170:23 user 31:15, 16 171:2 undertook 208:18 user-friendly 94:10 95:22 Uniform 121:8 127:1,2 145:18 unlawfulness 122:5 108:8 unreasonable 134:7 unsure 136:20 35:15 147:24 148:15 vary vacuum 148:11 United untimely variables V uniformity unlike 169:24 170:19 172:1 173:3,11 174:7 177:2,22 179:21 180:13 183:9 187:3,14, 24 188:9 189:15,25 190:16 193:1,10 194:4,14, 24 200:1, 15 202:6, 16 203:13, 23 205:24 28:21 29:3 45:23 49:21 63:13 75:2 78:6 83:21 93:17 105:9 124:25 134:15 138:18 157:7 167:25 vague 147:9, 110:20 114:5,8 90:16 versus video 99:17 view 188:13 8:21 violate violated 122:13 violates 184:21 violations 15:16 virtue 198:18 114:24 varying 16:15 21:22 183:14 185:24 verb verbs versions visible 16 Velez 111:17,18 114:12 115:11 140:25 144:17 178:7, 8 Veronica 25:2 version 28:6,10 vividly 135:3 voice volume 91:16 51:3 13:25 14:9,15 15:1,5 18:11,12, 20,22 20:12 28:20 29:2 vote www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: voted..voter's 31:2,18, 21,25 32:4,8,11 33:21 34:19 35:18 37:14 39:24,25 40:1,6 41:3,8,12, 20 42:6 43:5,15 44:12,21 45:4,20 46:7,18,24 47:9 48:9, 17,19 54:22 56:8 57:4 58:11,13, 19 59:1, 11,13,18, 25 60:9,22 62:6,23 64:9 66:19 67:2,16 68:15,18 69:9 70:21 74:10 83:8 85:23 86:8,24 87:4,20 88:19,24 89:9,23 90:21 92:22 99:25 100:20 101:4,12 103:10 105:14,20, 23 109:14 112:12 116:4,13 118:12,21 122:9 124:16,17 127:13 128:16 130:15 131:16 132:14 133:4 134:12,22 135:11 136:4,7, 14,21 137:3,7, 11,17,18, 19,24 138:2,8 139:1,22 141:5,11, 14 143:10 146:21 149:21 150:16 151:5,9, 17,20 152:6 153:2 154:9 155:23,25 160:4,16, 21 170:17 181:6,13, 17,22 182:2,18, 19 187:1 192:13 194:13 195:7 196:22 197:5,18, 21 201:12 202:20 205:7 206:19 15:13 19:1 72:3 74:23 76:2,12 77:3,16 80:21 122:4 128:16 129:9 143:2,10 195:6 207:23 208:6 voted 11:20 13:15 17:21 18:10 32:23 34:4 35:12,19 38:18 46:8,16 57:11,19 58:22 59:22 60:1,4 voter 61:19,24 62:9 69:5 83:5 91:5 99:21,24 100:8 103:21 110:21 111:15 118:17 134:4,6,9 136:25 138:11 140:19,25 142:14,20, 21 144:11, 12,17 172:16,22 173:21 174:4 176:24 177:19 178:17 179:7,19 180:1,10, 17 181:18, 20 182:3, 20 183:6, 18 184:2, 9,16 185:17 186:3 209:7 voter's 36:20 54:7 61:20 96:16 103:9 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: voters..workers voters 14:17 33:5 34:12,14, 18 35:24 37:10 40:25 41:1,6,11, 19 54:19, 21 74:8,17 77:19 82:17 95:10 112:12,18 118:13,21 122:10 124:7,17 125:8,10, 18 132:20 136:3,6 143:25 192:11,15, 17 208:5 106:4 127:5 votes voting 13:14,19 14:5 15:25 16:18,19, 20 17:1,21 18:2,8 19:22,24 20:1,3,5,6 49:14 50:2 51:4 66:2, 8 73:25 80:3 98:19 99:21 106:1 107:17 112:13,15 113:6,10 115:14 117:16,17, 24,25 118:12,21 121:8 122:1,14, 24 123:8, 20 124:10 126:4 128:7,10, 24 129:5, 20 130:4, 21 131:16 133:10 134:1,14, 23 136:22 138:4,11, 13 181:23, 24 183:5 186:25 187:12,23 188:7 189:13,24 190:15 204:2 55:23 125:1 11:19 95:15 120:6 126:24 Warren watch 106:19 73:11 137:5 145:24 ways website 114:7,8 10:18 11:11 58:11 143:1,2 198:6 203:1 209:5 week weekly 36:6 Westbrook 119:23 120:5 19:20 6:17 willingly 122:12 withdraw W 200:2 waived 210:19 walk 26:6 wanted 30:21 7:11 withheld 183:4 withholding 204:2 witnesses wordprocessing 147:7 wording 146:7 words 173:17 47:12 51:11 84:6 134:8 149:3,4 150:9 209:15,19 work 16:12 17:1,3,4 19:12,20 20:22 50:4 135:9 162:12 163:4,21 worked western Whitley 64:5 91:4 121:13 147:5 178:2 182:10 185:2 word 99:24 100:7,19 101:2,5,9, 11 103:8, 20 105:15 worker workers 11:25 99:5 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. 30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: working..zoom 102:23 147:14 197:14,15 working 16:13 84:5 114:4 works 88:2 121:1 150:2 152:10 world worried 30:18 65:21 124:2 128:11 135:24 149:9 158:15 175:4 196:2 78:10 126:5 178:22 wrote 175:1 worry Y 98:9 worthless 149:10 wrapping 106:10 14:8 30:6 45:7 71:19 123:13 124:3 125:12 126:23 132:11 140:9 170:7 173:9,14 178:4 181:11 186:10,13 202:21 203:16 206:11 10:17, 22 12:24 31:16 36:15 144:22 year written wrong 96:2 year's 73:18 127:8 129:20 years yesterday 7:13 175:7 208:25 Z 35:6 52:17 98:8 119:8 132:5 zoom 29:15 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco EXHIBIT 2 06/2 I /20 7 Deposition Exhibit CS EX. A ELECTIIEX. A FELONY EW VoterView Processes - Removal due to felony conviction in VoterView disabled - Felony letter removed [disabled] VoterScan Processes - Removal processes now in VoterScan - Statewide duplicate check now checks felony conviction statewide - New incomplete reason - FELONY CONVICTION - New?incomplete notices? - felon notices (removal notice and denial notice) - New document type -Administrative List Maintenance Action Form - New 35-day automated removal of registration due to felony conviction to align with NC felony list maintenance law Felony reports modi?ed on CBE Intranet - Felony reports refreshed daily - Report criteria changes - Format changes CS EX. A A FELONY NOTICES Notice of Removal due to Felony Notice of Denial of Registration due to Conviction Felony Conviction All?! ?le COUNTY lu- Fx-nm' I uwuu KM: ?mm?nun- Act-202" may?: N7 ?Mn? Inna-5? u: um! ID :uurH-eq-?u. cuunrwcuowc ?Juan-raw - ?(u?nun Maura-lul- 'uwm?w? - mamamuanm-? mm "Nd-r min-- mquv-u?v?q; oat-u- .. . WV. 0-1- w- ?nu-r- nuns-mun: nil-unvuuo-II-u? It'll?ul?n?m?I uric?uln- unau?mumu??hq-ch-?n nu-n?m-u?u-nn-tn?nu-un vuurum an: n: .- wrun- El'ibl u?u? nn?uu?y-u?qwru?ay?u-nun? anus?.- up-a?oupa?vu?sun-Iu-??-?-w?uu win-II- -I-nnli u??p?qnb-n-v . . .mmanmwu an?: I: h? . I 3-: noun-n- Inwnm?mm?v?yu?uw- . . D?m?mwwl?ulb-IUD?I? null?? u-u?s-mhw?nnm-n EX. A A FELONY REMOVAL NOTICE Sent to Existing voters Printed from Incomplete queue EX. A A June 20. 2017 T0: TARSHA LAVERNE HARRIS 587- WASHINGTON LN ALBEMARLE. 28301 RE: NOTICE OF REMOVAL DUE To FELONY CONVICTION Voter ?ame; TARS HA LAVERNE PARRIS Residential Address: "37? 4mm? 3T ALBEMARLE NC- assist Date of Birth: Pany: DEVCCPATIC This office has received a notice otyour reoeht felony conviction As an active felon. you are not qualified to vote in North Carolina Please note that active felons serving prison time or those on probation or parole for a lelony conviction who have not completed all aspects oftheir sentence. such as a period of carcle or probation It Is a felony to vote if you are not quali?es to no so Please note that because you are a convicteo felon. your voter registration in STAN LY cunty will be cancelled in 30 clays til it has not already been cancelled). It you d'sagree with the firming that yGLi are an active felon and we to object to the removal of your name from the Is I of registered vc?ters. ycu musiobject in writing within 30 days ofthis notice If you object, the cnarman of the county boars! ofelections ill enter a challenge to your voter regisuation You will then be notified to aopear at a challenge hearing The abcve references notice and other relevant recoros reoelveo by our office of your felony conviction will be introoucea as evidence at the hearing If you are in a deferred groaecurion status for a felony. please contact our office immeoialely to orowoe us the details. including the name ano telephone number ofyour current probation office! and the attorney who representeo you Persons ?no are on deferred prosecution may not be subject to removal and may avoid removal from the voter registration rolls A convicted felon rights of citizenship are restored automatically under the orcvisrons of 5 discharge olthe lelon, sentence. ll'lClUOll'lQ periods of probation or parole. or a full pardon At that time. provided that you are unner nc other active felony convictions. you lse auali?eo to vote. Uocn completion cfyciur sentence. you mustsubmila new voter registration fOl'lTl tr.? the c:unty boar: of elections office where you res ice. Please note: Ifyau bEiiEv?E that the information contained in this letter concerning your voter eligibility is incorrect. you mustobieot in writing to this office within 30 days of this notice Please mail your written objection and any documentation to the attention COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS PO BOX 1309 ALBEMARLE. NC 28002 If you have any questions. you may contact county ooaro clelections ati.04i l. TARSHA LAVERNE HARR IS. object to my removal as a voter on the following grounos DENIAL NOTICE Sent to new registrants in county Printed from incomplete queue Mu be sent certified mail EX. A A June 20. 2017 CHRISTOPHER FOUNTAIN 45-212 BUTTERCUF FARM RD HC 23137 RE: NOTICE OF DENIAL 0F REGISTRATION DUE TO FELONY CONVICTION Voter Name: Fourth-em Residential Address: 452': FARM R8 RICHFIELD. NC 28?37 Date orBirtn: pany: UNAFFILIATED Pursuant to 5 163-82 Tim and it}, the Stanly County Board of Elections has oetermlneo thaty'ou are not eligible to registerto vote in Stanly County. North Carolina at this time The determination of ineligibility is oased upcn felony recads indicating that you are an active felon The term 'act?we felon? refers to persons sewing prison time. or convicted felons who have not completed all ascects cfthe sentence. including completion of a period ofparcle or probation who are still sewing a sentence for a felcny conviction and have compietea all terms of parole or probatior' are not aualified to vote In North Carolina it is a felony to vote under this circumstance Ycu may appeal this within five days ofreceiving this notice The appeals process tar cenisl of registration is set in 5 requires that you submit a signed written notice at appeal to the Stanly County Board cfEleclIona The notice cfappeal must include your name. date olbirth, address. reasons for the appeal, and yoursignature The address for the Board of Elections is STANLY COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS PO BOX 1309 ALEEMARLE. NC 28002 5 163-82 18 Appealfrom demalol?regiarranon is: Right to Appeal Any appiic am? who receives notice of denial or registration pursuant to 6.5. 163-32.? appeal the creme! within five days after receipt of the notice of denial The county board of elections snail prom pry set a date for a public hearing The notice ofappeal shall' be in wrlt'mg and shall be Signed by the appealing party. shall include the appealngparty'e nam e. date of birth address, and reasons for the appeal If you are In a deferred grosecufbn status for a felony. please contact our office immediately and orowde us with certain details. including the name an: telephone number of your current probation officer and the who remesenled you Persons who are on deferred prosecution may not be subject to denial of regisuation and may their: removal from the voter regatration rolls CS hill/if, State of North Carolina LIST MAINTENANCE ACTION [County] County Board of Elections _n 7: CBE Sta?: . Date: Used to initiate manual list maintenance activity for removal due to felony conviction Used to cancel registration for existing voters :Jr. ESL :11 [:11 Elm :Iv :v State Felony Conviction Federal Felony Conviction Section to clip and paste screenshots List Maintenance Death Removed from Jurisdiction Scanned into VoterScan (document type) Available in STEPPs CS EX. A A FELONY CONVICTION REPORTS DOC Felon County List NF Jk Refreshed DOC Felon State Matching List Jk DOC Felony Completed List DOC Felony Completed State Matching List DOC Felon Search Daily CS EX. A A DOC FELON REPORTS UPDATED The DOC Felon reports in the County Reports on the intranet have been updated. EX. A A Felon County List-Daily report that shows the current list of persons who have an Active felony status due to conviction of a felony in a North Carolina state court.The report is available by the county in which the person was convicted of a felony (or was a resident at the tim of his or her conviction). User must select county and user may select conviction month and year. Felon State Matching List?Daily report that shows the current list of persons who have an Active felony status due to conviction of a felony in a North Carolina state courtAND who have been matched to an Active, Inactive or Temporary voter record in SEIMS. Report is available by county of voter?s current registration, regardless of county of conviction. User must select county. Felon Completed List-Daily report that shows the current list of persons who are no longer considered to be active felons. User must select county, and to and from discharge dates. Felon Completed State Matching List?Daily report that shows the current list of persons who are no longer considered to be active felons matched to a voter record in SEIMS. List of felons who are no longer considered to be felons sent by Department of Public Safety (formerly Department of Corrections) that match to voters within SEIMS. User must select county, and to and from discharge dates. Data for this report will be refreshed daily. Data for this report will be refreshed daily. DOC Felon Search-On-demand report that provides a county board of elections with the ability to search the database of reported felons sent by the Department of Public Safety (formerly Department of Corrections). User must enter last name and birth date. Data for this report will be refreshed daily. CS EX. WORKING WITH FELON REPORTS IN EXCEL A Access the County Reports on the intranet. Check Felon State Matching List Weekly if absentee voting has not started Daily once absentee voting begins Select county and View Report Once report is generated, export to CSV (comma delimited) (do not choose Excel) Report will open in Excel I Place cursor inside of a cell Al I Select CTRL A (to select all cells with data) I Select?Format as Table? from the ribbon I Select one of the table options in Table Style Medium 6 I Check?My table has headers" and select OK When the formatted table appears, select the Table Tools Design tab on the ribbon (look to the far right). Make sure that Banded Rows is checked. (This will alternate the shading for each row.) The DOC record will appear ?rst for each potential SEIMS match. Use the data in the match criteria columns to help determine if the DOC record (DOC row) matches a registered voter (SEIMS row). A Rcwu alcgurjr w- Hun- an; 0 ?Zuni m-lw-l'm 1V??Iofu1up "alumina. Repel! Dem Mr. idulh that 1:1? ?In?l?c? Ipphulwm to I mum: :cu?h? mdaufm: pn" saw nmumn unY'. I'vr mum ham! sum-w. nn'. :Irlul In: .hv- ran:- . .. 1.1 ("Jii'q'i i 'ul?hl Ih" In- hnIL n. m..al:.l .1-. In mull-I ?m on in: u?fltp?nrd durh? in L'ta mm: {mm In chum mind; u: \?mr um.? {a . Iqwu .i hr .1-..ul.Ihl- In. IL- I Emu-nil: . um; i :f ?and: d- u'n'hn 1%.er 3. n-n mm! mm [an :uu-u: Jule and mm hm mm: me! b4 2 and beg-.1. and and ?Un?t Jaln VNP .Lm fur PI: . P-hvlr .hnu1?llup.1..nl.ul?19Ir. 'rl: urn. huumh E1 km?ul Strut-Hunky n: u-pc?rd v1.1 hj. DHHK ru .urrl. - -. i-xn Luml hj. .mulh Hum?: .Irul \ral \Nc du: :37 vhu rep-5H theuld Iv. 3' what!? Yb: 'rh (av-h nun-1!: Ln: :1 ?mun her-1 Ia: Jumt-unm ?11: :ounhu thal ?km hen: ?the: v1 tun-mm: 1mm moth" i'x-r mm! 4 . nunh Hahn nut ?Lu- l. 4 ma mm mm 23.1mm- a: :cmm AIL-J as us: saw-:1 b: Shh-In mu DOC Um nun! aelm and to 2nd fwru mum-,1 dun \Ic-Ie Dam in Ibn gel-mt u. rr?exhv?J .Ln?s. z" w! {dot-.2 Lulu-:1 unann! hp X?ler. In 001 Illal ma: 1. h- xllun wlr. town. and and :m jar-huge dam Kale Du: 5m :rpun 1? .l?m .Lulx h: ufll-jmrh-J :Hmr. mu In .104? T?m mun 54? 'l .i'unl'. .rml Inn "Ln m'l: ?mJ "nu Not: Dam in um :epcln b: :c?cihcd duh :1 "pone: Edam. u-m 33"" u! mun 1.1-: dare Val! (m rhu "pun *ull?he ?full-AS .bl'n L?ilrpm?t?d {Plum mm In DOE In." ~uthm L'u-v mun ?In[Hired-:6 Ju?n hawk-n Ln! a: pun-um: regi-nuuon nun-he- un?t cums: 2m Hamel: It: mmhu hem: max-v a: I: Ilmr sun. .Lulhv :hcm funk}: do not ?un- T'lzv Lu ?u rh?ck? in! mm: mm: huh date an} numb-n Lu! [um mummc huh date and Sh.? vum? mnhli- n.nn- hull-u uLI'r. rm w?mln mi {sur?I'v( - ya. . - ?h Ream 1: CS EX. A A ADMINISTRATIVE LIST MAINTENANCE North Carolina law does not permit persons who are currently serving a criminal sentence (either state or federal) for a felony conviction to vote.Thus, persons who are currently serving a criminal sentence for a felony conviction may not register to vote and the registration of those who are currently registered (active, inactive or temporary) must be removed. Identify felons by: I Checking felon reports on Intranet I Receiving notices of felony conviction from State or Federal sources This process has not changed.You will still use the intranet reports and notices on a regular basis to determine voters that need to be removed due to felony convictions. CS EX. A A ADMINISTRATIVE LIST MAINTENANCE Once felons are identi?ed, process them as followsSearch for potential felon matches in VoterView. If a match is found, complete a List Maintenance Action Form. Scan the List Maintenance Action Form into VoterScan and perform data entry, linking it (via Check for Existing) to an existing voter. Save the record to the incomplete queue with a reason of FELONY CONVICTION. Find the record in the incomplete queue and print the felony conviction notice-Notice of Removal Due to Felony Conviction. Mail the notice by regular mail. After 35 days, if the record has not been moved out of the VRC Incomplete queue or another incomplete reason has not been assigned, then theVoterView record status will change to Removed with a reason of FELONY VoterScan record will be moved to theVRC Archive queue. If voter objects to removal within 30 days, change the incomplete reason to Other Reason and add ?Object to Removal for Felony Conviction? to the second line and initiate a voter challenge according to GS 63?82. CS ADMINISTRATIVE LIST MAINTENANCE DEMO EX. A A AUTOMATED LIST MAINTENANCE: STATEWIDE FELONY CHECK At the time the statewide duplicate check is performed in VoterScan, which happens at the time a record is being processed out of the review queue into VoterView, the system shall run a process to identify any potential felons. For both new and existing voters (ACTIVE, and TEMPORARY), the system shall compare SEIMS data with the felon data to ?nd potential felon matches, at a statewide level, using the following criteria: I Driver?s license number and birth date; or I First name, last name, birth date and last 4 of SSN I If a registration is linked to an existing voter and a felon match identified by the duplicate check, the record moves to the incomplete queue with the FELONY CONVICTION reason. Note: The system does not provide any noti?cation that this has happened so counties will have to manually check the incomplete queue DAILY for voters moved there by the process. Search the IQ on the FELONY CONVICTION reason. I Send the Notice of Removal Due to Felony Conviction by regular mail EX. A A DENIAL OF REGISTRATION Pursuant to l63-82.7, when a county board of elections receives an application for registration, the board either: (I) shall make a determination that the applicant is not qualified to vote, or (2) shall make a tentative determination that the applicant is quali?ed to vote at the address given, subject to the mail verification notice procedure. EX. A A During the statewide felony check process, if a registration is NOT linked to an existing voter and a felon match is identified, the record moves to the incomplete queue with the FELONY CONVICTION reason. Send the Notice of Denial of Registration due to Felony Conviction by certi?ed mail within 2 business days. Felon can appeal within 5 days of receipt of Notice of Denial after signed certified mail receipt is received by county. If no appeal is received, the registration can be archived. If an appeal is received, change the incomplete reason to Other Reason with ?Appeal Denial of Registration clue to Felony Conviction? and set a date for the appeal hearing. CS DENIAL OF REGISTRATION DEMO P. F, I :0 Sal-cu? mm; Quanta I 1' IrrI-? WU. int-Hi! 56.: EX. A A VOTER OBJECTION OR APPEAL Objection to Removal Appeal Denial I See GS ? 63-82. I4 I See GS I Change incomplete reason to something other than I If no appeal, then archive the registration after ?ve FELONY CONVICTION before 35 days (5) days from date of certi?ed mail receipt. I If appealed and the CBE challenge is sustained, archive the registration. I If appealed and the CBE challenge is overruled, process the registration. CS EX. A A VOTER OBJECTION TO FELONY REMOVAL Follow the process below if a felon objects to removal: Find the voter's record in theVRC Incomplete queue. 2. Open the record and in the Incomplete Reason select OTHER for the first line and then manually enter "Object to Removal for Felony Conviction". 3. Follow the procedures in STEPPs to initiate a voter challenge. CS EX. A A TO FELONY REMOVAL DEMO EJEJ mm :m EX. A A FELON RVED AFTER 35 DAYS Ea 5? FELONY SENTENCE COMPLETED PROCESS To meet the requirements of 202(a) of the Help AmericaVote Act of 2002 (HAVA), l63-82. provides the statewide voter registration database must re?ect changes when a voter whose voter registration was cancelled due to a felony conviction has his or her citizenship rights restored. In order to meet these requirements, the State Board of Elections receives data from the Department of Public Safety that shows persons who have completed their felony sentence. Counties must use this information to update voter records. Follow the process below if it is determined that a felon has completed their sentence: Note:You should check the FELONY SENTENCE COMPLETED LIST weekly if absentee voting has not started and MK once absentee voting begins: I. In VoterView, search for the voter who completed his or her felony sentence. 2. Open the record and change the removal reason to FELONY SENTENCE COMPLETED. Do NOT reactivate the voter record as they must re-register to be able to vote. 3. Save the changes as an administrative update. CS EX. A A EX. A A FINAL NOTES I Currently there is no way to know what felon notice will print for records in the IQ with the FELONY CONVICTION reason just by looking at the record in queue.Therefore, when notices are printed (more than one at a time), you will have to separate them into two groups and send the Removal notices via regular mail and the Denial notices via certi?ed mail. I Don?t forget to check your IQ for new FELONY CONVICTION records moved there by the Statewide duplicate check.This is a completely manual process at this time. I For any questions on the felon process not answered in this presentation, please enter a helpdesk ticket which will be directed to the Voter Services team for SEIMS questions, or the Business team for process questions. Email HelpRequest.SBOE@ncsbe.gov to enter a ticket. Please do not call staff directly, always enter a ticket. I View the felony process information in STEPPs for more detailed information. Click this link to access the page in STEPPs. Or you can go to the main STEPPs page and then navigate to Voter Registration?List Maintenance?Felony Conviction. CS EX. A A THE ALL BE DRIVEN TO CS EX. A A EXHIBIT 3 Federal Felony Conviction Report SBOE receives quarterly reports from the U.S. Attorney offices on persons who have been convicted of a felony crime in a United States district court. SBOE will forward these reports to the county boards of elections. County boards must then review the reports and research their voter registration records to determine if any person listed on the federal report matches a record for a registered voter (active, inactive or temporary) in their county. Again, once a county board of election receives a notice of a felony conviction of a person who is registered to vote in the county, the county board of elections shall initiate steps to cancel the person's registration by send the voter a written notice that his voter registration will be cancelled by the board of elections within 30 days, unless the voter objects to the removal. Per the felony list maintenance process, the county board of elections must complete an List Maintenance Action Form for each voter who is identified as being an active felon. This form must be scanned into VoterScan and processed as an administrative voter registration update (source 00). Once processed and linked to the existing voter, the county must generate, print and mail the voter the removal notice. The voter will then have 30 days to object to his removal. If the voter notifies the county board of elections of his objection to the removal within 30 days of the notice, the chairman of the board of elections shall enter a voter challenge. The state or federal felony conviction notice the county board received shall be prima facie evidence for the preliminary hearing that the registrant was convicted of a felony. State Felony Conviction Removal Process Federal Felony Conviction Removal Process Q: Is there an easier way to populate the List Maintenance Action Form? A: Yes. Use a mail merge. The mail merge template is here: List Maintenance Action Form template. How to Perform a Mail Merge Felony Sentence Completed Process To meet the requirements of 202(3) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 6.5. 163-8111 provides the statewide voter registration database must reflect changes EX- 3 HST MAINTENANCE LIST MAINTENANCE ?Blips?012 EXHIBIT 4 EX. Deposition Exhibit NORTH CAROLINA VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATION (?elds in red text are rec 020 02 06W .Indicate whether you are quali?ed to vote or preregister to vote based on US. citizenship and age. Are you a citizen of the United States of America? IFYOU CHECKED IN RESPONSE TO THIS CITIZENSHIP QUESTION, DO NOT SUBMIT THIS FORM. YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO VOTE 35 0 Will you be at least 18 years of age on or before election day? Yes No Are you at least 16 years of age and understand that you must be 18 years of age on or before election day to vote? IF YOU CHECKED IN RESPONSE TO BOTH OF THESE QUESTIONS, DO NOT SUBMIT THIS FORM. Yes No YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO REGISTER OR PREREGISTER TO VOTE. Provide your full legal name. Provide your date of birth and identi?cation information. Last Name Suffix Date of Birth (M State or Country of Birth First Name . NC Driver License or NC DMV ID Number Last 4 Digits of Security Number Middle Name Check if you do not have State Voter Registration Number (Optional: To a driver license or locate, check ?Voter Lookup? at NCSBE. gov.) Social Security number. Provide your residential address - where you physically live. . . . "Do not enter a PD. Box or a mail drop location. 5 Prowde a MEM- Address Number Street Name and Type DO YOU VECEIVE Mailing Address Line 1 mail at your residential Address Line 2 apartment, lot or unit number) Yes El No Mailing Address Line 2 if you are City State Zip Code Sarat'illiieedatr?iiailing Mailing Address Line 3 address. County Have you lived at this If date moved? State Zip Code address for 30 or more days? Yes No No Physical Address? If you do not have an address, use the space NORTH to the right to illustrate where you normally live or sleep. Write in the names of the nearest crossroads (or streets). Draw an on the map to show where you live or usually sleep. IMPORTANT: You should also provide a valid mailing address above to permit the board of elections to send you a voter card. Provide your demographic information (optional). Provide your choice for political party af?liation. El Male African AmericaniBlack Democratic Party Libertarian Party Other Gender . . . . . . Female American IndianiAlaska Native Constitution Party Republican Party . . . . If you select a party that is Not HispaniclLatino Race a Acian I: Multiracial Green Party Unaf?liated not recognized in North Ethnicit . Native Hawaiiani?Paci?c Islander Carolina, you will be H'SPan'dl-at'm El White Other registered as Una?liated. Complete if you are currently registered to vote in another NC county or in another state. (This information will be used to cancel your previous voter registration in the other county or state.) First Name Used in Last Registration Middle Name Used in Last Registration Last Name Used in Last Registration Suffix Address Where You Were Last Registered City/State/Zip Code of Last Registration County of Last Registration Provide your contact information (optional). (This information is helpful if we need to contact you concerning your voter registration. Your contact information may be disclosed as a public record.) Area Code Phone Number Email Address Would you like to be contacted to be a poll worker? El Yes No 10 Sign below to attest to your quali?cations to vote. FRAUDULENTLY 0R FALSELY COMPLETING THIS FORM IS A CLASS 1 FELONY UNDER CHAPTER 163 OF THE NC GENERAL STATUTES. attest, under penalty of perjury, that in addition to having read and understood the contents of this form, that: (1) lam a United States citizen, as indicated above; (2) I am at least 18 years of age, or will be by the date of the general election; or I am at least 16 years old and understand that I must be at least 18 years old on the day of the general election to vote; I shall have been a resident of North Carolina, this county, and precinct for 30 days before the date of the election in which I intend to vote; (3) I will not vote in any other county or state after submission of this form and if I am registered elsewhere, I am canceling that registration at this time; and (4) I have not been convicted of a felony, or have been convicted of a felony, have completed my sentence, including any probation. Signature Required Date 1 EX- APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Use this application to: (I) register to vote; (2) preregister to vote if between the ages of 16 and 17; (3) change party or status; (4) report a change of address within a county; or (5) report a name change. Specific Instructions for Each Numbered Section of the Application: Indicate whether you are quali?ed to vote or preregister to vote: (1) you must be a citizen of the United States; (2) you must be at least 18 years of age, or you will be 18 years of age by the next general election and you are voting in the primary, or you must be between the ages of 16 or 17 and desire to preregister to vote; (3) you must have resided in North Carolina and in the precinct in which you present to vote for at least 30 days prior to the election; you must not be currently serving a felony sentence; and (5) if previously convicted of a felony, you must have fully completed your sentence, including probation and/or parole. No special document is recluired. Provide your full legal name. If your name has changed, this form will be used to update your current voter registration. You are required to provide your date of birth. If you have a NC driver license or non-operator?s identification number, provide this number. If you do not have 3 NC driver license or ID card, then provide the last four digits of your social security number. lfyou have neither a NC driver license, NC DMV ID card or a social security number and you are registering to vote for the ?rst time in North Carolina, attach a copy ofa current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows your name and address to this application. Provide the address of your residence (where you physically live) as of the date of your application. In this section, do not list a post of?ce address or a location where you oniy receive mail. If you have moved to this residence within the past 30 days, provide the date of your move. If you do not have a traditional address, draw a picture in the space provided on this form of your usual sleEping location. Be descriptive and note any nearby streets or physical buildings. lfyou do not receive mail at your residential address, you must provide a mailing address. I This section asks for your gender, race, and ethnicity. You are not required to provide this information. I This section asks that you designate how you would like to be affiliated. You may choose to affiliate with any recognized 7 political party in North Carolina or you may opt to be registered as Unaffiliated. If you are applying for new registration in the county and leave the party af?liation section blank, you will be registered as If you are currently registered in another North Carolina county or another state, please provide your name and previous address used on that prior registration. This information will be used to cancel your registration in the other county or state. At your option, provide your phone number and email address. I are applying for new registration in your county of residence, you must mail your original signature on this form. You must sign this form. Only the person applying for registration is eligible to sign (or place your mark on) this form. If you National Voter Registration Act Statement: If you are submitting this application to an NVRA agency or the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, the location or office where you submitted the application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes. Public assistance agencies, disability services agencies, the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, and unemployment services agencies must offer you the opportunity to register to vote at the initial application for service of assistance and during any recerti?cation, renewal or change of address. If you decline to register to vote, the fact that you so declined will also remain con?dential. If you would like help completing the voter registration application, the agency will help you. The decision whether to seek or accept help is yours. You may fill out the application form in private and return it to the agency that provided you the form or you may mail or deliver the form to your county board of elections office. Applying to register or declining to register to vote will not affect the amount of assistance provided. If you believe that someone has interfered with your right to register to vote, or your right to choose your own political party or other political preference, you may ?le a complaint with the NC State Board of Elections, P.O. Box 27255, Raleigh NC 27611-7255 or you may call the agency at 1? 866-522-4723. Submitting Your Form: You must m_ail or deliver this application in-person with your original signature if you are registering to vote for the ?rst time in your county of residence. If you are changing your name, address or party affiliation within your current county of registration, in addition to m_ail, you may also or email a scanned image of your signed application. If you give your signed application to another person or organization to submit on your behalf, be sure the person or organization can commit to timely submitting your application to the proper board of elections. Voters are not currently required to provide photo ID. Federal and state courts have temporarily blocked North Carolina?s voter photo ID requirement from taking effect until further order of the courts. EX- QEX- MAILING ADDRESSES OF COUNTY BOARD OFFICES ALAMANCE 115 SOUTH MAPLE ST GRAHAM NC 27253 (336) 570-6755 ALEXANDER PO BOX 326 TAYLORSVILLE NC 23631 (323) 632-2990 ALLEGHANY PO BOX 65 SPARTA NC 23675 (336) 3724557 ANSON PO BOX 768 WADESBORO, NC 28170 (704} 994-3223 ASHE 150 GOVERNMENT CIR, STE 2100 JEFFERSON NC 23640 (336) 346-5570 AVERY PO BOX 145 NEWLAND NC 23657 (323) 733-3232 BEAUFORT PO BOX 1016 WASHINGTON NC 27339 (252)946-2321 BERTIE PO BOX 312 WINDSOR NC 27933 (252) 794-5306 BLADEN PO BOX 512 ELIZABETHTOWN, NC 23337 (910) 362-6951 BRUNSWICK PO BOX 2 BOLIVIA NC 23422 (910) 253-2620 BUNCOMBE PO BOX 7463 ASHEVILLE NC 23302 (323) 2504200 BURKE PO BOX 793 MORGANTON NC 28680-0798 (323) 764-9010 CABARRUS PO BOX 1315 CONCORD, NC 28026-1315 (704) 920-2860 CALDWELL PO BOX 564 LENOIR, NC 28645 (828} 757-1326 CAMDEN PO BOX 206 CAMDEN NC 27921-0206 (252) 333-5530 CARTERET 1702 LIVE OAK ST, STE 200 BEAUFORT NC 23516-1393 (252) 723-3460 CASWELL PO BOX 693 YANCEYVILLE, NC 27379 (336) 6944010 CATAWBA PO BOX 132 NEWTON, NC 28658-0389 (828} 464-2424 O-IATHAM PO BOX 111 PITTSBORO NC 27312 (919) 545-3500 CHEROKEE 40 PEACHTREE ST MURPHY, NC 28906 (828} 837-6670 CHOWAN PO BOX 133 EDENTON NC 27932 (252) 4324010 CLAY 54 CHURCH ST HAYESVILLE NC 23904 (323) 339-6312 CLEVELAND PO BOX 1299 SHELBY NC 231511299 (704) 4344353 COLUMBUS PO BOX 37 WHITEVILLE NC 23472 (910) 6406609 CRAVEN 406 CRAVEN ST NEW BERN NC 23560 (252) 636-6610 EX. SEX. CUMBERLAND 227 FOUNTAINHEAD LN, STE 101 FAYETTEVILLE NC 23301 (910) 673-7733 OJRRITUCK PO BOX 177 CURRITUCK, NC 27929 (252) 232-2525 DARE PO BOX 1000 MANTEO, NC 27954 (252} 475-5631 DAVIDSON PO BOX 1034 LEXINGTON NC 27293-1034 (336) 242-2190 DAVIE 161 POPLAR ST, STE 102 MOCKSVILLE, NC 27028-2225 (336) 753-6072 DUPLIN PO BOX 975 KENANSVILLE, NC 28349 (910) 296-2170 DURHAM PO BOX 363 DURHAM NC 27702 (919) 560-0700 EDGECOMBE PO BOX 10 TARBORO NC 27336 (252) 641-7352 201 N. CHESTNUTST WINSTON SALEM, NC 27101-4120 (336) 703-2800 FRANKLIN PO BOX 130 NC 27549 (919) 496-3393 GASTON PO BOX 1396 ASTONIA NC 23053 (704) 352-6005 GATES PO BOX 621 GATESVILLE NC 27933 (252) 357-1730 GRAHAM PO BOX 1239 ROBBINSVILLE NC 23771 (323)479-7969 GRANVILLE PO BOX 83 OXFORD, NC 27565-0083 (91.9) 693-2515 GREENE 110 SE SNOW HILL, NC 28580 (252) 747-5921 GUILFORD PO BOX 3427 GREENSBORO NC 27402 (336) 641-3336 HALIFAX PO BOX 101 HALIFAX, NC 27839 (252) 583-4391 PO BOX 356 LILLINGTON NC 27546 (910) 393-7553 HAYWOOD 63 ELMWOOD WAY, STE A WAYNESVILLE NC 23736 (323) 452-6633 HENDERSON PO BOX 2090 HENDERSONVILLE NC 23793 (323) 6974970 HERTFORD PO BOX 355 AHOSKIE, NC 27910 (252) 358-7812 HOKE PO BOX 1565 RAEFORD NC 23376-1565 (910) 375-3751 HYDE PO BOX 152 SWAN QUARTER NC 27335 (252)926-4194 IREDELL 203 STOCKTON ST ATESVILLE, NC 28677 (704) 878-3140 JACKSON 876 SKYLAND DR, STE 1 SYLVA, NC 28779-2705 (828) 586-7538 JOHNSTON PO BOX 1172 SMITHFIELD NC 27577 (919)939-5095 JONES (252)443-3921 LEE PO BOX 1443 SANFORD NC 27331 (919)713-4646 LENOIR PO BOX 3503 KINSTON NC 23502-3503 (252) 523-0636 LINCOLN 451 SALEM CHURCH RD LINCOLNTON, NC 28092 (704} 736-8480 MACON 5 WEST MAIN ST, FL 1 FRANKLIN, NC 28734 (828) 349-2034 MADISON PO BOX 142 MARSHALL NC 23753 (323)649-3731 MARTIN PO BOX 301 WILLIAMSTON NC 27392 (252) 739-4317 MCDOWELL PO BOX 1509 MARION, NC 28752 (828) 659-0834 MECKLENBURG PO BOX 31788 CHARLOTTE, NC 28231-1788 {704} 336-2133 MITCHELL 11 MITCHELL AVE, RM 108 BAKERSVILLE, NC 28705 (828} 688-3101 MONTGOMERY PO BOX 607 TROY, NC 27371 (910) 572-2024 MOORE POST OFFICE BOX 737 CARTHAGE NC 23327 (910)947-3363 NASH PO BOX 305 NASHVILLE NC 27356 (252) 459-1350 NEW HANOVER 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DR, STE 33 WILMINGTON NC 23403 (910)793-7330 NORTHAMPTON PO BOX 603 JACKSON NC 27345 (252)534-5631 ONSLOW 246 GEORGETOWN RD JACKSONVILLE NC 23540 (910) 455-4434 ORANGE PO BOX 220 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27273 (919} 245-2350 PAMLICO PO BOX 464 BAYBORO NC 23515 (252)745-4321 PASOUOTANK PO BOX 1797 ELIZABETH CITY NC 27906 (252) 335-1739 PENDER PO BOX 1232 BURGAW NC 23425 (910) 259-1220 PERQUIMANS PO BOX 336 HERTFORD NC 27944 (252)426-5593 PERSON 331 SOUTH MORGAN ST ROXBORO, NC 27573-5223 (336) 597-1727 PITT PO BOX 56 REENVILLE NC 27835-0056 (252) 902-3300 RANDOLPH 1457 N. FAYETTEVILLE ST ASHEBORO, NC 27203 (336) 318-6900 RICHMOND PO BOX 1343 ROCKINGHAM NC 23330 (910) 997-3253 ROBESON PO BOX 2159 MBERTON, NC 28359 (910} 671-3080 ROCKINGHAM PO BOX 22 WENTWORTH NC 27375 (336) 342-3107 ROWAN 1935 JAKE ALEXANDER BLVD W, STE 010 SALISBURY NC 23147 (704) 216-3140 PO OX 927 RUTHERFORDTON, NC 28139 (828} 287-6030 SAMPSON 120 COUNTY COMPLEX RD, STE 110 CLINTON, NC 28328 (910} 592-5796 SCOTLAND 231 EAST CRON LY ST, STE 305 LAURINBURG, NC 28352 (910} 277-2595 PO BOX 1309 ALBEMARLE NC 23002 (704) 986-3647 STOKES PO BOX 34 DANBURY NC 27016 (336) 593-2409 SURRY PO BOX 372 NC 27017 (336) 401-8225 SWAIN PO BOX 133 BRYSON CITY, NC 28713 (828} 488-6177 PO BOX 868 BREVARD NC 23712 (323)334-3114 TYRRELL PO BOX 449 COLUMBIA NC 27925 (252) 7964775 UNION PO BOX 1106 MONROE NC 23111-1106 (704) 233-3309 VANCE 300 S. GARNETTST, STE HENDERSON, NC 27536 (252} 492-3730 WAKE PO BOX 695 RALEIGH, NC 27602-0695 (919} 404-4040 WARREN PO BOX 803 WARRENTON, NC 27589 (252} 257-2114 WASHINGTON PO BOX 1007 PLYMOUTH, NC 27962-1007 (252) 793-6017 WATAUGA PO BOX 528 BOONE, NC 28607 (828} 265-8061 WAYNE 309 E. CHESTNUT ST GOLDSBORO, NC 27530 (919) 731-1411 WILKES 110 NORTH ST, RM 315 WILKESBORO, NC 28697 (336} 651-7339 WILSON PO BOX 2121 WIISON NC 27394-2121 (252) 399-2336 YADKIN PO BOX 877 YADKINVILLE, NC 27055 (336} 849-7907 YANCEY PO BOX 763 EEOX 253 EXHIBIT 5 ONE STOP APPLICATION One-stoma. NORTH CAROLINA Election Dare COUNTY OF 0R FALSELY COMPLETING THIS FORM IS A CLASS I FELONY UNDER CHAPTER 163 OF THE NC GENERAL STATUTES. A Voter's Certi?cation of Voting Quali?cations Voter Name VRN: Address REG PARTY: PRIMARY BALLOT: REG DATE: AGE: PCT: I): Mailing Address 1, certify that: I am a registered voter in this county and I shall have resided at the address noted above for 30 days immediately prior to this election. I am a United States Citizen. Deposition Exhibit I am at least 18 years of age, or will be by the date of the general election. For partisan primary elections ONLY: I am registered and I will receive a ballot I understand that it is a felony to vote more than one time in an election. I have not been convicted of a felony, or if I have been convicted of a felony, I have completed my sentence, including any probation or parole. SIGNATURE OF VOTER INITIALS a Change or Veri?cation of Name and Address (Use this section to verify or change a voter?s name or address in the registration records.) New Former Name: Name: New Former Address: Address: New Former Mailing Mailing Address: Have you lived here for 30 days or more? Yes No [Certify that I moved at least 30 days before this election to the new address. Ifno, date mOved? DAYTIME PHONE NO. Inactive Flag SIGNATURE OF VOTER Curbside Af?davit (Af?davit of person voting outside voting place or enclosure.) STATE OF NORTH CAROLENA, COUNTY OF Ido solemnly swear (or af?rm) that I am a registered voter in precinct. That because of age or physical disability, I am unable to enter the voting place to vote in person without physical assistance. That I desire to vote outside the voting place or enclosure. I understand that a false statement as to my condition will be in violation of North Carolina law. DATE VOTER ADDRESS SIGNATURE or SIGNATURE or PRECINCT OFFICIAL OFFICIAL USE Board Approval Date: Board Signature: ONLY Station Voting Method Voting Datemme WOW-04 Site Transaction Operatorrqaael QR ?00" saw I I -r EX. EXHIBIT 6 NC VOTING RIGHTS GUIDE: People in the Criminal Justice System I am currently sewing a felony sentence When you are convicted of a felony in North Carolina you cannot vote or register to vote until you have completed all the terms of your felony sentence, including any probation or parole. Attempting to register to vote or voting while you are serving a felony sentence is a felony. I have completed my felony sentence Once you have completed your felony sentence or have been pardoned, you are eligible to vote and may register. You can ask your releasing officer for your Certificate of Restoration of Forfeited Rights of Citizenship. It is not required to register to vote, but will prove your eligibility to vote if you are challenged. I am currently incarcerated You may still vote when you are incarcerated, as long as you are not serving a felony sentence. When you ?ll out the voter registration form, your residential address is the address of the place where you live when not incarcerated and where you intend to return when you are released. If you do not have a residence to return to, use the address of the place where you are incarcerated. Absentee by?mail voting is available before all elections in even-numbered years and most municipal elections in odd-numbered years. Am I eligible to vote? a You must be 18 years old or older by the general election, or you are at least 16 years old and understand you must be 18 years old by the general election. . You must be a U.S. citizen. You must not be serving an active felony sentence, including any probation or parole. No special document is required. . NOTE: When you are convicted of a misdemeanor in North Carolina, you DO NOT lose your right to vote, even if you are incarcerated. 0 You must have lived in the precinct for at least 30 days before the election. How do I register to vote? 1. Fill out a voter registration form at your county board of elections, public library or gov. 2. Sign and mail your form to the county board of elections in the county where you reside. Find county board information at gov. 3. Voter registration forms must be received at least 25 days before the election to vote in that election. 4. You will receive a voter card in the mail with your precinct and polling place. You may also register to vote and vote on the same day at any One-Stop early voting site in your county. One-Stop information can be found before an election at gov. NORTH CAROLINA State Board of Elections it Ethics Enforcement Deposition Exhibit For more information, please visit or call (866) 522-4723 EX. EXHIBIT 7 2. The person has been adjudged guilty of a felony and the person?s rights of citizenship have not been restored. 3. The person is dead. 4. The person is not a citizen of the United States. 5. The person is not who he or she represents himself or herself to be. 6. With respect to a primary or election, the person has already voted in the primary or election. 7. With respect to voting in a partisan primary, the person is a registered voter of another political party. NO RESIDENCY CHALLENGES Special Note for Residency Challenges AND Challenges Filed Within 90 Days Before Election: Pursuant to NC Conf. of NAACP v. State Board, 2018 WL 3748172 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2018), North Carolina?s voter challenge statute violates federal law when a challenge is based on the voter?s change of residency or non-individualized evidence within 90 days of an election: 0 No voter challenges based on change of residency Do not hear a challenge or take any other action to consider a voter challenge based on a voter?s change of residency. A challenge is based on change of residency, and is therefore NOT PERMITTED if the challenger alleges that the voter is not qualified because the voter has moved. 0 No voter challenges based on other qualifications without individualized knowledge within the 90 days before an election Do not hear a challenge or take any other action to consider a voter challenge that is brought without an individualized inquiry by the challenger. A challenge based on generic evidence that conveys no information about each challenged voter?s specific circumstance is NOT PERMITTED. The challenger must provide reliable first-hand evidence specific to the voter challenged. Database matches do not constitute individualized evidence. A challenge entered on the day of a primary or election shall be heard and decided by the chief judge and judges of election of the precinct in which the challenged registrant is registered before the polls are closed on the day the challenge is made. When the challenge is heard the precinct officials conducting the hearing shall explain to the challenged registrant the 5 Third-Party Voting Site Activities EX- 1 1 qualifications for registration and voting, and shall examine the voter as to his or her qualifications to be registered and to vote. To vote in North Carolina: a You must be a citizen of the United Are you a US. citizen? States. 0 You must be at least 18 years of Are you at least 18 years of age [or will be 18 age [or will become 18 by the date by the date of the next general election]? of the next general election]. 0 You must reside in North Carolina Please state the address where you have and in the precinct for which you resided for at least 30 days as of today. are registered and must have lived at your voting residence for at least 30 days prior to the date of this election. 0 You must not be currently on Are you currently on probation or parole for a probation or parole for a felony felony conviction? conviction. For the purposes of this challenge hearing: Please state your name. Are you a duly registered voter of this precinct and are you the person you represent yourself to be? Please state the party for which you are affiliated. Have you voted in this election by absentee ballot at this or any other voting place? 6 Third-Party Voting Site Activities EX- 1 ELECTIONOFHCIALMAEX- I EXHIBIT 8 COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. Michael J. Barber, PhD on 07/29/2020 · ·1· · · · · · · ·IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE ·2· · · · · · · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION ·3· · · · · ·STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF WAKE ·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · -o0o·5 ·6· · · ·7· · · ·8· · · ·9· · · 10· · · 11· · · 12· · · 13· COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE,) et al.,· · · · · · · · · · · ) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· No. 19-cv-15941 · · ·Plaintiffs',· · · · · · ·) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS· · ·) OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF SPEAKER ) OF THE NORTH CAROLINA· · · · ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,· · ) et al.,· · · · · · · · · · · ) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) · · ·Defendants.· · · · · · ·) _____________________________) 14 15 16 17· ·VIDEO CONFERENCED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL J. BARBER, PHD 18· · · · · · TAKEN THROUGH HUSEBY COURT REPORTING 19· · · · · · · · · ·Taken on July 29, 2020 20· · · · · · · · · · · · at 8:14 a.m. 21 22 23 24· Reported by:· Michelle Mallonee, RPR, CCR 25 www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. Michael J. Barber, PhD on 07/29/2020 Page 54 ·1· · · Q.· ·And it's possible that Alabama's felony ·2· disenfranchisement law was enacted with racial animus, ·3· right? ·4· · · A.· ·Yes, it is possible. ·5· · · Q.· ·Same for Tennessee? ·6· · · A.· ·Possible, yes. ·7· · · Q.· ·What about Louisiana? ·8· · · A.· ·Also possible. ·9· · · Q.· ·So sitting here today, Dr. Barber, you can't 10· tell me which of these other states did or did not enact 11· their felony disenfranchisement laws for discriminatory 12· purposes? 13· · · A.· ·As I said, my intent was simply to show the 14· current state of policy across the country. 15· · · Q.· ·Okay.· But can you tell me which of the other 16· states did or did not enact their felony 17· disenfranchisement laws for discriminatory purposes? 18· · · A.· ·No, I cannot. 19· · · Q.· ·Dr. Barber, is it possible that lots of states 20· have enacted certain types of laws that are 21· discriminatory? 22· · · A.· ·Again, it's possible. 23· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Dr. Barber, do you know how many states 24· in the country had a poll tax? 25· · · A.· ·I do not know the answer to that, no. www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. Michael J. Barber, PhD on 07/29/2020 Page 55 ·1· · · Q.· ·So if I told you that 45 states, including North ·2· Carolina, had a poll tax at a given point, specifically ·3· 1923, you'd have no basis to disagree with that? ·4· · · A.· ·I have no reason to doubt that you're ·5· representing the truth. ·6· · · Q.· ·So you'll accept my representation that 45 ·7· states, including North Carolina, had a poll tax? ·8· · · A.· ·Yes. ·9· · · Q.· ·And given that representation, North Carolina 10· was in the mainstream here, right? 11· · · A.· ·If North Carolina was among those 45, then yes. 12· · · Q.· ·North Carolina was among those 45. 13· · · · · ·Given that information, North Carolina was in 14· the mainstream there, right? 15· · · A.· ·Correct. 16· · · Q.· ·So does the fact that many other states had poll 17· taxes mean that North Carolina's poll tax was sound 18· public policy? 19· · · A.· ·You know, I -- probably not.· You know, going 20· back to, I think you said the 1920s, I think policy back 21· then was very different than it is now. 22· · · Q.· ·Would you say that it's sound public policy? 23· · · A.· ·A poll tax?· No. 24· · · Q.· ·So do you believe that North Carolina had free 25· and fair elections while its poll taxes were in place or www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. Michael J. Barber, PhD on 07/29/2020 Page 56 ·1· while the poll tax was in place? ·2· · · A.· ·Probably not. ·3· · · Q.· ·So the fact that lots of other states also had ·4· poll taxes doesn't mean that North Carolina's poll tax ·5· was consistent with the principle of free and fair ·6· elections, right? ·7· · · A.· ·Correct. ·8· · · Q.· ·Dr. Barber, are you aware of how many states ·9· allowed women to vote in all elections before the passage 10· of the 19th Amendment? 11· · · A.· ·I believe it was a few.· I think Utah was one of 12· them. 13· · · Q.· ·So if I told you that before the passage of the 14· 19th Amendment, a majority -- 33 to be exact -- of the 15· states in this country, including North Carolina, did not 16· allow women to vote in all elections, would you have any 17· basis to dispute that? 18· · · A.· ·Nope. 19· · · Q.· ·And given that information, North Carolina was 20· in the mainstream there too, right? 21· · · A.· ·Correct. 22· · · Q.· ·So does the fact that many other states didn't 23· allow women to vote in all elections mean that it was 24· sound public policy for North Carolina to not allow women 25· to vote in all elections. www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. Michael J. Barber, PhD on 07/29/2020 Page 57 ·1· · · A.· ·Of course not. ·2· · · Q.· ·Do you believe that North Carolina had free and ·3· fair elections when women weren't allowed to vote? ·4· · · A.· ·Of course not. ·5· · · Q.· ·So the fact that lots of other states didn't ·6· allow women to vote doesn't mean that North Carolina's ·7· disenfranchisement of women was consistent with the ·8· principle of free and fair elections, does it? ·9· · · A.· ·Of course not, no. 10· · · Q.· ·Dr. Barber, are you aware of how many states 11· require literacy tests to vote? 12· · · A.· ·No, I'm not.· I mean, I know that there are 13· states that require literacy tests.· But the exact 14· number, I don't know. 15· · · Q.· ·Dr. Barber, if I told you that half the states 16· in the country, including North Carolina, required a 17· literacy test as a qualification for voting prior to 18· 1965, would you have any basis to dispute that? 19· · · A.· ·No. 20· · · Q.· ·And given that representation, North Carolina 21· was in the mainstream there as well, right? 22· · · A.· ·That would be correct. 23· · · Q.· ·And does the fact that many other states 24· required a literacy test as a qualification for voting 25· mean that it was sound public policy for North Carolina www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. Michael J. Barber, PhD on 07/29/2020 Page 58 ·1· to require a literacy test? ·2· · · A.· ·No. ·3· · · Q.· ·Dr. Barber, do you believe that North Carolina ·4· had free and fair elections when we required a literacy ·5· test as a qualification for voting? ·6· · · A.· ·No, of course not. ·7· · · Q.· ·So the fact that lots of other states required a ·8· literacy test doesn't mean that North Carolina's ·9· disenfranchisement of people who were unable to read was 10· consistent with the principle of free and fair elections, 11· right? 12· · · A.· ·That's correct. 13· · · Q.· ·Dr. Barber, do you know how many states banned 14· interracial marriage at some point in the 20th century? 15· · · A.· ·I don't know. 16· · · Q.· ·And, Dr. Barber, if I told you that as of 1948, 17· a majority -- 39 states to be exact -- in this country, 18· including North Carolina, banned interracial marriage, 19· would you have any reason to dispute that? 20· · · A.· ·No. 21· · · Q.· ·And North Carolina was, once again, in the 22· mainstream, right? 23· · · A.· ·Yes. 24· · · Q.· ·And does the fact that many other states banned 25· interracial marriage mean that North Carolina's ban on www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. Michael J. Barber, PhD on 07/29/2020 Page 59 ·1· interracial marriage was sound public policy? ·2· · · A.· ·No, of course not. ·3· · · Q.· ·Does it mean that North Carolina's ban on ·4· interracial marriage was consistent with principles of ·5· equality? ·6· · · A.· ·No. ·7· · · Q.· ·So, Dr. Barber, isn't it fair to say that a ·8· state can be in the mainstream and still enact laws that ·9· are discriminatory? 10· · · A.· ·Yes, that's certainly true. 11· · · Q.· ·So North Carolina's current disenfranchisement 12· law related to people convicted of felonies could be in 13· the mainstream and still be discriminatory, right? 14· · · A.· ·That's certainly possible. 15· · · Q.· ·So let's go back to page 27 of your report -- I 16· say go back, but it's still on the screen -- where you 17· say that "North Carolina falls nearly" in the middle -18· I'm sorry, "nearly exactly in the middle of the 19· distribution," meaning, "23 states have a lower rate and 20· 26 states have a higher rate of disenfranchisement than 21· North Carolina." 22· · · · · ·You're asserting this, correct? 23· · · A.· ·Yes. 24· · · Q.· ·And your assertion is based on the data in 25· Figure 9 in the Table 2 beginning on page 29.· And I'll www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082 Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f EXHIBIT 9 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers G.S. 7A-350 Prepared by NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS February 1, 2019 About the North Carolina Judicial Branch The mission of the North Carolina Judicial Branch is to protect and preserve the rights and liberties of all the people as guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and North Carolina by providing a fair, independent and accessible forum for the just, timely and economical resolution of their legal affairs. About the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts The mission of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts is to provide services to help North Carolina’s unified court system operate more efficiently and effectively, taking into account each courthouse’s diverse needs, caseloads, and available resources. Introduction N.C.G.S. 7A-350 requires the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC) to report on criminal cost waivers. Specifically, G.S. 7A-350 provides as follows: § 7A-350. Annual report on criminal court cost waivers. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall maintain records of all cases in which a judge makes a finding of just cause to grant a waiver of criminal court costs under G.S. 7A-304(a) and shall report on those waivers to the chairs of the House of Representatives and Senate Appropriations Committees on Justice and Public Safety and the chairs of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety by February 1 of each year. The report shall aggregate the waivers by the district in which the waiver or waivers were granted and by the name of each judge granting a waiver or waivers. NCAOC respectfully submits this report pursuant to the legislative mandate. Report Parameters NCAOC completed statewide implementation of the case disposition component of the Criminal Case Information System, Clerk Component (CCIS-CC version 5.5) in December 2014, and all counties used this new CCIS-CC component beginning with calendar year 2015. This report includes reported money statuses from CCIS-CC during calendar year 2018. NCAOC is responsible for providing recordkeeping guidelines, training and support to the state's trial courts. During the initial statewide use of the new case disposition component, system users requested additional clarification and guidelines regarding appropriate selection of criminal court money statuses. NCAOC Court Services Division, after consultation with clerks and relevant NCAOC divisions, issued a memorandum identifying working definitions of the available codes and providing guidance as to when to use a specific code. That memorandum, issued on March 31, 2015, provided the definitions of money statuses detailed in the next section of this report. The money statuses include Waived/Remitted, Partially Waived, Not Assessed, Stricken/Entered in Error, and Civil Judgment. The attached Table 1 includes criminal court money statuses by county, while Table 2 includes criminal court money statuses by judge. All of these money status codes are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 to provide all relevant available data, although there may be some slight variation in uses among the counties. The number of cases in which costs were “Ordered” is included to provide a sense of volume of the dispositions in each county (Table 1) or by each judge (Table 2) in which costs, fees, or fines were ordered and no cost, fine, or fee line items were reduced or eliminated. 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 1 of 35 Criminal Court Money Statuses Criminal court money statuses are either generated by CCIS-CC or entered by a clerk. When a defendant pleads guilty or is convicted, based on the convicted offense, CCIS-CC enters most applicable costs, fees, and fines as “Ordered.” If any individual cost, fee, or fine is reduced or eliminated, a criminal court monetary status other than “Ordered” must be entered. Based on the order of the presiding judge, the clerk enters changes to the presumptive amounts and enters an applicable money status. The working definitions for money statuses available in CCIS-CC are set forth below. Ordered: This money status is used when the court orders a monetary obligation due. Ordered is the default money status. If the judge is silent on the issue, then, based on case type or status, Ordered should be used. Waived/Remitted: This money status is used when the judge waives or remits an individual monetary obligation in its entirety. It is used at a subsequent modification hearing if at the time of the hearing the original monetary obligation is unpaid in its entirety and the judge orders it remitted in its entirety. Note: The Waived/Remitted money status should not be confused with waivers of appearance, which sometimes are referred to as “waived,” “waiver,” or “waivable offenses.” A waiver of appearance is a defendant’s election to plead guilty or admit responsibility in writing in lieu of appearing in court. It is available in limited circumstances as prescribed by the Conference of District Court Judges pursuant to G.S. 7A-148. Partially Waived: This money status is used when a monetary obligation is reduced but not eliminated. A common example of Partially Waived is when a judge orders probation revoked, activates the suspended sentence, and waives what remains of each cost still owing. In this case, the partial waiver status is used for each line item where money still is owed. Not Assessed: This money status is used when a fee that should not be assessed appears in the Bill of Costs. An example of the proper use of Not Assessed would be the determination by the presiding judge not to assess an additional $250.00 for a subsequent assignment to community service because defendant was previously assigned to community during the same session of court. See G.S. 143B-708(c). Stricken/Entered in Error: This money status is used when a monetary obligation was recorded in error. It should be used for monetary obligations that would not have accrued but for the error. Civil Judgment: This money status is used when the judge orders the monetary obligations due through civil rather than criminal enforcement — i.e., the court has ordered that all money obligations due are due through civil enforcement mechanisms only. A civil judgment gives the state an indirect means of collecting the obligation. Note: If the court elects to simultaneously order monetary obligations due criminally and civilly, then the clerk should use the Ordered status rather than the Civil Judgment. 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 2 of 35 In compiling data for Tables 1 and 2, NCAOC Research, Policy, and Planning Division developed a hierarchy for money statuses in the following order: Partially Waived, Not Assessed, Stricken/Entered in Error, Civil Judgment, and Waived/Remitted. For example, if a case has both a “Not Assessed” and a “Partially Waived” money status entered, that case would be counted as a case with a “Partially Waived” money status. This hierarchy used in the current report differs from the hierarchy in previous years’ reports; therefore, direct comparisons are not advisable. The change was made to align the meaning of the “Waived” category with a common expectation that the “Waived” category indicates cases where all financial obligations are waived. Table 2 contains data by judge on number of cases with criminal court money statuses that are entered with one or more money line items reduced or eliminated. The number of cases where costs were “Ordered” is also included to provide a sense of volume of the dispositions of each judge in which costs, fees, or fines were ordered and no cost, fine, or fee line item was reduced or eliminated. The names listed in Table 2 reflect the names entered in the judge field of CCIS-CC, which captures the presiding judicial official at the event (judge, magistrate, or clerk). The significant number of “Missing/Unknown” judges is likely because of two possible scenarios. First, dispositions entered in ACIS did not require entry of a judge, so any modifications to judgments entered in ACIS would not have required a judge name to be entered. Second, disposition of infractions entered into CCIS-CC do not require entry of a judge name. The totals in Table 2 are higher than those in Table 1 because Table 1 reflects a count of cases with a money status by hierarchical order, while Table 2 indicates the number of events in which a judge entered an order with a money status indicator. Summary NCAOC has established six codes to reflect the status of monetary obligations in criminal cases. This report includes information on criminal court money statuses by county and by judge for calendar year 2018. 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 3 of 35 [This page intentionally left blank] 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 4 of 35 Table 1 Criminal Case Money Statuses by County Calendar Year 2018 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 5 of 35 [This page intentionally left blank] 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 6 of 35 Table 1: Criminal Case Money Statuses by County, Calendar Year 2018 Stricken/ Partially Not Entered Civil County Waived Waived Assessed in Error Judgment ALAMANCE 944 0 50 893 689 ALEXANDER 97 0 40 227 380 ALLEGHANY 84 0 11 21 52 ANSON 245 0 45 360 99 ASHE 26 0 166 43 101 AVERY 8 0 9 31 36 BEAUFORT 322 0 97 87 194 BERTIE 111 1 115 40 20 BLADEN 2 0 167 101 390 BRUNSWICK 178 3 322 444 1,003 BUNCOMBE 190 0 450 808 991 BURKE 25 0 135 171 1,333 CABARRUS 186 0 794 498 2,460 CALDWELL 38 0 173 57 1,132 CAMDEN 0 0 1 11 0 CARTERET 189 0 78 203 305 CASWELL 53 0 46 44 116 CATAWBA 199 1 2,044 257 1,072 CHATHAM 459 46 32 120 71 CHEROKEE 28 0 0 50 35 CHOWAN 11 0 24 6 0 CLAY 9 0 30 23 3 CLEVELAND 1,187 0 57 216 589 COLUMBUS 84 0 66 279 714 CRAVEN 228 13 330 335 63 CUMBERLAND 943 16 780 349 1,399 CURRITUCK 8 0 21 67 0 DARE 114 0 30 209 3 DAVIDSON 153 1 415 569 1,623 DAVIE 71 0 8 57 156 DUPLIN 104 16 108 393 294 DURHAM 1,174 0 1,986 815 898 EDGECOMBE 414 0 40 192 293 FORSYTH 3,423 6 452 642 1,141 FRANKLIN 127 7 158 51 248 Ordered (Not Waived) 13,365 2,597 1,146 4,041 1,459 1,780 7,382 3,014 7,288 9,766 11,806 8,499 28,091 6,376 1,986 6,945 2,282 10,656 6,489 2,851 667 951 9,710 8,278 10,368 16,679 6,221 8,985 12,766 4,835 7,737 9,723 6,518 32,197 4,500 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 7 of 35 Table 1: Criminal Case Money Statuses by County, Calendar Year 2018 Stricken/ Partially Not Entered Civil County Waived Waived Assessed in Error Judgment GASTON 701 4 101 390 2,028 GATES 30 0 1 17 0 GRAHAM 23 0 1 14 1 GRANVILLE 122 0 74 65 263 GREENE 10 0 73 48 63 GUILFORD 2,309 10 4,224 650 2,007 HALIFAX 368 3 157 247 205 HARNETT 164 2 345 547 683 HAYWOOD 46 0 319 172 177 HENDERSON 57 2 398 63 134 HERTFORD 40 0 147 124 1 HOKE 143 0 73 204 130 HYDE 2 0 16 8 24 IREDELL 349 9 1,888 885 745 JACKSON 33 0 117 103 169 JOHNSTON 327 0 268 893 986 JONES 18 4 68 101 9 LEE 93 0 185 167 446 LENOIR 54 0 187 127 253 LINCOLN 535 0 27 73 291 MACON 107 0 26 77 23 MADISON 2 0 60 52 35 MARTIN 97 1 74 203 60 MCDOWELL 70 5 112 43 903 MECKLENBURG 2,500 112 2,603 459 1,117 MITCHELL 7 0 47 37 28 MONTGOMERY 3 0 87 104 261 MOORE 33 0 325 453 147 NASH 482 2 30 51 8 NEW HANOVER 1,184 12 108 271 760 NORTHAMPTON 41 0 34 45 0 ONSLOW 517 1 945 749 584 ORANGE 1,061 11 146 375 55 PAMLICO 16 0 20 29 153 Ordered (Not Waived) 14,585 768 572 3,720 2,134 43,214 4,362 8,043 6,987 10,957 2,150 3,120 684 19,473 4,288 20,383 3,711 4,401 7,050 8,701 3,236 3,312 6,439 6,618 38,534 1,013 4,908 8,793 10,882 15,824 1,373 20,905 15,587 972 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 8 of 35 Table 1: Criminal Case Money Statuses by County, Calendar Year 2018 Stricken/ Partially Not Entered Civil County Waived Waived Assessed in Error Judgment PASQUOTANK 15 0 93 55 45 PENDER 46 0 83 102 155 PERQUIMANS 7 0 9 35 12 PERSON 102 0 155 228 316 PITT 337 2 157 741 1,155 POLK 1 0 133 33 19 RANDOLPH 37 14 862 315 522 RICHMOND 128 0 143 165 364 ROBESON 178 1 1,579 667 440 ROCKINGHAM 213 0 156 260 925 ROWAN 157 1 1,009 281 87 RUTHERFORD 27 4 429 108 258 SAMPSON 349 49 46 321 362 SCOTLAND 73 0 148 96 193 STANLY 136 0 40 178 356 STOKES 86 0 130 48 207 SURRY 155 1 122 111 658 SWAIN 64 0 13 46 3 TRANSYLVANIA 10 0 3 57 8 TYRRELL 25 2 43 27 12 UNION 215 0 334 822 940 VANCE 248 0 76 120 374 WAKE 1,307 1 2,146 1,344 1,212 WARREN 22 0 65 48 106 WASHINGTON 22 0 10 35 14 WATAUGA 15 0 52 29 136 WAYNE 187 1 608 425 644 WILKES 441 0 361 249 76 WILSON 356 22 10 62 366 YADKIN 97 6 22 65 228 YANCEY 2 0 18 49 5 TOTAL 28,036 392 31,621 23,637 40,850 Ordered (Not Waived) 3,550 5,391 2,130 4,193 11,674 3,557 22,013 5,200 13,753 9,915 16,174 6,601 8,256 3,296 6,987 3,839 6,763 2,197 2,423 3,857 15,165 5,413 56,872 1,754 2,351 5,511 11,931 9,270 6,925 4,220 1,541 848,375 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 9 of 35 [This page intentionally left blank] 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 10 of 35 Table 2 Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge Calendar Year 2018 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 11 of 35 [This page intentionally left blank] 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 12 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) ABERNATHY, G, WAYNE 0 0 0 1 2 2 ABERNETHY, RICHARD, B 32 0 16 54 384 991 ADAMS, GALE, M 24 0 195 12 342 236 ADAMSON, DAVID, J 1 0 0 0 0 0 ALBRIGHT, R, STUART 6 0 10 32 17 182 ALDRIDGE, EDWARD, E 2 0 0 0 0 0 ALDRIDGE, THOMAS, V 0 0 0 0 0 4 ALEXANDER, KAREN, A 5 0 33 20 73 700 ALFORD, BENJAMIN, G 24 0 23 10 37 315 ALLEN, BRADLEY, R 115 0 8 152 46 4,157 ALLEN, CLAUDE, JR. 3 0 0 13 1 0 ALLEN, JASPER, B 1 0 0 0 0 5 251 0 15 59 163 555 ALLEN, STANLEY, L ALLOWAY, SHERRY, F 5 0 14 1 6 23 AMMONS, JAMES, F, JR. 34 0 115 5 135 479 ANDERSON, CHARLES, T 5 0 1 2 6 5 ANDERSON, R, E 1 0 0 0 0 0 ANTONELLI, JULIE, B 1 0 9 0 0 139 50 0 52 8 104 71 ATKINSON, THOMAS, T, JR. 2 0 3 1 0 341 AUSTIN, KYLE, D 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 0 286 42 446 1,188 AYCOCK, EDWIN, B 0 0 0 0 0 1 BADDOUR, PHILIP, A 2 0 0 0 0 3 BADDOUR, PHILIP, A, III 1 0 0 0 0 0 BADDOUR, R, ALLEN, JR. 213 1 8 2 42 236 BAGGETT, TALMAGE, S 58 4 141 14 267 1,820 0 0 0 0 0 1 37 0 97 64 15 1,434 BAILEY, SARAH, PATTERSON 1 0 0 0 1 4 BAKER, TYYAWDI, M 3 0 0 0 0 2 BALOG, STEVE, A 0 0 0 0 0 1 BANKS, J, HENRY 55 0 8 23 5 248 355 1 62 15 194 663 ARCHIE, CARLA AYCOCK, DAVID, WOODALL BAGGS, WILLIAM, W BAILEY, KRIS, D BANKS-PRINCE, CAMILLE 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 13 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) BANNER-LYERLY, ROBERT, A 0 0 0 0 0 1 BARBER, WADE 1 0 0 0 0 4 BARKLEY, WESLEY, W 10 0 137 44 249 766 BARNES, EDGAR, L 25 0 29 58 3 1,217 BARNES, KENNETH, CARL 2 0 0 0 0 32 BARNETTE, HENRY, V 0 0 0 0 0 1 BARRETT, SHARON, TRACEY 0 0 1 0 0 1 BARRINGTON, DAVID, M 1 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 6 5 0 2,805 BASS, JAMES, A, III 0 0 2 0 0 0 BATEMAN, JOSEPH, J 1 0 0 0 0 0 BARROW, TAMMY, L BATTAGLIA, FREDERICK, S 24 0 129 80 190 836 BAXLEY, GROVER, C 3 0 0 0 0 0 BEAL, BEVERLY, T 1 0 0 0 3 0 BEAN, C, CHRISTOPHER 1 0 0 1 1 10 290 0 40 20 158 648 BEDSWORTH, GEORGE, A BELL, JAMES, G 37 0 78 31 318 112 104 0 16 4 219 47 BELL, WILLIAM, R 72 0 8 14 134 493 BENNETT, VICKY, T 0 0 1 0 0 1 BEST, KIMBERLY, Y 3 5 1 0 0 8 BIBEY, STEPHEN, A 4 0 131 157 31 4,332 BICKETT, ROY, MARSHALL, JR. 4 0 165 58 20 2,411 BILLIPS, MICHAEL, H 2 0 2 0 0 0 159 0 9 24 79 790 BLACKMORE, REBECCA, W 0 0 1 3 0 11 BLAKE, ARETHA, VENYKE 0 0 1 0 0 0 BLAND, WILLIAM, W 14 0 83 27 106 367 BLICK, JOSEPH, A, JR. 2 0 0 0 0 9 10 0 20 7 218 255 BLOUNT, STEPHEN, M 0 0 22 0 0 782 BOGER, WILLIAM, J 0 0 0 0 0 1 BONER, RICHARD, D 0 0 0 0 1 0 57 0 39 31 174 1,472 BELL, LISA, C BLACK, KELVIN, D BLOUNT, MARVIN, K, III BOONE, MARION 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 14 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 18 0 139 11 6 522 BOWDITCH, KRISTEN 0 0 0 0 0 3 BOWERS, SCOTT 3 0 0 0 0 0 BOYETTE, WAYNE, S 119 3 11 46 105 956 BRACKETT, JUSTIN, KYLE 263 0 6 47 115 987 BRADDY, GEORGE, G 23 1 15 8 28 455 BRADFORD, JAMES, M 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 57 BRADY, ROBERT, M 13 0 19 2 20 180 BRAGG, CHRISTOPHER, W 78 0 43 9 260 345 0 0 1 0 0 3 Judge Name BOUSMAN, MONICA, M BRADY, BOB BRAHMER, KATLYN, L BRANCH, BRENDA, GREEN Waived 133 1 56 73 2 507 BRANNON, DAVID, S 1 0 0 0 0 0 BRANNON, HILLARY, D 0 0 3 1 0 313 BRANTLEY, DAVID, B 5 0 19 4 3 110 BRANTLEY, JACLYN, B 1 0 0 0 0 1 53 8 107 11 66 468 5 0 30 13 2 475 51 0 34 95 79 1,093 189 0 5 7 151 515 BRIDGES, KEVIN, M 12 0 70 50 295 254 BRIDGES, LAURA, J 0 0 0 0 0 1 116 10 10 9 139 889 8 0 25 18 19 753 136 40 41 9 13 107 17 1 49 13 64 693 BROOKS, WILLIAM, F 147 3 157 87 109 1,816 BROOME, COLLEEN, P 26 0 10 11 1 6,376 0 0 0 0 0 11 BROWN, ANTHONY, W 142 0 6 4 42 624 BROWN, BETTY, J 265 0 290 20 45 348 BROWN, CHARLES, E 4 0 106 30 5 1,698 BROWN, CHARLIE, D 0 0 0 0 1 0 BROWN, CHARLOTTE, D 2 0 2 1 0 0 BRAY, SUSAN, E BREWER, JACQUELINE, L BREWER, SCOTT, T BRIDGES, FORREST, D BRITT, JOHN, M BRITTAIN, THOMAS, M BROOKS, ALICIA, D BROOKS, ATHENA, FOX BROUGHTON, THOMAS, B 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 15 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 0 0 1 0 0 0 39 0 213 57 146 1,126 0 0 0 0 0 3 BROWN, LARRY, D, JR. 178 0 8 137 81 808 BROWN, RICHARD, T 16 1 15 8 174 289 261 36 28 63 28 3,946 BRYANT, ROBERT, W 6 0 2 14 9 978 BRYANT, STEVEN, J 0 0 0 0 0 3 144 1 15 51 10 5,763 BULLARD, EDWARD, J 0 0 4 0 0 0 BULLOCK, STAFFORD, G 0 0 1 0 0 0 BUNDY, CHRISTINA, L Judge Name BROWN, DANIEL, LOUIS BROWN, DEBORAH, P BROWN, JAY, K BRYAN, JAY, T BUCKNER, JOE, M Waived 1 0 0 0 0 0 BURCH, SUSAN, R 31 1 45 3 27 95 BURKE, L, TODD 68 0 16 5 75 256 BURKE, TERESA, A 2 0 0 0 0 0 BURNETT, HELENA, M 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 35 53 160 1,237 5 0 7 1 14 165 71 2 74 57 89 3,142 CABE, SAMANTHA, HYATT 364 8 63 162 13 4,301 CALDWELL, JESSE, B, III 117 0 41 6 174 163 CAMERON, WILLIAM, M 62 7 81 151 137 1,746 CAMPBELL, HUGH, B 0 0 2 2 1 0 CANADY, RANDY 0 0 1 0 0 0 CANNON, JESSICA, L 1 0 0 0 0 0 CANTRELL, TIMOTHY, C 0 0 0 0 0 2 60 1 211 27 130 242 CARPENTER, JEFFERY, K 111 0 64 28 361 548 CARRAWAY, LONNIE, W 0 0 0 0 0 1 CARROLL, JOHN, J, III 0 0 0 1 0 2 CARTER, JOHN, B, JR. 4 0 19 18 6 133 CATHEY, SAM 1 0 23 25 14 171 82 2 56 66 18 1,537 183 3 56 12 11 347 BURNETTE, CAROLINE, S BURNETTE, SARAH, KATHERINE BYRD, DAVID, V CARMICAL, JAMES, S CAYTON, DARRELL, B CHAPMAN, RONALD, L 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 16 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 169 0 184 33 91 1,294 CHEEK, JASON 1 0 0 1 0 45 CHEEK, WILLIAM, D 0 0 2 0 0 0 23 0 212 26 181 985 CHRISTIAN, LORI, G 5 0 12 4 4 109 CHURCH, HARRY, T 22 0 388 163 135 2,184 CLARK, BROOKE, LOCKLEAR 12 0 119 48 25 1,035 CLARK, ROBERT, A 0 0 0 0 3 0 CLAWSON, STEVEN, L 0 0 0 0 0 1 CLEMENTS, CAROLYN, K 1 0 0 0 0 1 CLONINGER, DAVID, B 46 0 96 42 353 1,300 CLONTZ, EDWIN, DUANE Judge Name CHASSE, ERIC, C CHERRY, BURFORD, A Waived 49 0 111 140 160 1,033 COATES, PHILLIP, E 0 0 2 0 0 39 COBB, DAVID, A 0 0 1 0 0 1 COBB, W, ALLEN, JR. 6 0 8 4 3 68 COGBURN, STEVEN, D 0 0 0 1 0 17 29 0 80 25 301 519 0 0 0 0 0 5 COLLINS, CRAIG, R 13 1 16 26 308 1,113 COLLINS, G, BRYAN, JR. 36 1 15 8 28 72 CONSTANGY, H, WILLIAM 1 0 0 1 0 1 CONWAY, BRUCE, A 0 0 0 0 0 2 62 11 6 4 112 889 CORBETT, ALBERT, A 1 0 0 0 0 3 CORNELIUS, C, P 1 0 0 0 0 0 CORPENING, JULIUS, H, II 9 0 5 10 4 1,387 COSTNER, GREGORY, S 0 0 1 0 0 1 COUNCILMAN, KELLY, R 2 0 0 0 0 2 63 0 51 64 264 2,014 301 0 3 25 4 703 2 0 17 10 3 673 COLE, J, CARLTON COLLIER, CHRISTOPHER, M COOPER, PELL, C COVINGTON, MARY, F COVOLO, JOHN, J COWAN, EMILY, GREENE COWARD, WILLIAM, H 11 0 38 20 50 304 COX, TIFFANY, G 1 0 1 45 0 5,866 CRABBE, DAVID, L 3 0 0 0 0 0 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 17 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 105 0 94 23 215 374 0 0 3 0 0 0 30 0 33 36 37 469 5 0 166 97 62 4,236 35 1 114 13 62 364 0 0 1 0 0 3 CROOM, CRAIG 108 0 84 21 21 530 CROSSWHITE, JOSEPH, N 151 0 137 14 121 214 85 1 5 19 58 291 1 0 0 1 1 0 CRUMP, AVERY, L 23 0 74 2 46 137 CRUMPTON, ROB 187 1 139 97 144 2,043 64 0 232 7 75 477 5 0 2 1 0 22 251 3 204 12 100 852 7 0 14 0 1 30 Judge Name CRAIG, JOHN, O, III CRAWFORD, GEOFFREY, C CRAWFORD, SOPHIA CREED, DON, W CROMER, ANDERSON, D CROOM, CLAUDIA, C CROUCH, MELINDA, H CROW, KENNETH, F CUBBAGE, LORA, CHRISTINE CULLER, JENA, P CUMMINGS, MARK, T CURETON, DONALD, RAY CURTIS, DAVID, A Waived 0 0 0 0 0 3 CUTCHIN, TONIA, A 57 1 195 10 154 368 DANIELS, JUDITH, M 10 0 86 39 36 472 DARDEN, WILLIAM, R 1 0 0 0 0 0 DAVIDIAN, WOOFER, A, III 24 0 57 19 70 374 DAVIS, AMBER 22 0 12 47 3 670 DAVIS, CHESTER, C 1 0 0 1 0 2 DAVIS, DANNY, E 0 0 0 0 0 1 DAVIS, J, THOMAS 16 3 22 37 260 334 DAVIS, JACOB, A 1 0 0 0 0 2 DAVIS, JOHN 0 0 0 0 1 0 DAVIS, JOHN, T 0 0 0 0 1 0 DAVIS, JOHN, W 39 0 33 24 159 907 DAVIS, JONATHAN, C 0 0 0 0 0 1 DAVIS, LINDSAY, R 4 0 11 9 16 117 DAVIS, RICHARD, RUSSELL 271 4 24 56 120 1,304 DAVIS, RUSSELL 2 0 3 1 2 35 DAVIS, TODD 1 0 0 0 0 0 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 18 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 122 0 248 16 176 1,207 21 0 184 69 43 1,088 DELLINGER, J, GARY 0 0 1 1 0 5 DENNING, MICHAEL, JOSEPH 4 0 6 2 7 66 15 0 12 37 48 1,178 DEVINE, JAMES, T 0 0 1 0 0 1 DEVINE, M, PATRCIA 7 0 0 0 1 4 DISBROW, JASON, C 3 0 55 83 217 2,587 DIXON, BETH, S 8 0 112 42 14 1,953 DORSETT, JEFFREY, R 0 0 0 0 0 3 DOUGHTON, RICHARD, L 1 0 5 0 10 9 DUCKWORTH, CHRISTOPHER, E 0 0 2 0 0 0 DUKE, W, RUSSELL, JR. 2 0 0 0 1 2 DUNCAN, MICHAEL, D 52 0 54 39 101 290 DUNHAM, PRISCILLA, D 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 57 29 17 583 Judge Name DAVIS, WILLIAM, B DEESE, DALE, G DESOTO, WILLIAM, BRIAN DUNSTON, ASHLEIGH, PARKER EADY-WILLIAMS, KAREN Waived 102 0 13 15 179 247 EAGLES, MARGARET, PHILLIPS 13 0 154 9 49 477 EARWOOD, KRISTINA, LYNN 27 0 62 50 41 1,911 EASON, BYNUM, C 0 0 0 0 0 23 EDDINGER, KEVIN, G 6 0 141 44 5 2,196 EDGERTON, JEFFREY, R 0 0 1 0 0 2 EDWARDS, C, THOMAS 0 0 1 0 0 4 EGGERS-GRYDER, REBECCA, E 7 0 19 12 46 485 ELLIOTT, SHERRI, W 38 0 109 40 177 803 ELLIS, BRANDON, R 0 0 6 0 0 0 ELLIS, BRAXTON, C 0 0 0 0 1 0 ELLIS, KEVIN, D 1 0 0 0 0 0 ENOCHS, WENDY, M 0 0 0 1 0 0 ERVIN, ROBERT, C 32 0 30 6 127 153 ETHERIDGE, SCOTT, C 10 0 113 52 77 4,077 EVANS, PATRICIA, D 98 0 42 88 101 228 EVANS, YVONNE, M 3 0 0 1 27 36 EVERETT, WILLIAM, L 0 0 0 0 0 1 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 19 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 179 0 68 209 39 4,282 FAIRLEY, WILLIAM, F 9 0 47 75 92 1,920 FAISON, JAMES, H, III 137 1 8 16 44 414 FALLS, LINDA 31 0 23 4 7 178 FARR, ERIC, J 2 0 0 1 0 291 FARRIS, WILLIAM, C 343 1 10 20 53 1,268 FICKLING, FAITH, A 121 0 41 3 2 141 0 0 0 2 0 4 FINCH, DANIEL, F 71 0 2 24 7 303 FINCH, WILLIS, E 0 0 0 0 0 1 356 1 29 11 51 646 0 0 0 0 0 6 17 0 3 2 3 60 134 1 41 15 8 378 36 0 18 18 168 168 0 0 0 0 1 1 Judge Name FAIRCLOTH, RESSON, O, II FINAN, TIM, I FINE, LAWRENCE, J FINKELSTEIN, JOHANNA FITCH, MILTON, F, JR. FLETCHER, K, MICHELLE FLOYD, ROBERT, F FONVIELLE, JOHN, K FORBES, BRANDON, T Waived 3 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 65 46 56 1,465 0 0 0 0 0 1 285 0 382 24 88 2,080 FOSTER, ANNA, F 0 0 0 0 0 6 FOSTER, JACQUELINE, N 1 0 1 0 0 0 FOSTER, JEFFERY, B 60 0 31 11 264 356 FOSTER, THOMAS, G, JR. 37 0 173 15 79 447 0 0 0 0 3 0 127 1 214 29 82 1,184 FOX, CARL, R 64 0 21 7 195 144 FOX, DAVID, K 0 0 0 0 0 2 FOX, J, C 0 0 1 0 0 0 25 1 43 51 30 917 0 0 1 0 0 0 FREEMAN, CHRISTOPHER, ALAN 32 0 27 26 200 917 FREEMAN, TERESA, R 65 0 39 52 27 309 0 0 0 0 1 4 FORGA, DONNA, F FORREST, HEATHER, R FOSTER, ANGELA, C FOUST, LINWOOD, O FOX, ANGELA, B FOY, LOUIS, F FRANKS, ALAN, K FREEMAN, WILLIAM, H 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 20 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) FRESHWATER-SMITH, E 56 1 0 7 54 710 FULLWOOD, JAMES, R 8 0 48 32 1 854 FUTRELL, STEPHAN, R 0 0 0 0 0 3 GALLOWAY, MARK, E 50 0 30 53 37 948 GARDNER, DAVID 1 0 0 0 0 0 GARDNER, DENISE, B 0 0 0 0 0 3 GAVENUS, GARY, M 32 0 9 44 30 354 4 0 147 52 71 3,688 60 0 165 96 204 2,371 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 70 5 236 195 GILLIAM, CHARLES, PHILLIPS 0 0 0 0 0 1 GINGLES, RALPH, C GAVIN, LEE GAYLOR, CHARLES, P, III GESSNER, PAUL, G GILCHRIST, CHARLES, W 3 0 0 1 3 1 GLASCOFF, WILLIAM, J 39 0 0 0 0 0 GLASS, DEBORAH, M 23 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 GLASS, JOHN, A GODDARD, OLAF, H 0 0 0 0 0 3 144 0 14 16 186 418 17 0 7 7 2 6 GORE, CAROLYN, ASHLEY 1 0 77 99 239 2,482 GORE, W, FREDERICK 1 0 47 88 201 2,707 GORHAM, PHYLLIS, M 71 0 4 14 45 153 GOTTLIEB, RICHARD, S 2 0 6 4 6 62 GRABER, ERIN 0 0 0 0 0 1 137 0 285 211 263 1,903 1 0 0 0 0 0 GRANT, CY, A, SR. 12 0 78 7 83 185 GRANT, JOSHUA, P 0 0 0 0 0 2 GRAVES, CHRISTOPHER, H 0 0 0 7 0 95 25 0 13 11 98 69 GRAY, JANE, P 1 0 13 8 0 214 GREENE, JONATHAN, W GODWIN, WALTER, H, JR. GORDON, NANCY, E GRAHAM, LAWRENCE, D GRAHAM, WILLIAM GRAY, BEECHER, R 0 0 1 0 0 0 GREENLEE, JOHN, K 81 0 8 36 221 588 GREGORY, EDGAR, B 0 0 0 0 1 1 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 21 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) GREGORY, KEITH, O 53 0 30 25 46 345 GRIFFIN, JEFFERSON, G 40 0 164 10 59 505 GRIFFIN, WILLIAM, C 0 0 1 0 0 2 GRIMES, SAMUEL, G 3 0 1 1 2 27 137 0 62 89 293 4,526 GULLETT, JULIA, LYNN 95 0 247 47 315 350 GWYN, NATHAN, H, III 23 0 109 483 86 8,628 HAIGWOOD, THOMAS, D 5 0 6 0 6 51 HALL, DANIEL, B 0 0 0 0 0 3 HALL, DAVID, L 47 0 34 3 87 206 HAMADANI, SAM 62 0 24 31 9 588 HAMBY, WILLIAM, G 16 0 107 39 377 1,903 HAMILTON, JOYCE, A 7 0 5 5 0 97 GROGAN, JAMES, A HAMILTON, LORI, I 89 0 59 37 87 332 HAMMOND, LAWRENCE, T, JR. 0 0 0 0 2 2 HANKINS, PAULINE 25 50 700 0 0 15 HARDIN, JAMES, E, JR. 16 0 14 5 113 108 HARDISON, PAUL, A 94 2 51 73 91 1,032 HARGETT, CEDRIC, J 1 0 0 0 0 0 HARPER, JANE, V 3 0 1 0 0 5 HARPER, JOSEPH, J 0 0 1 0 0 1 75 0 43 16 83 254 3 0 16 5 37 277 21 0 14 43 6 464 327 0 15 11 8 461 HARVEL, JOHN, H 0 0 0 0 0 1 HASTY, DAVID, H 523 3 35 13 28 2,386 HAYES, GREGORY, R 36 1 75 11 128 174 HAYNES, CHRISTIE, D 6 0 184 0 0 2,362 HAZELTON, WENDY, S 29 0 15 14 50 751 HEAFNER, WILLIAM, H 0 0 0 0 0 3 HARRELL, RICHARD, KENT HARRISON, HAL HARRISS, MEADER, W, III HARTSFIELD, DENISE, S HEATH, ANDREW, TAUBE 54 0 28 11 113 215 HEATH, ELIZABETH, A 3 0 11 5 11 67 HEDRICK, EDWARD, L 39 0 227 95 134 1,154 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 22 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) HEDRICK, EDWARD, LAWRENCE 1 0 1 0 1 5 HELMS, WILLIAM, F, III 9 0 61 42 140 726 HENDERSON, GARY, L 4 0 8 0 2 11 HENDRIX, KEVIN, D 0 0 0 0 0 139 HENNELLY, PATRICK, T 0 0 1 2 0 271 17 0 258 40 98 532 HENRY, CHARLES, JEFFREY, II 0 0 0 0 0 1 HERRING, HOWARD, G 1 0 0 0 0 1 HEWETT, TRACY, H 0 0 2 0 0 7 HIGDON, STEPHEN, V 25 0 53 159 244 2,205 HIGHT, HENRY, W, JR. 17 0 47 9 86 229 HILBURN, PATRICIA, GWYNETT 16 0 4 9 33 253 HILL, CLAIRE, V 16 0 192 5 191 414 HILL, JAMES, A 0 0 2 0 0 1 HILL, JAMES, CALVIN HENRY, CHARLES, H 9 0 67 106 281 466 HILL, JAMES, P, JR. 13 0 233 107 162 7,146 HILL, JAMES, T 68 0 524 133 194 528 HILL, JOY, H 1 0 0 0 0 0 HILL, KENDRA, D 0 0 0 0 1 0 HINES, AMY, D 10 0 0 0 0 0 HINNANT, PATRICE, A 50 0 4 4 7 24 HINTON, ALMA 27 0 113 32 159 255 HOBGOOD, ROBERT, H 23 0 38 1 90 72 HOCKENBURY, JAY, D 0 0 5 10 10 140 HODGES, ROBERT, E 0 0 0 0 0 2 HOFFMAN, RICHARD, L 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOGSTON, CHAD, E 227 0 31 29 121 1,112 HOLCOMBE, PAUL, A 40 0 58 124 147 2,020 HOLLAND, DONNA, L 0 0 2 0 0 1 HOLLEY, ANGELA, J 1 0 0 0 0 0 74 1 264 22 191 1,966 HOLLIFIELD, JARRED, D 3 0 3 1 1 467 HOLLOCKER, MARY ANN, J 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 216 28 322 1,093 HOLLIDAY, TABATHA HOLLOWAY, RICHARD, S 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 23 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) HOLT, REBECCA, W 61 0 82 1 68 221 HOLT, RICHLYN, D 1 0 0 0 0 6 HOLT, SHELLY, S 6 0 2 2 0 14 HONESTY, TARA, M 0 0 0 0 0 7 HONEYCUTT, JAMES, M 3 0 15 5 39 75 13 0 9 4 12 47 HOOVER, DONNIE 161 1 19 8 63 117 HORNE, JOHN, H 17 0 6 8 7 230 HORNE, R, GREGORY 22 0 22 13 62 251 HORNE, TULLIE, W 0 0 0 0 0 7 HORNER, GREGORY, S 0 0 0 0 1 1 248 0 122 66 72 1,587 1 0 0 0 5 12 HOOKS, D, JACK HOUSTON, JEANIE, R HOWERTON, PHILIP, F HOYLE, ANGELA, G 27 0 8 13 191 474 HOYLE, BARRY, L 0 0 1 0 0 0 HUDSON, DAVID, A 0 0 1 0 0 1 HUDSON, ORLANDO, F 256 0 30 5 50 101 HUGHES, FARRELL, W 6 0 9 6 16 208 HUNT, JEFFREY, P 8 0 2 0 42 129 HUNTER, BENJAMIN, SCOTT 74 0 44 42 129 1,117 HUNTER, WILLIAM, K 39 0 163 15 83 1,176 HUNTER, WILLIAM, L 1 0 0 0 0 0 HUTCHINS, LAURIE, L 212 0 26 7 43 437 HUTTON, JOSEPH, L 0 0 0 0 0 1 JACKSON, JAMES, A 17 0 15 40 219 993 JACKSON, JENNIFER, M 0 0 0 4 0 325 JACKSON, ROBERT, A 6 0 0 0 0 0 JACOBS, TONY, M 0 0 0 0 0 6 JAMES, ERICKA, YOUNG 51 1 120 29 44 793 JANE, CARLOS 34 0 74 80 247 5,114 105 2 140 16 108 444 JENKINS, BRYSON, B 0 0 1 0 0 0 JENKINS, JACK, W 0 0 0 0 5 3 JENKINS, TARITA, M 1 0 0 0 0 0 JARRELL, H, THOMAS 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 24 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) JENNINGS, ANGELINA, H 1 0 0 0 0 0 JERNIGAN, MONICA, B 0 0 2 0 0 4 84 0 52 74 42 746 1 0 5 1 0 347 14 0 104 26 251 1,215 JOLLY, JERRY, A 1 0 12 27 54 484 JONES, ARNOLD, O, II 0 0 0 0 1 0 JONES, CAROL, A 101 2 45 71 33 826 JONES, JOY 142 0 73 213 311 3,283 JONES, PAUL, L 3 0 19 3 28 68 JONES, RANDLE, L 2 0 0 0 0 1 JORDAN, LILLIAN, B 1 0 0 0 0 0 JOYNER, ROBIN, R 0 0 2 0 0 5 227 1 25 16 58 607 3 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 78 JOE, REGINA, M JOHNSON, CHAD, A JOHNSON, DONNA, HEDGEPETH KAZAKOS, THEODORE KEENE, JILL, K KEEVER, A, ELIZABETH KEITH, ADAM, STRICKLAND 56 0 23 39 63 766 KEPPLE, JULIE, M 106 0 121 124 191 693 KEY, SPENCER, G 32 0 16 34 233 1,248 KILLIAN, MARK, L 40 0 252 58 462 1,416 0 0 0 0 0 1 KING, TONI, SA 12 0 9 5 47 583 KIRBY, ALBERT, D, JR. 37 0 40 11 161 308 KIRKMAN, GRETCHEN, E 51 0 26 14 159 1,352 KLASS, MARK 44 0 52 45 164 383 KLUTTZ, WILLIAM, C 0 0 0 1 0 2 KNAUFF, AMELIA, M 3 0 0 0 0 0 KNIGHT, A, M 1 0 0 0 0 0 KNIGHT, JOSEPH, C 1 0 2 11 0 59 KNIGHT, PETER, B 9 0 25 21 19 1,148 KNOX, JENNIFER, JANE 2 0 0 0 0 0 KNUST, NATHANIEL, M 20 0 115 53 490 3,084 KOKAJKO, R 10 0 3 1 0 1,682 202 0 213 13 68 1,296 KINCAID, TIMOTHY, S KREIDER, JONATHAN, G 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 25 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) KUEHNERT, DANIEL, A 47 0 126 18 316 139 LABARRE, DAVID, Q 11 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 93 0 42 32 224 173 LAMBETH, DAVID, THOMAS 1 0 1 0 1 1 LANDEN, CHAD, N 0 0 1 1 0 103 LANDS, MICHAEL, K 6 1 5 12 104 379 LANE, CHRISTOPHE, L 0 0 0 0 0 1 LANGSTON, DENNIS, M 1 0 0 0 0 0 LANIER, CHRISTOPHE, B 0 0 1 0 0 0 LANIER, RUSSELL, J 0 0 0 0 1 1 LATTA, JERRY, W 0 0 1 0 0 0 LAWRENCE, HOLLY, R 0 0 1 0 0 0 LAWRENCE, JASON, O 0 0 0 0 0 60 LAWTON, WILLIAM, C 6 0 46 60 0 682 LEAKE, LARRY, B 2 0 30 25 23 465 116 0 205 75 656 1,126 2 0 6 2 25 42 LEECH, DAVID, A 18 0 9 14 52 442 LESLIE, MONICA, H 37 0 78 49 109 1,610 LETTS, BRADLEY, B 9 0 52 30 43 367 LEVINSON, ERIC, L 5 0 8 7 166 50 LEWIS, BERNELL, B 0 0 0 0 0 30 LEWIS, HUGH, B 55 0 20 17 260 162 LEWIS, OLA, M 1 0 0 1 11 4 LITTLE, CLAUDE, A 1 0 1 1 3 829 LOCK, THOMAS, H 21 1 49 13 187 262 LOCKLEAR, RUDY, T 0 0 3 0 0 0 LONG, LINDA 1 0 0 0 0 7 LONG, LUNSFORD 64 6 8 6 7 301 LONG, V, BRADFORD 17 6 53 9 311 600 LOVE, JIMMY, L 30 0 24 150 57 3,352 MACCHIA, K, J 1 0 0 0 0 0 MACK, PETER, JR. 6 1 46 53 29 856 LACEY, ROBERT, B LAMBETH, DAVID, T, JR. LEE, J, L LEE, W, DAVID 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 26 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) MALONEY, ROBERT, A 2 0 0 0 0 0 MANCOS, TAMI, G 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 204 76 54 3,619 MANGUM, NED, W 162 0 134 9 5 493 MANN, CHRISTY, T 10 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 MARIS, AMANDA, L 59 0 56 33 44 230 MARSH, WILLIAM, A, III 21 0 1 10 4 0 MARTELLE, ROBERT, K 17 2 60 33 319 1,745 MARTIN, JAMES, E 2 0 0 0 0 26 MARTIN, JERRY, C 12 0 2 2 8 24 MARTIN, KAREN, M 0 0 0 0 0 1 MARTIN, PANSY, K 2 0 0 0 0 0 MARTIN, SHANDOLYN 0 0 1 0 0 56 MANESS, JAYRENE, R MANNING, HOWARD, E, JR. MASON, KEITH, B 47 0 14 33 5 723 MASSEY, A, MOSES 0 0 0 0 1 0 MATTHEWS, ROBERT, F 0 0 1 0 0 0 MCAULEY, EDWARD, M 4 0 0 0 0 17 MCCAULEY, KIMBERLY, M 1 0 0 0 0 0 MCCLELLAND, CASEY, J 0 0 1 0 0 3 MCENTIRE, THEODORE, W 6 0 69 29 64 1,210 41 2 69 59 63 1,791 MCGEE, JOSEPH, A 0 0 0 0 0 374 MCGEE, MARTIN, B 15 0 134 40 260 597 MCILWAIN, WILLIAM, C 1 0 0 1 1 6 MCIVER, BRYANT, D 0 0 0 0 1 0 173 1 18 14 184 1,165 MCKELLER, MACK 5 0 1 0 0 82 MCKOWN, ANN, E 0 0 0 1 0 0 MCLEAN, DERON, A 0 0 1 0 0 0 52 0 22 54 25 889 MCNEILL, DANITA, B 1 0 1 0 2 0 MCPHATTER, CHRIS, P 0 0 0 0 0 10 MCPHERSON, BRUCE, A 0 0 4 0 0 0 MCFADYEN, WILLIAM, DAVE, III MCKEE, LINDSEY, L MCLENDON, CHRISTOPHER, B 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 27 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) MCSWAIN, LAWRENCE, C 42 0 30 3 11 123 MCTHENIA, PAIGE, BARNS 237 5 51 10 10 459 MENDENHALL, JEREMY, H 0 0 1 0 1 4 MENEFEE, LISA, V L 291 0 18 28 70 9,302 MERCER, FRITZ, Y 191 0 136 22 15 820 0 0 0 0 0 3 MESSICK, STEVEN, H 93 0 10 95 78 637 MEYER, LOUIS, B 54 0 186 49 83 1,814 MICHAEL, WAYNE 66 1 79 120 473 2,087 MILLER, DAVID, T 0 0 0 0 0 75 MILLER, GORDON, A 319 3 45 15 330 1,098 MILLER, REGAN, A 186 1 29 5 1 68 MEREDITH-CAMP, CORINTH MILLS, KIA, H 0 0 0 0 0 5 MILLS, LIONELL, WALTER 17 3 24 20 36 1,024 MITCHELL, RICKYE, M 75 6 12 5 5 52 MOBLEY, SAMANTHA, C 174 1 729 36 12 5,005 MOODY, VERSHENIA, B 135 0 73 93 14 549 MOORE, ARTHUR, S 0 0 1 0 0 6 MOORE, CYNTHIA, W 0 0 1 0 0 0 MOORE, JAMES, L, JR. 226 6 85 184 47 1,635 MOORE, RHONDA, F 0 0 14 4 0 739 MOORE, THOMAS, F 2 0 0 2 0 5 MOORE, WANDA, T 48 0 167 4 2 1,072 MOORE, WILLIAM, J 53 0 323 208 21 3,613 MOREY, MARCIA, H 34 0 2 7 7 2 MORGAN, ERIC, C 2 0 22 13 76 218 MORGAN, JAMES 62 0 1 0 54 52 MORGAN, MELZER, A 1 0 0 0 0 2 MORGAN, MICHAEL, R 0 0 1 0 0 1 MORTON, CANDACE, M 2 0 142 11 0 2,484 MOSS, MATTHEW, P 0 0 1 0 1 0 MULLINAX, BOBBY 0 0 0 0 1 0 MULLINAX, ROBERT, A, JR. 9 0 157 28 442 951 300 4 31 73 14 2,434 MURRELL, SHERRI, T 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 28 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) MYERS, JANE 2 0 0 0 0 0 MYERS, JIMMY, L 7 0 49 63 153 3,095 NAGLE, DANIEL, J 31 0 76 19 55 1,132 NANCE, JOHN, R 34 0 8 44 79 2,317 NEAVES, CHARLES, M, JR. 8 0 78 41 154 636 NEEDHAM, EDDIE, B 0 0 0 0 1 0 NEWBERN, THOMAS, R J 1 0 3 13 0 191 NIXON, THEO 3 0 0 0 0 1 NOBLES, JOHN, E, JR. 135 1 131 21 131 671 NOBLES, MICHAEL, A 0 0 0 0 0 1 NOECKER, JEFFREY, E 89 1 8 16 19 347 OAKES, MARK, W 0 0 1 0 0 0 OAKLEY, TONY, M 0 0 0 0 0 4 O'FOGHLUDHA, MICHAEL, J 101 0 58 6 118 248 OLIVERA, LUIS, J 50 3 22 16 172 1,545 O'NEAL, ELAINE, M 2 95 72 61 4 15 OSMAN, MATTHEW, JOHN 246 38 85 11 29 325 OVERBY, KATHRYN, W 258 0 18 169 26 990 OWENS, SARAH, M 0 0 1 0 0 69 OWSLEY, LISA, S 0 0 0 0 3 5 184 0 9 32 103 807 1 0 0 0 0 0 PARKER, REGINA, R 157 0 43 64 29 1,832 PARKER, ROBYN, B 1 0 0 0 0 0 PARSONS, W, DOUGLAS 0 0 0 4 13 4 PATE, IMELDA, J 4 0 39 9 46 420 PATTERSON, PAMELA, W 14 0 0 0 0 0 PAUL, MICHAEL, A 29 0 15 12 6 402 PEARSON, CARL, G 0 0 1 0 0 0 PENRY, JOHN, R 7 0 31 18 64 487 164 1 29 29 177 1,223 PAKSOY, ALI PARKER, C, MICHAEL PEREZ, MARIO, E PHILLIPS, DAVID, A 13 0 2 3 102 70 PHILLIPS, JOHN 2 0 0 1 1 2 PHILLIPS, NANCY, C 0 0 7 13 21 403 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 29 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 9 0 22 1 11 39 POMEROY, TODD 182 0 19 20 301 486 PONE, EDWARD, A 11 0 10 1 31 197 POOL, CLARENCE, R 29 0 59 28 230 1,137 6 0 92 7 108 107 26 0 51 50 96 277 POTEAT, JULIAN, R 1 0 0 0 0 0 POWELL, LAURA, A 27 3 37 29 270 1,770 POWELL, MARK, E 7 0 33 23 43 146 PRELIPP, CARRIE, B 0 0 1 0 0 1 PRICE, ALTON, C 1 0 0 1 0 3 PRICE, CHARLES, A 0 0 1 0 0 0 PRUETT, PHILLIP, W 1 0 0 0 0 0 PUCKETT, ANGELA, B Judge Name PITTMAN, WILLIAM, R POOVEY, NATHANIEL, J POPE, MARVIN, P, JR. Waived 28 0 33 22 28 263 QUINN, PAUL, M 170 2 22 55 64 1,557 RADER, ROBERT, B 148 0 68 26 34 619 RANDOLPH, JAMES, DKF 6 0 241 59 14 3,523 RATLEDGE, BRIAN 1 0 7 10 0 130 23 1 17 25 29 1,070 RAY, SANDRA, ALICE 121 2 20 20 114 1,316 REDWING, DENNIS, J 119 1 44 8 59 542 REEVES, JEANNETTE, RACQUEL 316 0 9 29 109 659 19 0 15 23 1 639 REID, MICHAEL, K 1 0 0 0 0 0 REINGOLD, WILLIAM, B 0 0 0 0 0 1 229 0 44 56 82 309 4 0 5 1 0 9 RHUE, CHRISTOPHER, WINDLY 93 0 41 91 50 714 RICHARDSON, HERBERT, L 64 0 576 87 36 701 RIDGEWAY, PAUL, C 51 0 13 10 32 150 ROBERSON, JAMES, K 39 0 1 5 30 158 ROBINSON, CARISSA, A 0 0 0 0 0 1 ROBINSON, ROBIN, W 68 2 13 26 45 429 171 0 73 15 101 1,138 RAWLS, ADDIE HARRIS, M REID, EULA, E RHINEHART, SHAMIEKA, LACHER RHODES, KHALIF, J ROEMER, VICTORIA 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 30 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 0 0 1 0 0 0 29 2 73 59 88 1,881 ROWLAND, JEFFREY, P 2 0 3 86 0 8,351 ROYSTER, TED, S 0 0 0 0 1 2 31 1 13 2 81 154 0 0 0 1 0 16 SALISBURY, ANNE, B 11 0 60 100 4 1,215 SAMET, JAN 88 0 75 12 34 967 SANFORD, CECILIA 2 0 0 0 0 0 SARGEANT, JONATHON, L 8 0 44 38 69 836 SASSER, DEBRA, S 12 0 59 16 42 238 SASSER, DOUGLAS, B 80 1 86 34 349 380 SCARLETT, BEVERLY, A 214 1 20 19 2 1,967 0 0 1 0 2 22 130 1 41 56 8 952 85 0 42 29 6 1,301 Judge Name ROGERS, MICHELLE, W ROWE, CLINT, D ROZIER, VINSTON, MILLER SABISTON, MICHAEL, A SCOTT, WARD, D SEATON, SARAH, C SELLERS, TESSA, SHELTON SENTER, J, LARRY Waived 0 0 0 0 0 4 SERMONS, WAYLAND, J, JR. 71 1 39 30 112 510 SETZER, JOSEPH, E 31 0 118 85 192 2,042 SHELDON, WENDY, N 2 0 0 0 0 0 SHERRILL, DAVID, E 0 0 0 1 1 8 SHIELDS, MARCUS, A 8 0 11 2 6 31 SHIRLEY, A, GRAHAM 65 0 81 6 188 68 1 0 0 0 0 0 185 0 9 34 53 816 0 0 0 0 1 0 SILER-MACK, CHERI 24 0 3 5 46 475 SIMMONS, BARRY, D 0 0 0 0 1 0 SIMMONS, DAVID, F 0 0 1 0 0 0 SIMPSON, THOMAS 0 0 0 0 0 1 407 1 60 23 62 701 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 0 1 9 19 197 0 0 2 0 0 302 SHORE, DUSTIN, C SHUFORD, MEREDITH, A SILER, TANIDRA, DE-SHAY SIPPRELL, DAVID SMALL, RICHARD, E SMITH, APRIL, MARIA SMITH, BRIAN 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 31 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 0 0 2 1 0 988 24 0 270 35 108 1,472 SMITH, HOLLY, C 4 0 5 0 0 0 SMITH, JOHN, W 1 0 7 0 2 2 SMITH, JUDY, K 2 0 0 0 0 0 SMITH, MARK, S 1 0 1 0 0 0 SMITH, ROBERT, L 0 0 0 0 0 1 SMITH, SEAN, P 12 1 10 1 2 50 SMITH, W, OSMOND, III 31 0 66 11 93 352 SNIDER, CHARLES, E 0 0 0 0 0 17 SONENBERG, MARTHA, A 0 0 0 1 0 0 Judge Name SMITH, CAROL, H SMITH, CLIFTON, H SOUTHERN, WILLIAM, FLYNN Waived 40 0 39 31 209 2,859 SPAINHOUR, W, ERWIN 5 0 12 1 9 40 SPELLER, YOLANDA, B 0 0 6 0 0 22 SPENCE, MORIAL, D 0 0 0 0 0 1 SPICER, PHIL, D 0 0 2 0 0 0 SPIVEY, RONALD, E 0 0 0 0 0 1 44 0 133 108 203 1,566 STEELMAN, SANFORD, L, JR. 0 0 1 0 0 1 STEPHENS, DONALD, W 2 0 0 1 1 8 STEPHENS, RONALD, L 36 0 0 8 76 48 164 1 39 83 12 758 0 0 0 0 1 2 STEVENS, HENRY, L 134 13 119 172 123 2,099 STEVENSON, AMANDA, E 170 0 33 36 33 1,087 0 0 1 0 0 4 46 0 9 77 6 783 0 0 0 2 1 0 11 0 3 2 28 104 STOKES, C, STEPHEN 143 0 35 28 53 1,579 STONE, MICHAEL, A 71 0 54 109 58 821 STONE, RICHARD, W STACKHOUSE, WILLIAM, C STEPHENSON, W, TURNER, III STEVENS, CATHERINE, C STEWART, ALEXANDRIA, B STEWART, CARON, H STEWART, WILLIAM, G STIEHL, ROBERT, J 1 0 0 0 2 2 STORCH, STEVEN, RONALD 22 0 954 20 1 2,737 STRADER, CHRISTINE, FIELDS 13 0 36 32 195 950 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 32 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 85 0 42 5 7 212 0 0 1 0 0 0 18 0 14 12 5 280 3 0 0 1 2 1 STULTZ, JOHN, HOYTE 44 0 65 119 230 2,363 SUMNER, QUENTIN, T 22 0 67 5 33 491 SUMNER, ROBERT, T 104 0 0 3 68 67 SURLES, MICHAEL, C 65 4 73 126 134 1,427 154 18 95 148 133 2,145 0 0 1 1 0 15 TALLY, MARY, A 131 0 17 3 111 60 TEAGUE, LEE, F 9 0 9 13 44 712 TERRELL, DEBRA, H 2 0 6 3 0 525 TERRY, B, CARLTON 10 0 30 27 103 1,994 THACKER, LISA, B 28 0 9 22 17 237 THAGARD, LEONARD, W 57 1 11 22 19 363 THOMAS, ANTHONY, G 5 0 128 3 4 1,377 THOMAS, WEAVER, K 3 0 0 0 0 1 THOMASON, JENNINGS, W 1 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 15 5 71 306 THORNBURG, ALAN, Z 8 0 16 41 21 329 THROWER, PENNIE, M 12 0 14 27 221 558 TILLETT, JERRY, R 82 0 17 42 7 694 TIN, REBECCA, THORNE 15 1 9 1 2 31 TITUS, KENNETH, C 12 0 1 0 1 2 TOTTEN, JOHN, W, II 0 0 0 1 0 2 TRAWICK, GARY, E 0 0 0 0 1 0 TRIVETTE, ROBERT, P 14 0 13 73 0 571 TROSCH, ELIZABETH, THORNTON 17 1 2 0 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 6 3 2 17 Judge Name STRICKLAND, DAVID, HUGH STRYFFELER, HARRY, B STUBBS, ROBERT, D STULTZ, JOHN, H SUTTON, BILLY SWEENEY, MICHAEL, L THOMPSON, CAROLYN, J TROSCH, LOUIS, A TROSCH, LOUIS, A, JR. TROTMAN, YOLANDA, MICHELLE Waived 0 0 1 0 1 1 TUCKER, WILLIAM, C 45 0 16 67 189 4,146 TURIK, ANNETTE, W 3 0 27 19 42 524 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 33 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) 1 0 0 0 0 0 TURNER, LES 19 0 63 33 48 991 UNDERWOOD, CHRISTINE 68 0 253 142 212 1,817 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 152 191 568 2,822 1 0 0 1 0 222 446 0 13 10 65 973 VINCENT, CHARLES, M 24 0 21 10 16 329 VINCENT, TERESA, H 82 0 208 17 91 613 VISER, CASEY, M 19 0 76 6 79 210 9 0 6 3 1 161 WAGONER, ANNA, M 84 1 134 29 118 384 WAGONER, JOSEPH, A 1 0 0 0 0 0 WALCZYK, CHRISTINE, M 5 0 7 4 1 197 WALKER, AMY, SIGMON 28 1 246 48 297 1,087 WALKER, DORETTA, L 64 0 156 114 53 605 Judge Name TURNER, JOSEPH, E UNDERWOOD, LISA, A USSERY, SCOTI, LEE VANSCOTER, BROCK, P VICKERY, CARRIE WADDELL, JERRY, F WALKER, MATTHEW, N Waived 1 0 0 0 0 0 WALKER, RICHARD, K 92 0 95 73 32 2,342 WALLACE, TANYA, T 25 0 8 30 129 183 WARREN, MARION, R 0 0 0 1 0 8 WATSON, EBERN, T, III 39 0 39 27 94 153 WATSON, KATRINA, D 373 2 1,035 58 2 7,813 WATTERSON, JOHN, P 1 0 0 0 0 0 WATTS, WILLIAM, G 7 0 218 9 1 3,877 WEBB, CECIL, L 0 0 1 0 0 1 WEBB, JAMES, M 7 0 20 102 23 235 WELLS, MARY, H 40 0 32 134 54 1,857 WEST, CHRISTOPHE, M 1 0 1 0 0 0 WHITE, PAULA, M 2 0 0 0 0 0 WHITESIDE, DAVID, E 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 11 5 48 444 WHITTED, LUTHER, M 0 0 0 0 0 1 WIGGINS, LEONARD, L 55 1 30 7 111 221 WIGGINS, ROY, H 95 6 27 5 5 282 WHITFIELD, TIFFANY, MARIE 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 34 of 35 Table 2: Criminal Case Money Statuses by Judge, Calendar Year 2018 Judge Name Waived Partially Waived Not Assessed Stricken/ Entered in Error Civil Judgment Ordered (Not Waived) WIJEWICKRAMA, ROY, T 19 0 60 61 32 2,053 WILHELM, CHRISTY, E 14 0 114 55 539 2,172 219 0 33 189 197 2,349 WILKINS, ROBERT, MAYNARD 8 0 123 80 76 3,980 WILKINSON, CHARLES, W, JR. 0 0 0 0 0 5 74 0 46 81 69 460 1 0 0 108 0 6,434 24 0 67 8 203 449 WILLIAMS, DEXTER, L 1 0 2 10 0 2,511 WILLIAMS, JOE, A 0 0 0 0 1 0 WILLIAMS, JOSEPH, J 7 0 32 33 39 703 WILLIAMS, KAREN, S 0 0 0 0 0 1 WILLIAMS, SIMIKA, LYVETTE 1 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 72 134 139 3,554 140 0 57 136 65 1,033 65 311 WILKINS, FREDERICK, B, JR. WILKS, BRIAN, C WILLEMS, KURT, R WILLEY, JOSHUA, W, JR. WILLIS, OWEN, H WILSON, AMANDA, LYNN WILSON, EDWIN, G, JR. 15 0 21 41 WILSON, LARRY, J 273 0 15 29 71 747 WOOD, APRIL, C 20 0 24 36 145 849 WOOD, J, FRANKLIN, JR. 31 0 91 240 174 5,104 WOOD, WILLIAM, A, II 25 0 55 41 201 309 WOOD, WILLIAM, Z 2 0 0 0 2 1 WOODBURN, ANGELA, C 1 0 0 0 0 1 WOOTEN, TERESA, L 0 0 0 0 0 1 WORLEY, ANNA, E 5 1 17 14 0 405 WORTINGER, SUSAN, M 2 0 0 0 0 0 WRIGHT, CAROL, A 0 0 2 0 0 0 WRIGHT, CHRISTINE 1 0 0 0 0 0 WYRICK, RICHARD, T 0 0 80 4 0 6,579 YOUNG, PATRICIA, KAUFMANN 6 0 63 68 242 318 YOUNG, REUBEN, F 1 0 1 1 4 9 919 34 1,228 7,279 59 506,646 31,191 392 31,855 24,436 42,592 987,162 MISSING/UNKNOWN TOTAL 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019 Page 35 of 35 North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts P.O. Box 2448 Raleigh, NC 27602 www.nccourts.org 919 890 1000 2019 Report on Criminal Cost Waivers February 1, 2019