IN THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION WAKE COUNTY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE; JUSTICE SERVED NC, INC.; NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, 19 CVS 15941 Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF SPEAKER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; et al. Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TRANSCRIPT Tuesday, August 19, 2020 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Transcript of proceedings in the General Court of Justice, Wake County Superior Court Division, Civil Session, remote hearing via WebEx, before the Honorable Lisa C. Bell, the Honorable Keith O. Gregory, and the Honorable John M. Dunlow, Judges Presiding. __________________________________________________________ Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts (570) 236-9679 denise.stclair@nccourts.org APPEARANCES Daryl Atkinson Whitley Carpenter 400 W Main St., Suite 203 Durham, NC 27701 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP R. Stanton Jones Daniel F. Jacobson 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs Farbod K. Faraji 77 Pearl Street Middletown, CT 06459 Admitted pro hac vice Attorney for Plaintiffs Brian D. Rabinovitz Stephanie Brennan N.C. Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Attorney for the Legislative Defendants Josh H. Stein, Attorney General Special Deputy Attorney General Paul Cox Olga E. Vysotskaya de Brito N.C. Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Counsel for the State Board Defendants 3 1 INDEX 2 Whitley Carpenter 9 3 Brian Rabinovitz 29 4 Paul Cox 44 5 Daniel Jacoboson 50 6 Daryl Atkinson 109 7 Paul Cox 134 8 Brian Rabinovitz 194 9 Daryl Atkinson 212 10 Daniel Jacobson 222 11 Paul Cox 231 12 * * * 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 4 CSI v Moore, et al July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 (Court convenes at 9:30 a.m.) 2 JUDGE BELL: 3 morning. 4 so I'm not sure. I'm going to go ahead and say good I see a lot of call-in users, but without pictures, I see Judge Gregory, good morning. 5 JUDGE GREGORY: 6 JUDGE BELL: 7 JUDGE DUNLOW: 8 JUDGE BELL: 9 Good morning. Judge Dunlow, good morning. Good morning. Adam is on. And so I'm not sure at this point -- is Mr. Rabinovitz on? No? 10 MR. RABINOVITZ: 11 defendants are here in the same room. 12 here, and Ms.Vysotskaya. 13 JUDGE BELL: Your Honor, counsel for all the All right. So I'm here, Mr. Cox is So the screen that I have 14 here that says "defendants," that would be all of the counsel 15 for all defendants? 16 MR. RABINOVITZ: 17 JUDGE BELL: 18 Mr. Atkinson. 19 There you here. 20 Mr. Jones -- Jones? Yes, Your Honor. Okay. Great. MR. JONES: 22 JUDGE BELL: 23 Mr. Faraji, there you are. 25 I see Ms. Carpenter. Mr. Jacobson, is there. Have we got Stanton Jones? 21 24 Thank you. So you are here this morning. Good morning, ma'am. That's correct. Yes, I'm here. There you are. Thank you, Your Honor. Hi. Did I say your name correctly? MR. FARAJI: You did. Thank you, Your Honor. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 5 CSI v Moore, et al July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 JUDGE BELL: 2 I see an S. Brennan with no photo. 3 I don't know who that might be. 4 5 Faraji is right. MS. BRENNAN: Your Honor, that's Stephanie Brennan, who's also an attorney with the Department of Justice. 6 JUDGE BELL: 7 The other folks that I see participating that are Okay. Very good. 8 not -- their photos aren't showing up. 9 assistant attorney general; is that right? 10 Thank you. I see Mr. Stead is an I see CHG. I don't know if that's what that name is? 11 MR. RABINOVITZ: That's right, Your Honor. 12 assistant attorney general. 13 Department of Justice. 14 JUDGE BELL: He's an He's also observing from the Okay. Everyone else whose photos are 15 not showing who are just observing or listening, as the case 16 may be, and we have all of the necessary parties; would that 17 be right? 18 Anybody else we're waiting on? All right. Okay. I will welcome you all again. I 19 believe we all met a couple of weeks ago, but I'm Lisa Bell. 20 I'm the resident judge out of Charlotte and the presiding 21 judge for this matter. 22 panel consists of myself, Judge Gregory and Judge Dunlow, and 23 we are all here and ready to proceed. 24 25 And the three panel -- three-judge So the purpose of today -- I assume you all received the e-mail yesterday, the three documents, the WebEx Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 6 CSI v Moore, et al July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 with Adam Steele and Derek Dittmer from the Judicial 2 Fellowship. 3 expert from the list of defendants, we've allocated a half an 4 hour for plaintiffs to be heard on that motion, a half hour 5 for defendants to respond to the motion. 6 that you have to use that time. 7 please don't feel like you need to fill it up, but that's the 8 time you will be allotted. 9 necessary comments in rebuttal, we can hear those briefly. 10 And since there is the motion to exclude the I'm not suggesting If you do not need all of it, If there's any absolutely We'll then take a break and Judge Gregory, Judge 11 Dunlow and I will discuss our ruling on that. 12 be then to come back at 11. 13 from 10:30 to 11, come back at 11, give you our ruling on that 14 motion and then we will proceed into the plaintiffs' motions 15 for summary judgment or in the alternative the preliminary 16 injunction. 17 Our plan would So we'll take a 30-minute break Our plan is to give the plaintiffs their primary 18 presentation, first presentation, two hours, and then we will 19 take an hour break at 1:00 for lunch, come back at 2, and the 20 defendants will jointly have two hours to respond; and then 21 plaintiffs will have 30 minutes for rebuttal or reply, and the 22 defendants will have 30 minutes after that. 23 us up about 5:00 o'clock, and the three of us have -- and when 24 I refer to "the three of us," I'm referring to Judge Gregory 25 and Judge Dunlow and myself. That should wrap If the three of us decided that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 7 CSI v Moore, et al July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 probably at that point our brains are going to be maxed out 2 with information absorption, then we would recess by today at 3 5. 4 If we do have questions for you all, which we may, 5 and we don't want to use the time we've allocated to you with 6 those questions, we have asked that you all be available to 7 resume tomorrow afternoon to respond to our questions. 8 Probably be resuming, I think, at 2:00 tomorrow to respond to 9 that recognizing the time sensitive nature of the plaintiffs' 10 claims and the resolution of this matter. 11 prepared to give you an answer by Friday of this week. 12 have decided we would like to have more time to consider your 13 arguments, refer back to all of the submissions, of which 14 there were many, many papes, and we're putting ourselves on an 15 absolute deadline of no later than September 4th to give you 16 an answer. 17 that should give you more than 30 days prior to the 18 registration deadline for the November election. 19 plaintiffs don't prevail, you just get your answer by 20 September 4th. 21 22 23 So we will not be We That should give you -- if the plaintiffs prevail, If the Judge Gregory, did you wish to add anything to any of that? JUDGE GREGORY: Judge Bell, I think you've said 24 everything correctly, so I'm good. 25 JUDGE BELL: Thank you. Thank you. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 8 CSI v Moore, et al July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Judge Dunlow, anything for you, sir? 2 JUDGE DUNLOW: 3 JUDGE BELL: Nothing to add. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Adam Steele 4 will be making sure that everyone who is not speaking is on 5 mute. 6 technological difficulties, I'll ask for him to resolve those. 7 We were struggling yesterday with a couple of things. 8 they are more technologically savvy than we are. 9 being said, we'll go ahead and ask that plaintiffs begin with 10 It just helps with the feedback. So with that Is the pronunciation of this doctor's name, is it Callanan or is there just -- 13 14 I think your motion to exclude. 11 12 And if we have any MS. CARPENTER: Yes, Your Honor. Dr. Keegan Callanan. 15 JUDGE BELL: Callanan. Okay. We started calling 16 him Dr. C because we all read it as Callahan, but it's 17 Callanan. 18 MS. CARPENTER: 19 JUDGE BELL: Yes, ma'am. I believe we're ready to hear from 20 plaintiffs on that. 21 comments put us ten minutes behind. 22 and we'll be cutting you off at that point. 23 all that time, as I said, you just don't feel compelled to. I've got us at 9:40. 24 You may proceed. 25 MS. CARPENTER: I realize my We'll give you to 10:10, If you don't use Thank you, Your Honor. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter My name is 9 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Whitney Carpenter from Forward Justice. 2 Plaintiffs. 3 I'm representing Your Honor, Plaintiffs ask this morning that the 4 court exclude nearly all of the report and testimony of 5 Dr. Keegan Callanan, specifically Sections II through VII of 6 his expert report, and his respective testimony reflecting 7 those sections under Rule 702(a) of the North Carolina Rules 8 of Evidence. 9 The Legislative Defendants in this case provided 10 expert testimony by Dr. Keegan Callanan in the form of a 11 rebuttal report of the Plaintiffs' experts. 12 been provided in support of both Legislative Defendants and 13 State Board of Elections Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' 14 motion for summary judgment. 15 His testimony has Dr. Keegan Callanan is a political philosopher who 16 specializes in contemporary political theory and history of 17 political philosophy in Montesquieu, a French philosopher of 18 the enlightenment. 19 qualifications connected to felony disenfranchisement, related 20 substantive topics, or quantitative analysis methods. 21 Plaintiffs ask today that the court exclude Dr. Callanan's 22 testimony on the basis that he does not possess the requisite 23 qualifications and his analyses are substantively unreliable. 24 25 He admittedly has no background or First, Your Honors, I will lay out the legal standard in North Carolina regarding admission of expert Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 10 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 testimony and the specific requirements and factors considered 2 when evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony. 3 Second, I will explain why Dr. Callanan does not 4 possess the requisite experience or qualifications under this 5 standard. 6 Third, I will explain why Dr. Callanan's analyses 7 presented in his report and further explained at his 8 deposition are unreliable under his standard. 9 JUDGE BELL: Ms. Carpenter, just in the interest of 10 time, I think Judge Gregory, Judge Dunlow and I are familiar 11 with the requirements under Rule 702. 12 just get into your substantive argument, I would -- I think 13 that would be a better use of the time. 14 15 Judge Gregory, Judge Dunlow, if you disagree with that, you're welcome to. 16 17 If you would like to JUDGE GREGORY: I agree. This is Judge Gregory. agree. 18 JUDGE BELL: 19 MS. CARPENTER: 20 JUDGE DUNLOW: 21 JUDGE BELL: 22 MS. CARPENTER: 23 Also, I plan to speak to the portion of Okay. I do too, Your Honor. I agree. All right. Go ahead, Ms. Carpenter. Thank you, Your Honor. 24 Dr. Callanan's report that is referenced in Legislative and 25 State Board of Election Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter I 11 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 motion for summary judgment; specifically, they refer to one 2 section of his report. 3 not address the additional reliability issues of the analyses 4 not yet relied on by Defendants based on the strength of the 5 qualifications argument in our first reliability argument, 6 we're happy to rest after focusing on those sections as well. 7 8 9 JUDGE BELL: And if Your Honors prefer that we do Okay. We'll hear from you to start with, and then if we need to go forward, we can. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. Dr. Callanan's report and 10 testimony should be excluded under Rule 702(a) for two 11 reasons, Your Honors. 12 qualifications to offer the analysis and opinions in 13 Sections II through VII of his report, and the analysis in 14 each of these sections is completely unreliable. 15 of his analysis is not based on sufficient facts or data and 16 is not the product of reliable principles and methods. 17 of Dr. Callanan's theories or techniques in Sections II 18 through VII appear to have been subjected to peer review and 19 publication. 20 acceptance in the field of statistical analysis. 21 He does not have the necessary The majority None Further, they have not achieved general Your Honors, as the McGrady court said, whenever a 22 court is assessing the expert's qualifications, they must look 23 to see if the experience is sufficient to qualify that witness 24 in the field of expertise at issue. 25 to the knowledge, skill, experience, training, education in Additionally, they spoke Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 12 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the field of his proposed testimony. 2 meet these criteria for the purpose of this case. 3 Dr. Callanan is a professor of political theory and political 4 philosophy who has spent most of his career studying 5 Montesquieu, a French philosopher and social contract theorist 6 who lived from 1689 to 1755. 7 Dr. Callanan does not Political theory is a study of the big picture 8 philosophical questions about government, like what form 9 government should take or when a government ought to be 10 overthrown. 11 analysis on voter behavior or the inner workings of our 12 criminal justice system. 13 be a branch of philosophy, not political science. 14 Political theorists do not conduct statistical In fact, many consider this field to Defendants assert that Dr. Callanan has published 15 numerous books and articles and reviewed multiple peer 16 reviewed academic journals in political science. 17 assert that Dr. Callanan has authored a book published with a 18 top ranked publisher of political science, which Plaintiffs do 19 not dispute this morning. 20 broad discipline of social science, Your Honors, when 21 planning -- I'm sorry -- containing many subcategories for 22 specialization. 23 centered on political theory focusing on the origins and 24 development of political institutions and principles. 25 They also However, political science is a Much of Dr. Callanan's scholarship is Dr. Callanan lacks any expertise on the subject Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 13 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 matters contained in Sections II through VII of his expert 2 report. 3 impact, the effect of disenfranchisement on voter turnout, 4 voter turnout estimates, disenfranchisement effect on 5 electoral impact, criminal legal financial obligations, and 6 recidivism respectively. 7 These sections discuss disparate and disproportionate Dr. Callanan's CV contains information about his 8 presentations, lectures, and published works which generally 9 focus on political philosophy with an emphasis on Montesquieu. 10 He further admitted in his deposition that he's never taught, 11 presented or published anything focused on felony 12 disenfranchisement. 13 published anything focused on Southern politics, 19th Century 14 history in the South, the history of voter suppression in the 15 South, the criminal justice system in the United States, the 16 reentry of people with criminal convictions into society, nor 17 racial impact of elections laws, current voting patterns in 18 the United States, or anything at all that relates to 19 North Carolina specifically. 20 on the subject that he seeks to provide testimony on for this 21 case. He's also never taught, presented or He admittedly has no expertise 22 Additionally, Your Honors, Dr. Callanan's CV 23 doesn't identify any experience or prior work at all in 24 statistics or quantitative methods. 25 published an article or any report presenting his own Dr. Callanan has never Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 14 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 statistical or quantitative analysis. 2 any course focused on statistical analysis either. 3 professional expertise or experience with any sort of 4 quantitative methods or analysis. 5 that we are challenging from his report, he seeks to either 6 conduct his own statistical analysis or interpret the 7 statistical analysis of another qualified expert. 8 about his professional expertise on these substantive topics 9 that he discussed in his report and on statistical analysis, And he's never taught He has no However, in each section When asked 10 Dr. Callanan explained to us that he has a broad area of 11 expertise that apparently includes any and everything that 12 falls within what he described as the "bounds of political 13 science" despite the fact that he's never studied, taught, 14 presented, or written about the particular issue until being 15 retained to do so in a lawsuit. 16 Your Honors, respectfully, being a political 17 scientist certainly can't mean that you're qualified to 18 testify as an expert in court on any and all issues within the 19 realm of political science. 20 mean that I have expertise in every legal subject. 21 could read and study and develop a reasonable understanding of 22 tax law, for instance, if I were asked to do so, but by no 23 means would that limited study qualify me as an expert on the 24 topic. 25 Dr. Callanan to serve as an expert on this subject matter My juris doctor certainly doesn't Sure, I When they ask why Legislative Defendants selected Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 15 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 given his lack of expertise on the relevant topics. 2 courts have held that general experience in a broad field will 3 not suffice to qualify a person as an expert on subtopics and 4 specialties within that field. 5 Multiple Defendants assert that Dr. Callanan has served as 6 an expert witness in several North Carolina cases involving 7 elections, voting, and racial disparity. 8 actually been qualified by the court in any of those cases. 9 Further, Dr. Callanan's report has been stricken from the However, he hasn't 10 record in an NAACP v. Cooper case for separate reasons. 11 Nonetheless, in the Kline case in North Carolina, for example, 12 the 4th Circuit held that, "It would be absurd to conclude 13 that one can become an expert simply by accumulating 14 experience in testifying." 15 Court discusses the need for an expert's testimony to stand 16 naturally and directly out of research he conducted 17 independent of the litigation rather than an expert developing 18 opinions expressly for the purpose of testifying. 19 Further, in the McGrady case, the North Carolina courts have applied very specific 20 restrictions in determining the admissibility of an expert's 21 testimony in regard to their qualifications. 22 the Zellers' case, the Court excluded the testimony of a 23 toxicologist because he lacks specialized training in the 24 toxicity of refrigerants. 25 Court excluded the testimony of an architect because he didn't For example, in Further, in the Myers' decision the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 16 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 have "specific education, training or experiences that would 2 grant him expertise in the area of parking lot design". 3 Defendants in this case state that the other 4 experts in this case are political scientists as well and that 5 as a practicing political scientist Dr. Callanan should be 6 helpful in assessing the conclusions drawn by other political 7 scientists in the case. 8 Honors, the Court excluded a doctor on the grounds that "an 9 expert is not qualified to offer testimony merely because the 10 expert specializes in a similar specialty as the other side's 11 expert". 12 However, in the Barringer case, Your Given the standard applied in North Carolina 13 courts, Dr. Callanan being a political scientist who focuses 14 on political theory and philosophy is not qualified to provide 15 expert opinion on the specialized subtopics of felony 16 disenfranchisement, voter turnout, partisan voting pattern, 17 reentry into society after conviction, criminal legal 18 financial obligations, or recidivism as he admittedly has no 19 specialized knowledge on any of these topics. 20 specialized knowledge, subject matter knowledge, combined with 21 his lack of expertise to form necessary statistical analyses, 22 resulted in a number of mistakes and errors in his report. 23 made calculation errors, he relied on incorrect assumptions 24 about voting patterns, and it was -- and was clearly oblivious 25 to key aspects of our state system for imposing criminal legal Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter This lack of He 17 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 financial obligations that resulted in incorrect analyses. 2 These errors, Your Honors, reinforce the fact that 3 Dr. Callanan does not possess the requisite qualifications or 4 expertise to provide the opinions in Sections II through VII 5 of his report. 6 To conclude, Sections II through VII of 7 Dr. Callanan's report should be excluded pursuant to Rule 8 702(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence because he does 9 not have the necessary qualifications to offer the analyses 10 and opinions offered in these sections. 11 report should be excluded for this reasons independently. 12 However, I'll now discuss why Dr. Callanan's analyses are not 13 reliable and must be excluded. 14 These sections of his Applying the reliability test, along with the 15 additional factors for consideration referenced by the McGrady 16 court to Dr. Callanan's report and testimony make it evident 17 that Sections II through VII of Dr. Callanan's report do not 18 meet Rule 702(a)'s reliability standards. 19 Dr. Callanan's report is able to pass the first two prongs of 20 Daubert's reliability standard. 21 are not based on sufficient facts and data, none of his 22 analyses in Sections II through VII of his report are the 23 product of reliable principles and methods as they've not been 24 subjected to peer review and are generally not accepted in the 25 community. No section in While some of his analyses Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 18 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 First, in Section II of Dr. Callanan's report, he 2 seeks to make a disproportionate impact analysis that is 3 wholly unreliable. 4 Dr. Baumgartner's findings that African Americans comprise 5 42 percent of North Carolinians who are disenfranchised 6 because they are on community supervision, despite comprising 7 just 22 percent of the voting-age population in North 8 Carolina. 9 Americans are not disenfranchised at higher rates in North Dr. Callanan does not dispute Yet, Dr. Callanan still states that African 10 Carolina. 11 disenfranchisement for people convicted of felonies across 12 races. 13 disenfranchisement are just a function of the racial 14 composition of people with felonies in North Carolina. 15 clear here, Your Honors, that Dr. Callanan does not understand 16 the concept of disparate or disproportionate impact, which is 17 whether a facially race-neutral policy still 18 disproportionately affects people of one race. 19 He instead mistakenly focuses on the rate of He concludes that the disparities and It's To determine this disproportionate impact, you have 20 to compare the percentage of people of a certain demographic 21 impacted by the policy compared to that demographic percentage 22 of the population as a whole. 23 hand, compares one race of disenfranchised people who do not 24 meet a requirement to another race of disenfranchised people 25 who do not meet a requirement. Dr. Callanan, on the other With this approach, Your Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 19 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Honors, no facially race-neutral policy would ever be 2 considered to have disparate or disproportionate impact. 3 For example, if a city park was closed to all kids 4 who lived in a certain neighborhood that happened to have a 5 majority of black residents, with Dr. Callanan's logic, there 6 would be no disparate or disproportionate impact because the 7 park was closed to all races of kids from that neighborhood 8 despite the fact that the majority of the kids in the 9 neighborhood were black. With his logic, black kids would not 10 be excluded from the park at disproportionately high rates 11 because it would just be a function of the racial composition 12 of the people in that neighborhood and all kids from the 13 neighborhood would be excluded at the same rate. 14 Compare this to a real-life historical example of 15 disparate impact of voting restriction, literacy tests, even 16 without some of the ridiculous and inconsistent requirements 17 historically associated with literacy tests, because African 18 Americans, for a period of time in our history, forbidden from 19 being taught to read, it's clear that we were less likely to 20 be able to pass a test that required you to do so in order to 21 vote. 22 were unable to read and thus unable to pass a literacy test 23 and, as a result, unable to vote. 24 logic, this policy would not disproportionately impact African 25 Americans because it would just be a function of the racial It's possible that there were some white people who But under Dr. Callanan's Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 20 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 composition of people who were unable to read. 2 Honors, despite the fact that literacy tests were facially 3 race neutral and applied to everyone, there's no question that 4 they disproportionately disenfranchised African Americans 5 relative to our share of the population. 6 But, Your The U.S. Supreme Court opined on this very subject 7 in the context of disenfranchisement as it relates to criminal 8 convictions in Hunter v. Underwood. 9 evidence of discriminatory impact was indisputable when a The Court found that the 10 race-neutral policy that was applied equally to anyone who 11 committed certain offenses, yet black people were 1.7 times as 12 likely as white to be disenfranchised under that policy. 13 Court relied on expert testimony consistent with the settled 14 scientific approach to evaluating the disparate impact of 15 voter restrictions, which is to compare the demographics of 16 those impacted by the restriction to the general population. 17 The Dr. Callanan's methods of analyzing whether a 18 voting restriction has a disparate or disproportionate 19 impact -- racial impact is unreliable under the McGrady 20 factors as it has not been subject to peer review, it is not 21 generally accepted in the scientific community, and, Your 22 Honors, it's simply wrong. 23 academic study or any other expert report that uses his 24 methodology of determining disparate or disproportionate 25 impact. He notably did not cite a single For these reasons, his analysis in Section II of his Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 21 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 report should be deemed inadmissible. 2 Next, Your Honors, in Section III Dr. Callanan 3 attempts to analyze whether disenfranchisement decreases voter 4 turnout. 5 he explained that the simple presence of a criminal 6 conviction, not the disenfranchisement associated with that 7 conviction, is what decreases turnout. 8 explanation, he relies on the dissertation of an expert 9 witness, Dr. Traci Burch, a document that was published in 10 This analysis too is unreliable. In this section, But in his 2007. 11 Dr. Burch's dissertation did assess turnout rates 12 for the 2000 and 2004 elections, but Dr. Burch herself 13 explained that the findings of her dissertation assessing 14 election turnouts from 16 and 20 years ago would no longer be 15 accurate as applied to the current election. 16 explained, that voter turnout among people with criminal 17 convictions has seen a significant rise in more recent 18 elections. 19 As she further Dr. Callanan, however, admittedly did not collect 20 any data to perform any analysis of his own to determine 21 whether Dr. Burch's findings about turnouts from elections 16 22 and 20 years ago are still accurate to apply to assess turnout 23 for elections today. 24 13-year-old dissertation and not conducting any independent 25 research or analysis to assess recent changes in voter turnout By relying on data solely from a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 22 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 patterns, Dr. Callanan's assertions do not meet Rule 702 2 standards. 3 data as required by 702(a) when the data he relied on was from 4 16 and 20 years ago, and there's clear evidence available to 5 show that the data would look very different today. 6 Additionally, it's generally not an accepted method in the 7 scientific community to rely on such old data to draw 8 conclusions about elections today. 9 They simply can't be based on relevant facts or In Section IV, again, Dr. Callanan relies largely 10 on data from 16 and 20 years ago. 11 attempting to estimate voter turnout. 12 was not even specific to North Carolina, but instead, average 13 turnout estimates across three states. 14 recent data that shows the significant increase in turnout of 15 people with criminal convictions in the recent elections. 16 In this section, he's This time the old data This too ignores the Again, by relying on such old data that also was 17 not specific to North Carolina to draw conclusions about 18 elections today without doing any analysis on his own, 19 Dr. Callanan is not using relevant facts or data or reliable 20 methodology that has received general acceptance in the field. 21 He made other errors in this section that we've 22 fully detailed in our brief, Your Honors; for example, 23 completely ignoring an important data point in another 24 expert's analysis. 25 this important data point at deposition, he oddly explained And when questioned about his omission of Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 23 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 that the data points he considered were closer in proximity to 2 the conclusion about voter turnout in the report, despite the 3 fact that all three of the data points were included in the 4 same paragraph of the report. 5 significant portion of the analysis. 6 methodology. 7 He completely ignored a This is not reliable He further unsuccessfully attempted to estimate the 8 number of people currently on community supervision who would 9 vote if their rights were restored. But in his estimation, he 10 didn't account for people disenfranchised because of a 11 conviction in another state, he didn't account for people 12 disenfranchised because of a Federal Court conviction, and he 13 transposed digits of the number of people disenfranchised from 14 a North Carolina state court conviction. 15 estimates to be incorrect, low, and undeniably wrong. 16 certainly does not pass any portion of the three-prong test 17 for reliability under 702(a). 18 sufficient facts or data, he didn't employ a reliable 19 methodology, and he didn't apply that methodology that he did 20 use reliably. 21 22 JUDGE BELL: This caused his This Dr. Callanan failed to use You've got ten minutes left, Ms. Carpenter. 23 MS. CARPENTER: 24 In Section V, Dr. Callanan estimated electoral 25 Thank you, Your Honor. impact analysis that is also not reliable. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter He admitted 24 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 himself at deposition that his methodology in this section 2 predicting how the disenfranchisement of people on community 3 supervision affected the outcomes of statewide- and 4 county-level elections were not reliable. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held in State 5 6 v. Phillips that upon admission that your analysis is not 7 accurate, that analysis can't reasonably be considered the 8 product of reliable principles and methods. 9 position were to be -- even if his position were to be 10 Even if his disputed, his analysis in this section is clearly unreliable. 11 As we described in our brief, there's numerous 12 flaws in the way he predicted election outcomes. 13 assumed a party registration split today based on data from a 14 2010 study. 15 16 counties with very different demographics. 16 falsely assumed for his analysis that party registration is a 17 perfect predictor of voting patterns in all elections, meaning 18 every registered Democrat will vote for the Democratic 19 candidate in every election. 20 will vote for the Republican candidate in every election. 21 then applied that split to predict voting patterns in 22 nonpartisan races. 23 patterns for the two relevant candidates who were both 24 Republicans. 25 election impacts is simply not reliable. Dr. Callanan He applied statewide party registration data to He further And every registered Republican He He also used that split to predict voting Dr. Callanan's methodology for estimating Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 25 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 He unsurprisingly cited no peer-reviewed 2 scholarship, or any scholarship for that matter, or 3 independent analysis of his own showing that party 4 registration is a perfect predictor of voting patterns. 5 as I mentioned, Your Honors, Dr. Callanan admitted at 6 deposition that party registration was not a reliable 7 predictor of actual voting behavior. 8 actually could have identified the actual prior party 9 registrations of the people currently on felony supervision in And Now, Dr. Callanan 10 every county, but he didn't do that. 11 admission, North Carolina courts have held that expert 12 testimony is not reliable where, as here, it relies upon an 13 unfounded assumption. 14 Outside of his own It's also not reliable for Dr. Callanan to use 15 party registration splits to estimate how people would vote in 16 nonpartisan races or how they would vote between two 17 candidates of the same party. 18 peer-reviewed publication that has ever done so. Again, he doesn't present any 19 Finally, again, he fails to account for people who 20 are disenfranchised from a federal conviction or a conviction 21 in another state. 22 Honors, are not reliable. 23 Incorrect numbers by definition, Your In Section VI, Dr. Callanan attempts to make 24 estimates about disenfranchisement as it relates to legal 25 financial obligations. This too is unreliable. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 26 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 Dr. Callanan's analysis in this section is unreliable because 2 of his own admission that his estimates are inaccurate. 3 admitted at deposition that he was unaware of the important 4 aspects of North Carolina's criminal legal system as it 5 relates specifically to legal financial obligations. 6 admitted that he was unaware of key details about the data 7 provided by the Department of Public Safety in discovery. 8 Specifically, he admitted that he was unaware that a person's 9 probation could be extended for failing to pay supervision He He also 10 fees, and that the data provided by DPS in discovery only 11 lists financial obligations imposed as a part of a sentence, 12 not monthly supervision fees. 13 He further admitted, Your Honors, that if both of 14 these facts were true, then his calculations would be 15 incorrect. 16 Dr. Callanan could have obtained this information if he took 17 the initiative to do so before conducting his analysis. 18 he did not. 19 analysis in Section VI is also unreliable under Rule 702(a) by 20 his own admission because it is not based upon sufficient 21 facts or data due to his lack of knowledge of key information 22 about legal financial obligations in the North Carolina 23 criminal justice system. 24 25 Both of these facts are true, Your Honors. But And since these facts are true, Dr. Callanan's Finally, in Section VII, Your Honors, Dr. Callanan attempts to opine on recidivism and its connection to Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 27 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 disenfranchisement. 2 Here, Dr. Callanan critiques different articles discussing 3 potential links between disenfranchisement and recidivism. 4 states that omitted variable bias is a serious problem, but 5 provides no indication of the important variables he feels 6 were omitted. 7 these omitted variables specifically affect the study's 8 conclusion. 9 This analysis is unreliable as well. He He also did not provide any analysis as to how Considering Dr. Callanan's complete lack of 10 expertise in the areas of recidivism and statistics and the 11 fact that it's not a reliable principle to draw a conclusion 12 about the validity of another study based on a vague, 13 unexplained and untested critique of that study, this 14 analysis, or lack thereof, can't pass the reliability test 15 under Rule 7O2(a). 16 Your Honors, for the reasons I have presented 17 today, Dr. Keegan Callanan is not qualified to provide expert 18 opinion on the relevant subject matters for this case. 19 Further, he's demonstrated that he is not qualified to provide 20 statistical analysis or critique the statistical analysis of 21 other qualified experts, and thus, the analyses provided in 22 his report are not reliable. 23 exclude Sections II through VII of Dr. Keegan Callanan's 24 report pursuant to Rule 702(a) of the North Carolina Rules of 25 Evidence. As such, we ask that Your Honors Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 28 CSI v Moore, et al By Ms. Carpenter July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 JUDGE BELL: 1 Thank you, Ms. Carpenter. We have 2 about four minutes left for plaintiffs' presentation. 3 one question and that was, do any of your arguments change or 4 would they be impacted, Ms. Carpenter, by Dr. Callanan being 5 considered only as a -- essentially rebuttal to the expert 6 report as opposed to an independent expert? 7 offered to rebut what Dr. Baumgartner and Dr. Burch presented. 8 Does any of your argument change? 9 MS. CARPENTER: I have He's only being No, Your Honor, my argument does 10 not change. 11 reports, and those experts still must be qualified in order to 12 provide the analysis necessary to rebut the report of another 13 qualified expert. I can find the case cite for you, if that 14 would be helpful. I believe it is in -- I believe it's 15 Martinez v. Porter. There's actually case law talking about rebuttal Martinez v. Porter? 16 JUDGE BELL: 17 MS. CARPENTER: I think that's correct. One 18 second. 19 that -- I would distinguish this case from that one in that 20 there was a Daubert motion presented. 21 here was Dr. Callanan did not have the relevant 22 qualifications, and so this relied on reliability. 23 in that case, the expert was qualified. 24 that Dr. Callanan is not qualified based on his background and 25 his expertise. Actually, in that case, Your Honors, I believe However, the difference However, And our argument is And in that case, it focused solely on Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 29 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 reliability. 2 discusses the need for qualifications to be on point as well. 3 However, this is a two-prong test, and it I would also want to point to in North Carolina 4 Common Cause -- Common Cause Case -- Common Cause v. Lewis, I 5 believe, and in that case, a three-judge panel excluded expert 6 testimony. 7 provided precedence in North Carolina. That was a rebuttal report as well, and that 8 JUDGE BELL: 9 Judge Gregory, do you have any questions? Okay. Thank you, Ms. Carpenter. 10 one minute left on plaintiffs' side. 11 JUDGE GREGORY: 12 JUDGE BELL: 13 JUDGE DUNLOW: 14 JUDGE BELL: 15 No, ma'am. I'm fine. We have Thank you. Judge Dunlow? No questions. All right. Thank you then, Ms. Carpenter. 16 We will hear from the Defendants now in response. 17 MR. RABINOVITZ: Thank you, Your Honors. My name 18 is Brian Rabinovitz. 19 Department of Justice, and I'm representing the Legislative 20 Defendants in this case. 21 I'm an attorney with the North Carolina May it please the Court. Plaintiffs argue that 22 Dr. Callanan should be excluded for two reasons. 23 argue that he's not qualified to offer an expert opinion in 24 this case; and second, they argued that his expert opinion is 25 not reliable. First, they Both of these arguments should be rejected. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 30 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 And the fundamental that reason they should be rejected is 2 because the issue with respect to expert testimony is whether 3 the testimony is helpful to the trier of fact. 4 a case being heard by a panel of three experienced judges. 5 This isn't a jury trial. 6 for itself whether Dr. Callanan's opinions are helpful to the 7 Court in analyzing the case or whether they are not helpful to 8 the Court. 9 it examine those portions of Dr. Callanan's deposition Here, this is The Court is capable of determining And I would very much recommend to the Court that 10 testimony that Plaintiffs have cited, because they have 11 seriously misstated what he said in a number of places, which 12 I'll highlight a few of those later. 13 Likewise, the Court here can determine what weight 14 to give to Dr. Callanan's analysis and his conclusions. 15 Court need not exercise some type of gatekeeping function here 16 because this isn't testimony that's going to be heard by a lay 17 jury that might be misled if it is inaccurate. 18 certainly will have the opportunity and have laid out several 19 criticisms that they have of Dr. Callanan's testimony, and 20 this Court is fully capable of weighing those criticisms, 21 looking at his analysis, looking at his report, and 22 determining what weight this Court believes should be given to 23 his testimony versus the attacks that have been made by 24 Plaintiffs' counsel here. 25 The Plaintiffs For the reasons that I've stated, there's not a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 31 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 danger that the Court is going to be misled by Dr. Callanan's 2 expert opinion. 3 asking the Court to engage in here is the same exercise that 4 the Court will engage in if it allows Dr. Callanan's testimony 5 to stand in this case and simply analyzes whether it thinks 6 that his methods and conclusions are persuasive or not. 7 again, there's no need for this Court to engage in some 8 gatekeeping function and take the relatively extreme step of 9 excluding Dr. Callanan's testimony altogether from this case. 10 In fact, the exercise that Plaintiffs are So, I think if the Court reads his expert report and 11 reads the deposition testimony, this court will find that he 12 has, in fact, offered information, opinions, a view of the 13 data that this Court may find helpful in analyzing the issues 14 that Plaintiffs' experts have raised in this case. 15 I would also like to emphasize the question that 16 Judge Bell asked Ms. Carpenter a few minutes ago having to 17 deal with the fact that Dr. Callanan here is a rebuttal 18 expert. 19 done some independent analysis, that he didn't go out and do 20 any independent analysis. 21 expert until we had received Plaintiffs' reports in this case. 22 And he was retained specifically for the purpose, in the time 23 that was allotted, to provide a rebuttal of the points that 24 Plaintiffs' experts had made. 25 Plaintiffs' experts have relied upon, the data from the Plaintiffs have said that he could have gone out and Dr. Callanan was not retained as an He relied on the same data that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 32 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Department of Public Safety, which was provided in response to 2 some information request that the Plaintiffs had sent in. 3 As far as Dr. Callanan's qualifications here, 4 Plaintiffs have attacked his qualifications, but they've made 5 several serious misrepresentations of his qualifications. 6 they have pointed out that he has expertise as a political 7 theorist and that he has expertise on Montesquieu. 8 things go without question. 9 published a well-regarded book on Montesquieu with a major And those He -- as they pointed out, he 10 political science publishing house. 11 other areas of his expertise. 12 So But this ignores the First and foremost, he has a PhD in political 13 science. 14 includes training in both qualitative and quantitative 15 analysis. 16 has this training. 17 He's trained as a political scientist, and that The Plaintiffs completely ignore that fact that he Secondly, he specializes in the areas broadly of 18 democratic theory and American political institutions. 19 certainly voting patterns, voting rights are major components 20 of those areas of political science that he does specialize 21 in. 22 the criminal justice system. 23 our brief is in the book that he has published on Montesquieu, 24 he has a section on criminal justice. 25 has not thought hard and deeply about issues that are central And He has also written on theories of criminal justice and One place that we point out in So it's not as if he Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 33 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 2 19 CVS 15941 to this case. He also teaches in these areas. He's taught 3 contemporary political theory, and he's taught the American 4 political tradition as courses over many years at a couple of 5 different universities. 6 in political science that has crossed the boundary between 7 quantitative and qualitative analysis. 8 executive board of the New England Political Science 9 Association. He also has other professional work He served on the He served on hiring committees to hire other 10 professors in his department, including those specializing in 11 both qualitative and quantitative political science. 12 reviewed their work as part of his screening of candidates to 13 be hired in the department. 14 So he's He's also been a reviewer and referee on several 15 political science journals that publish -- in fact, the 16 leading political science journals that publish articles by a 17 political scientist in areas of both quantitative and 18 qualitative political science. 19 that world as a reviewer. 20 a rebuttal witness is similar to that. 21 analysis that has been put forward by Plaintiffs' experts in 22 this case, principally the two experts that Plaintiffs has 23 offered who are also political and social scientists. 24 has done an analysis of that based on his training and 25 experience and expertise in both qualitative and quantitative He has provided feedback in In many ways, his function here as He is reviewing the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And he 34 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 political science. He's also served as an expert witness in several 2 3 other North Carolina cases involving voting in North Carolina. 4 He served in the Holmes v. Moore case, which is a voter ID 5 case. 6 which is a federal case involving North Carolina's voter ID 7 law. 8 Democracy North Carolina v. the North Carolina Board of 9 Elections, which is a case that, again, involves voting in He served as an expert in the NAACP v. Cooper case, And he served as an expert -- is serving as an expert in 10 North Carolina and the uniform hours requirement for polling 11 stations. 12 Plaintiffs said that his expert report was struck 13 in NAACP v. Cooper. 14 Plaintiffs have misrepresented the record here because they 15 are suggesting that it was struck based on the merits of the 16 report, or at least certainly they implied that. 17 of the matter is that it was struck because the Legislative 18 Defendants were attempting to be interveners in that case. 19 They were not a party to that case. 20 intervention and so it did not accept reports from any of the 21 Legislative Defendants' experts. 22 nothing to do with the merits of the report. 23 that it is misleading to say that, you know, he was struck in 24 that case as if there's any analogy that can be drawn between 25 what happened in that case and what Plaintiffs are seeking And this is an example of the way that And the fact The Court did not allow It had nothing, absolutely Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And so I believe 35 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz Wake County 1 July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 here in this case. 2 So I believe that Dr. Callanan, based on his 3 training and experience, is qualified to offer an opinion 4 here. 5 the opinion that he offers can be helpful to the trier of 6 fact. 7 here in this case who will be evaluating his opinion, and I 8 think Your Honors are perfectly capable of reading his 9 analysis. And again, the bedrock fundamental principle is whether We're talking about, again, three experienced judges Your Honors have already heard Plaintiffs' 10 criticisms of his analysis and are aware of those in deciding 11 what weight should be given to Dr. Callanan's analysis and his 12 conclusions. 13 Second, I want to talk a little bit about the 14 reliability issue that Plaintiffs have raised. 15 they mischaracterize Dr. Callanan's testimony when they say 16 that he admitted that his analysis was or his methodology was 17 inaccurate or unreliable. 18 if Your Honors read the context in his deposition where he 19 made points, it is very clear that what he was saying is that 20 as a political scientist when you are trying to make 21 predictions or you are trying to model what certain outcomes 22 are going to be, you use what are called modeling assumptions. 23 It's basically a hypothesis. 24 Z, you know, what can we conclude the outcome will be based on 25 those assumptions? So, again, Those are words that he used. But You say, if we assume X, Y and This is the same thing that Plaintiffs' Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 36 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 experts are doing in this case. 2 highlight in our brief is Dr. Baumgartner's analysis of 3 election outcomes. 4 And the example that we Dr. Baumgartner said that 16 elections could have 5 turned out differently were it not for the felony 6 disenfranchisement that Plaintiffs are challenging in this 7 case. 8 that all of the re-enfranchised individuals in this population 9 would vote, first of all, which none of the experts in this However, the underlying assumption of his conclusion is 10 case agree is accurate. 11 of Plaintiffs' experts, gives an analysis, and, you know, her 12 analysis is maybe 30 or 40 percent of those individuals would 13 vote. 14 analysis is that it's closer to 20 percent. 15 can certainly look at the way that those experts reached that 16 conclusion and evaluate that. 17 In fact, Dr. Burch, who's another one That's certainly not 100 percent. Dr. Callanan's And this Court But in any event, Dr. Baumgartner's conclusion 18 assumes that 100 percent those individuals would vote. 19 not only would 100 percent of those individuals vote, but 20 100 percent of them would vote for the losing candidate in all 21 16 of those elections. 22 JUDGE BELL: And And so what Dr. -Is that really the -- I didn't read 23 either of the reports to suggest that. 24 broader statement that the impact of the disenfranchisement of 25 these individuals, that there are -- that the number of I took it as a much Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 37 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 elections in the state in which the margin of victory was 2 lower than the number of disenfranchised individuals. 3 say that the results would have been different or that any of 4 them would have voted the same way or that all of them would 5 have voted. 6 impact of the number of these disenfranchised persons. 7 8 Not to I think it's just to illustrate the potential And I think Judge Gregory's raising -- or nodding his head. 9 Is that how you read it as well, Judge? JUDGE GREGORY: 10 JUDGE DUNLOW: 11 JUDGE BELL: That's exactly how I read it. I agree. To that point -- I mean, I understand 12 what both of you, you and Ms. Carpenter, have said on that 13 issue, but I didn't read it to be suggesting that these 14 election would have turned out differently but for the 15 disenfranchisement. 16 the illustration of the potential impact. 17 I didn't read it that way. MR. RABINOVITZ: It projects And, Your Honors, that's a fair 18 point, and I do think that that is a point that 19 Dr. Baumgartner tried to clarify certainly in the rebuttal 20 report to Dr. Callanan that he provided. 21 he's not making a prediction that 100 percent of those people 22 would vote and that 100 percent of them would vote the same 23 way. 24 25 What he said is that So I agree with that. However, I think the point of Dr. Callanan's rebuttal of that is to say, while that may be the case, while Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 38 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 there may be some nonzero percent potential that the outcomes 2 in those elections could have been theoretically affected, the 3 likelihood of that is exceedingly, vanishingly low. 4 way that he shows that is by making different assumptions, 5 assumptions that he does not claim would predict with 6 perfection the counterfactual, the way that disenfranchised 7 felons actually would vote. 8 a well-known, often-used proxy for voting behavior, which is 9 party registration. And the But what he said is -- let's use He admits it's not a perfect predictor, 10 and he's not trying to make a perfect prediction. 11 trying to show is that the -- although, again, there may be 12 some theoretical possibility that elections could turn out 13 differently just based on sheer numbers, the likelihood of 14 that is very, very low. 15 assumptions, again, not trying to predict with precision 16 something which we can never actually really know, which is 17 how -- you know, how people would have voted, he says, well, 18 let's look at it through this lens. 19 the lens of party registration and see what would happen in 20 these different races if we made that assumption. 21 What he's And so by making these different Let's look at it through Now, this Court may or may not find that analysis 22 helpful. 23 criticism or as a rebuttal to what Dr. Baumgartner said. 24 Court can certainly look at that analysis and -- I think it's 25 helpful. Dr. Callanan is presenting that analysis as a I think it's certainly potentially helpful to a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter This 39 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 trier of fact to be able to look at the same data through a 2 different lens and think about the likelihood that those 3 elections actually would be affected in outcome. 4 regardless of what Dr. Baumgartner says, Plaintiffs' claim in 5 their brief that disenfranchisement has likely been outcome 6 determinative. 7 claim, it's certainly a way in which Plaintiffs have 8 rhetorically used his analysis in their own brief. 9 think as a counterpoint to that, it is fair for someone to In fact, So even if Dr. Baumgartner is not making this And I 10 come in as a rebuttal witness and point out that if we dig a 11 little bit deeper into the data, that there are some serious 12 reasons to doubt the way that Plaintiffs, at least, are using 13 Dr. Baumgartner's report in their own brief where they say 14 that it is likely that this disenfranchisement has been 15 outcome determinative, and they cite to Dr. Baumgartner's 16 analysis. 17 So I think while Your Honors may be right that 18 Dr. Baumgartner is not necessarily making any prediction, he 19 wasn't necessarily saying that it's outcome determinative. 20 Plaintiffs have used his analysis in that way, and, therefore, 21 I think it's a fair criticism and likely to be helpful to the 22 trier of fact to view that likelihood through a different 23 lens. 24 at that through which this Court may or may not find 25 persuasive, but I think it's at least a fair point as a And Dr. Callanan provides a lens for this Court to look Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 40 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 rebuttal point. 2 I want to move on to some other issues. The 3 Plaintiffs have -- I don't know that I'll go through every 4 section the Plaintiffs talked about, but one of the other main 5 arguments that they make is about a disparate impact. 6 what they say is that what Dr. Callanan said is not what the 7 meaning of disparate impact is. 8 again, this is a matter of looking at the same data and 9 different ways to look at the data. And That when he says that -- Plaintiffs don't say that 10 there was any calculation error in that portion of 11 Dr. Callanan's report -- what Dr. Callanan has said in that 12 portion of his report. 13 there was a disparity between the African American voting-age 14 population among the general population and the 15 represented -- the rate of African Americans in this 16 particular disenfranchised population that they're talking 17 about. 18 agree with that. 19 with that fact that Dr. Baumgartner showed in his report based 20 on looking at the data. 21 additional information that this Court may want to consider. 22 And so the Court may want to consider and may find it relevant 23 that when you look at the felon population overall and you 24 look at the disenfranchised population that Plaintiffs are 25 concerned with in this case, that the rate of African But what Dr. Baumgartner said was that Again, as Plaintiffs point out, Dr. Callanan doesn't He does not try to undermine or disagree What he does do is say that there's Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 41 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Americans in those two populations is not disparate. 2 Plaintiffs -- 3 JUDGE BELL: Now, They also admitted that he had never 4 studied, nor did he have any opinion about the 5 disproportionate rate of conviction of felons by African 6 Americans, that African Americans are disproportionately 7 convicted compared to nonAfrican Americans. 8 had no study and no opinion on that particular issue. 9 would that not come into play in his opinion that, you know, He admitted he So 10 100 percent of felons are disenfranchised, but if you don't 11 take into account the disproportionate rate of convictions for 12 African Americans in the state, then... 13 MR. RABINOVITZ: Absolutely. Absolutely, Your 14 Honor. 15 and that may say something about the -- I would say certainly 16 does say something about the criminal justice system in 17 North Carolina and, frankly, throughout the United States. 18 That's an important point. 19 an opinion on that point, and so there's nothing unreliable 20 about what he offered. 21 data, if you compare it to the general population, it's 22 disparate. 23 We haven't denied that in our brief. 24 25 And I think that that is -- that's an important point But Dr. Callanan wasn't offering All he said is, if you look at the And he admitted that. He didn't try to deny that. It's a fact. What he said was, there's also another -- something else that you can look at, an additional piece of data which Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 42 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 nobody is saying is untrue, which is that the rate among the 2 felon population overall in this disenfranchised population is 3 not disparate. 4 significant fact or may find that not to be a significant 5 fact, but there's nothing unreliable or false about it. 6 Now, this Court, again, may find that to be a Really, Plaintiffs' complaint is that Dr. Callanan 7 used the term "disparate impact" and plaintiffs wanted to make 8 a legal argument about that. 9 political scientist, right? But Dr. Callanan, he's an expert So this court can make the legal 10 analysis of whether there's a disparate impact or not. 11 label has nothing to do with the additional data point that 12 Dr. Callanan is bringing out in his report. 13 the extent of it. 14 anyone else, has argued that the data that he cites there is 15 inaccurate. 16 That And that's simply And nobody in this case, Plaintiffs or So, again, this Court is perfectly capable of 17 looking at what he says there and determining whether it's 18 legally relevant or not weighing the legal relevance of what 19 he shows in that section of his report. 20 unreliable, and it's not a reason to strike that portion of 21 his report. 22 may or may not find persuasive. 23 But it's not It's simply another data point that this court JUDGE BELL: One other question that you had said 24 that, you know, finders of fact, three experienced judges, if 25 the report is not stricken, then are you contending that that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 43 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 decision would then be binding if this matter goes -- 2 ultimately goes to trial, would that decision -- would our 3 decision regarding his qualifications and the reliability of 4 his analysis be binding on the trial judge? 5 does that not just negate your argument that it would go to an 6 uneducated -- essentially uneducated finder of fact, which 7 would be the jury? 8 9 MR. RABINOVITZ: And if it is, Well, I mean, you know, Your Honors will know more about the mechanics of how this may work 10 than I do, but, you know, my understanding is that because 11 they have not made an as-applied challenge here, the 12 Plaintiffs have made a facial constitutional challenge. 13 is a case that's being heard in front of this panel, and that, 14 you know, testimony and evidence can be offered the same way 15 that they were in Common Cause v. Lewis in front of a 16 three-judge panel. 17 correct me if I'm wrong -- is that that analysis would still 18 be -- because it's a facial constitutional challenge and 19 that's all that Plaintiffs have sought here, that it would 20 still be in front of a three-judge panel. 21 And so my understanding is -- and please JUDGE GREGORY: Now, I think -- My question to you is just to 22 clarify this. 23 a jury involved in any determination of facts? 24 25 This At any point in this proceeding, will there be MR. RABINOVITZ: No, I don't believe that there will, Your Honor. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 44 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 2 19 CVS 15941 JUDGE BELL: And I'll give you the five-minute warning, Mr. Rabinovitz. 3 MR. RABINOVITZ: Okay. I think that those are the 4 main points that I wanted to make. 5 other questions, but my colleague may want -- Mr. Cox, who's 6 representing the State Board Defendants, may want to speak 7 briefly. 8 JUDGE BELL: 9 MR. COX: If Your Honors have any Okay. Thank you, Your Honors. Paul Cox from 10 the North Carolina Department of Justice representing the 11 State Board of Elections and its members. 12 Just a few brief points. Mr. Rabinovitz has 13 already discussed a number of the points that we've made in 14 our short brief. 15 report (audio distortion) and a very brief, short passage of 16 his brief. 17 on -- (audio distortion) 18 19 20 The State Board has relied on Dr. Callanan's I think if this goes to trial, it may need to rely My apologies, Your Honors, there's things going on in the background making noise. I'll try to speak louder. But so the points have already been made about, you 21 know, the Court not needing to keep evidence from itself. 22 This is not going to a jury. 23 Much like the Common Cause case, it's going to be three 24 superior court judges that hear the evidence here. 25 Ultimately, a lot of the arguments today go to the weight of It's a three-judge panel case. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 45 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the evidence should be given to the trier of fact, which is 2 Your Honors. 3 I just want to make one point about the disparate 4 impact analysis because I think it's important to understand 5 why certain aspects of Dr. Callanan's report might have been 6 -- might be relevant for the Court to consider is because 7 disparate impact has a particular importance for the Court 8 here. 9 determining under the Arlington Heights analysis and racial The relevance of disparate impact here is in 10 discrimination claim whether the legislature intended to 11 discriminate based upon racial considerations when it enacted 12 the law, 13-1. Discriminatory impact is not a legal claim by 13 and of itself. This is not a voting rights act claim, for 14 example. 15 that it shows to the court -- it provides evidence to the 16 court that what was in the legislator's minds when they 17 enacted this law was that they wanted to produce the impact 18 that they must have known that it would create. 19 why other factors, other societal factors such as the criminal 20 justice system that are not bent into this, that are not part 21 of 13-1 may be relevant. 22 enacting a law to restore the rights to certain populations 23 and it didn't restore the rights to a population earlier, so 24 for example, when you get sentenced to probation immediately, 25 then the question about disparate impact is when the Discriminatory impact is only relevant to the extent So that is It's because if the legislature was Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 46 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 legislature did that, did it know that the population that it 2 was not excluding the rights to earlier was going to be 3 disproportionately African American, and would it know that 4 the criminal justice system in the years to come would result 5 in this gross disparity in the number of African Americans 6 subjected to punishment in North Carolina? 7 it's relevant to consider all the other aspects of why a 8 disparate impact exists. 9 So that is why It's not because -- the legal issue is not that 10 disparate impacts in and of itself create the claim. 11 that disparate impacts provide evidence to demonstrate what 12 the general assembly had in mind when it enacted the law. 13 Because ultimately, the claim is the intentional 14 discrimination claim under the Arlington Heights analysis. 15 So for that reason, I think it's -- I wanted to It's 16 raise to the Court the importance of understanding why it 17 might be helpful to the trier of facts to hear from a 18 different perspective on that particular issue of disparate 19 impact. 20 JUDGE BELL: Thank you. 21 for the Defendants. 22 from Judge Gregory or Judge Dunlow? 23 24 25 You have one minute left Any final brief comment or any questions JUDGE GREGORY: This is Keith Gregory. I have no questions. JUDGE BELL: Judge Dunlow, any questions? Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 47 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 JUDGE DUNLOW: 2 JUDGE BELL: I have no questions. All right. Thank you. Well, it is by my clock 3 10:39. 4 because of my introductory remarks. 5 So if you all will be prepared to come back at 11. 6 a few minutes beyond that. 7 So, again, we've been a little -- few minutes late We will recess until 11. We may be But, Adam, if I can ask -- I know we had exchanged 8 cellphone numbers, but would it be easier to do a conference 9 call or a separate WebEx? 10 11 12 13 MR. STEELE: Adam? Judge Bell, I would suggest just a conference call and mute your audio and video. JUDGE BELL: Okay. Can you set that up for us then, please? 14 MR. STEELE: I can do my best. 15 JUDGE BELL: All righty. 16 JUDGE DUNLOW: 17 18 19 20 from my cellphone, if you all will bear with me. JUDGE BELL: MR. STEELE: case, Judge Dunlow. 22 Dunlow, that's fine. 24 25 Oh, that would be great. I do not know how to do it. 21 23 Judge Bell, I think I can do that I know how to do it also, just in But if you are going to do it, Judge (Recess) JUDGE BELL: We're waiting on a couple of folks to get back into the meeting. Anyone that anybody knows is Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 48 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 missing? 2 No? All right. So the three of us have had an opportunity now to 3 meet. 4 having read your -- the motion and the reports, and it is our 5 decision that given the fact that this is a three-judge panel 6 case that not only will summary judgment motion be with a 7 three-judge panel, but anything going forward if this summary 8 judgment motion is not dispositive will be with a three-judge 9 panel. 10 We did, as I say, have some discussions yesterday, just We have decided to deny the motion to exclude 11 Dr. Callanan's report, and the arguments made by Plaintiff 12 will go to the weight that we decide to give that report as 13 opposed to its admissibility. 14 Judge Gregory, anything to add to that? 15 JUDGE GREGORY: 16 JUDGE BELL: 17 JUDGE DUNLOW: 18 JUDGE BELL: No, ma'am. Okay. That's correct. Judge Dunlow? No, ma'am. Okay. And I have asked that a 19 report -- I mean, an order be prepared just to memorialize 20 that for the purposes of keeping the record -- I know we've 21 got the court reporter taking it down, but just to keep the 22 paper record clean as well. 23 So we are ready then to proceed to Plaintiffs' 24 argument on the motion for summary judgment or alternatively a 25 preliminary injunction. So the State, we'll give you Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 49 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 two hours. 2 a timekeeping on that. 3 break, just let me know. 4 Gregory and Dunlow are also ready. You are not required to take that. If you at any point need to take a So I'm ready to proceed if Judges 5 JUDGE GREGORY: 6 JUDGE DUNLOW: 7 JUDGE BELL: 8 9 I'll be doing I'm ready to proceed. Ready to proceed. All right. Whenever Plaintiffs are ready then. MR. ATKINSON: Good morning, Your Honor. My name 10 is Daryl Atkinson, counsel for the Plaintiffs, attorney with 11 Forward Justice. 12 attorney with Arnold & Porter, will be the oralist for the 13 Plaintiffs this morning on this motion for summary judgment. 14 Me and my colleague, Daniel Jacobson, In splitting up our argument, Your Honors, we found 15 your July 15 scheduling order particularly instructive in 16 boiling down what the Plaintiffs are seeking in this case. 17 And it's through that prism of that scheduling order that 18 Plaintiffs' attorneys will address our claims and the 19 requested relief with Mr. Jacobson arguing that North Carolina 20 General Statute 13-1 is facially unconstitutional and invalid 21 under the North Carolina Constitution because it prevents 22 North Carolina citizens convicted of felonies who are not 23 incarcerated from registering to vote and voting due to a 24 felony conviction. 25 unconstitutional because it tethers the restoration of voting Then I will argue that 13-1 is facially Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 50 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 rights on the payment of any financial obligation. 2 In conclusion, I will argue that if the Court does 3 not agree that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on 4 all of our claims, this Court alternatively should issue a 5 preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs are likely to 6 succeed on the merits and the equity strongly support an 7 injunction that insure tens of thousands of North Carolinians 8 are not wrongfully disenfranchised in the upcoming November 9 2020 election, perhaps the most impactful election of our 10 lifetime. 11 MS. CARPENTER: 12 MR. JACOBSON: Okay. Mr. Jacobson. Good morning, your Honors. As 13 Mr. Atkinson mentioned, I'm Daniel Jacobson with Arnold & 14 Porter, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs. 15 Can Your Honors hear me okay? 16 JUDGE BELL: 17 MR. JACOBSON: 18 JUDGE GREGORY: 19 MR. JACOBSON: Yes. Great. Yes. As Mr. Atkinson mentioned, I'll be 20 addressing both the merits and remedies for our claims that 21 are not specific to financial obligations. 22 North Carolina currently denies the franchise to 23 roughly 60,000 individuals living in North Carolina 24 communities who are on some form of community supervision. 25 These individuals work, they pay taxes, they send their kids Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 51 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 to the same schools as their neighbors and their lives are 2 impacted by the policies enacted by elected leaders the same 3 as any other member of the community. 4 neighbors, they can't vote. 5 But unlike their The disenfranchised made of people on community 6 supervision, under North Carolina General Statute 13-1, has a 7 particularly pernicious impact on African American communities 8 in North Carolina. 9 the racial disparities are jarring no matter how you slice the I'll go into the statistics shortly, but 10 data. 11 people on community supervision prevents the will of North 12 Carolina's African American communities from being fully heard 13 in elections. 14 The undeniable fact is that the disenfranchisement of And that is no accident. The denial of voting rights for people with 15 criminal convictions, even if they are not incarcerated, 16 traces directly to the period after the Civil War when white 17 supremacists used felony disenfranchisement as a tool for 18 suppressing the political power of African Americans. 19 is a direct through line from that effort to 20 disenfranchisement of people on community supervision today. 21 And it's time to eradicate this vestige of Jim Crow. 22 There I'm going to begin my presentation with the history 23 of felony disenfranchisement in North Carolina and describe 24 the statistics on the current operation and effects of the law 25 today and then go through our legal claims. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter Finally, before 52 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 turning it over to Mr. Atkinson, I'll address questions 2 Defendants have raised over the remedy this Court can provide. 3 Starting with the history of the felony 4 disenfranchisement statute, before the Civil War, North 5 Carolina did not disenfranchise people convicted of all 6 felonies, but, rather, only people convicted of "infamous 7 crimes." 8 punishments, such as whipping. 9 That included people who received infamous After the Civil War, when it became clear that 10 African Americans would be given the right to vote, former 11 rebels began a campaign of whipping African Americans across 12 North Carolina for purported crimes with the express goal of 13 using their criminal convictions to prevent them from being 14 able to vote. 15 horrifying accounts of this whipping campaign on Pages 19 16 through 22 of his report. 17 Our expert, Dr. Vernon Burton, describes the Dr. Vernon describes how in the fall of 1866, 18 reports began circulating from military headquarters in 19 Raleigh that: "The whipping of negroes is being carried out 20 extensively with the real motive being to disenfranchise 21 them." 22 I'll pull up now -- if we could pull up our first 23 slide. 24 1867. 25 This is an article from Harper's Weekly on January 12, Ashley, can you pull that up? Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 53 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 2 MS. ROBLEZ: I don't know that -- I Hi, everyone, I'm Kath Roblez, attorney at Forward Justice. 5 6 Hey, sorry. might have been to be allowed to share content by someone. 3 4 19 CVS 15941 I'm going to be doing the slides today. MR. STEELE: Kathleen, I'll -- why don't I do that. You should be able to now. 7 (Discussion held off the record.) 8 MR. STEELE: You should be able to now. 9 MS. ROBLEZ: Okay. 10 11 12 Perfect. Let me just see here. Okay. Thank you. JUDGE BELL: I'm able to see the files. Is everyone else able to see it? 13 JUDGE GREGORY: 14 JUDGE DUNLOW: Yes. 15 MR. JACOBSON: So as mentioned, this is an article Yes. 16 from Harper's Weekly on January 12th, 1867. 17 blown up some of the text in the article on the right side. 18 And we've just As you can see, the article states: "That every 19 day during about a month, while the state court was recently 20 sitting at Raleigh, there was a crowd of nearly 500 people 21 outside the courthouse witnessing the public whipping of 22 colored men as fast as they were convicted and sentenced to be 23 whipped by the court." 24 25 The article then goes on near the bottom to state, "This sentence of whipping operates in North Carolina as a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 54 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 civil disqualification, so that none of these victims, 2 according to the local law, could ever vote, even if the 3 suffrage were extended to colored men. 4 in advance." 5 They are disqualified So disenfranchising people convicted of crimes was 6 an explicit strategy being used to suppress the political 7 power of African Americans. 8 strategy, in the 1870s North Carolina expanded the crimes for 9 which one could be disenfranchised to cover all felonies In furtherance of that same 10 rather than just infamous crimes. 11 precluded states from expressly denying the right to vote to 12 African Americans, so states, including North Carolina, 13 enacted felony disenfranchisement schemes to accomplish 14 indirectly what they could no longer do directly. 15 The 15th Amendment had At the 1875 Constitutional Convention, a 16 conservative Democrat named Colonel David Coleman introduced 17 the constitutional amendment on felony disenfranchisement 18 which mirrors the one that still exists in North Carolina 19 today. 20 and in the very next legislative session in 1877, the General 21 Assembly enacted the statutory scheme that carries through in 22 part to this day. 23 That constitutional amendment was ratified in 1876, There are three particularly noteworthy parts of 24 the statutory scheme enacted in 1877. 25 Assembly chose to disenfranchise people convicted of all First, the General Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 55 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 crimes and not just a subset of felonies, like the most 2 serious ones or ones that related to the electoral process 3 specifically. 4 people to disenfranchise, and that is still the case today. 5 They chose the broadest possible scope of Second, the General Assembly in 1877 made it a 6 crime for people with felony convictions to vote before their 7 rights were restored, punishable by up to two years in prison. 8 That is exactly the punishment that exists today for people 9 with felony convictions who vote before their rights are 10 restored. 11 1877 enactment. 12 The provision exists essentially unchanged from the Third, the 1877 statutory scheme required people to 13 wait four years from the date of conviction before they could 14 apply to have their rights restored. 15 chose to keep disenfranchising people for a period of time 16 after they were not incarcerated. 17 So the General Assembly As Dr. Burton describes in his report, a Democrat 18 named John Henderson chaired the committee of the House of 19 Representatives that prepared this 1877 statutory scheme. 20 Mr. Henderson was an outspoken supporter of Jim Crow who once 21 even presided over the lynching of three African Americans. 22 According to a contemporaneous news story, Henderson led the 23 lynching of three African Americans who were "paraded down 24 Main Street across the street from Henderson's house and 25 lynched before a blood-thirty mob of more than 2,000 white Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 56 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 citizens." 2 North Carolina's statutory felony disenfranchisement scheme. 3 So that is the person who led the creation of Dr. Burton in his report provides lots of 4 additional contemporaneous evidence in his report leaving no 5 doubt the predominant motivation for the enactment of North 6 Carolina's felony disenfranchisement laws in the 1870s was to 7 stop black people from voting. 8 report that this was the intent of the 1877 statutory scheme 9 specifically, and notably Defendants have not contested or Dr. Burton concluded in his 10 rebutted that conclusion at all. 11 purposes of this summary judgment motion. 12 It is an undisputed fact for In 1933, when African Americans were now precluded 13 from voting by other means, such as the literacy test, the 14 General Assembly reduced the waiting period for people with 15 felony convictions to seek to have their rights restored from 16 four years to two years. 17 And I would note here, Your Honors, that we had a 18 typo in our opening brief where we stated that the waiting 19 period in the 1899 was eliminated before their waiting period 20 was eliminated. 21 General Assembly reduced the waiting period for a very small 22 subset of people from four years to one year. 23 general matter, the waiting period before you could have your 24 rights restored was four years, continued to be four years 25 from 1877 until 1933 when it was reduced to two years. We apologize for any confusion. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter In 1899, the But as a 57 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 The law was not substantially amended again until 2 1971. 3 General Assembly at the time, Joy Johnson and Henry Frey. 4 Johnson and Frey set out to amend the felony 5 disenfranchisement statute, and they had two primary goals. 6 There were just two African American members of the First, they wanted to ease the procedural obstacles 7 for individuals to have their rights restored. 8 partially successful in that effort in 1971. 9 to remove certain requirements, like needing to bring five 10 11 They were They were able witnesses with you to attest to your good character. Johnson and Frey's second goal was to get people 12 their rights back when their prison sentence was over and they 13 were released from incarceration. 14 If we could pull up now the next slide, Kath. 15 This is the original bill that Joy Johnson 16 introduced in the General Assembly in 1971. 17 the very bottom of the slide, you can see that rights would 18 have been restored upon the completion of a person's sentence, 19 and there's no mention of the terms "probation" or "parole" 20 anywhere in this bill. 21 If you look at As I'll show you in a moment, Henry Frey, who is 22 the other person ushering in -- or championing this 23 legislation, made clear at the time that the term "sentence" 24 as used in that original bill was meant to refer only to a 25 person's prison sentence. However, that initial bill was shot Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 58 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 down and a substitute bill was introduced that added the 2 language "including any period of probation or parole." 3 Here's the news article I just mentioned from The 4 News & Observer upon the passage of the final bill in 1971. 5 If Your Honors look at the very bottom of the column on the 6 left, where it starts with "Henry Frey" and going on to the 7 column to the right, we've blown up that text on the right 8 side of the page. 9 the House that he favored the bill's original provisions which And what it states is "Rep Henry Frey told 10 called for automatic restoration of citizenship when a felon 11 had served his prison sentence, but he would go along with the 12 amendment if necessary to get the bill passed." 13 We can pull this down now. 14 Defendants in their brief point to a response that 15 Senator Michaux gave at his deposition upon questioning from 16 defense counsel suggesting that the original 1971 bill that we 17 looked at a moment ago may have covered people on probation 18 and parole, even though those words did not appear in the 19 bill's text. 20 not in the General Assembly in 1971. 21 testified at his deposition that he had no involvement 22 whatsoever in the drafting or passage of the 1971 bill. 23 any answers he gave about interpreting the meaning of certain 24 language in the bill or his intent, that was him merely 25 speculating several hours into his deposition, I would note, However, Senator Michaux was not part -- he was And he specifically Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter So 59 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 2 19 CVS 15941 upon questioning from defense counsel. In contrast, the contemporaneous statement from 3 Representative Frey, who was in the General Assembly and was 4 one of the drafters and leaders of the 1971 bill, is 5 unambiguous that the original bill was meant to restore voting 6 rights upon the completion of a "prison sentence." 7 In 1973, Senator Michaux was in the General 8 Assembly and he led the effort to amend the law along with 9 Representatives Johnson and Frey. Again in 1973, these 10 legislators were able to eliminate certain procedural 11 obstacles, most notably the requirement that people have to go 12 before a court to petition to have their rights restored. 13 They were successful in eliminating that requirement. 14 Senator Michaux explained in his affidavit, and at his 15 deposition, "These African American leaders also wanted to 16 restore voting rights to people upon their release from 17 incarceration, just like in 1971, but Civil Rights opponents 18 in the General Assembly demanded that the law keep the 19 requirement that people finish probation or parole." 20 Senator Michaux begrudgingly agreed to that in order to get 21 the procedural improvement passed. As And 22 If we could pull up the next slide. 23 This is an excerpt from Senator Michaux's affidavit 24 submitted to the court in this case. 25 at paragraph 15, the second sentence, you can see he says, "I And if Your Honors look Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 60 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 remember we wanted automatic restoration applicable across the 2 board, at the least the restoration of your citizenship rights 3 after you completed imprisonment." 4 explain that they weren't able to pass that. 5 And then he goes on to Consistent with the affidavit, here on the next 6 slide are two excerpts from Senator Michaux's deposition. 7 see on the excerpts on the left, the question was, "So your 8 original aim, and that of the NAACP, was to restore voting 9 rights automatically as soon as someone had been released -- 10 was released from prison regardless of whether they had 11 probation or parole?" 12 correct." 13 And Senator Michaux answered: You "That's In the excerpt on the right, you can see Senator 14 Michaux indicating that other people in the General Assembly 15 came to them and insisted that the words "probation" and 16 "parole" be kept in the statute as a condition of going along 17 with the procedural enhancements, and Senator Michaux, like I 18 said, begrudgingly agreed to keep that in the statute at their 19 insistence. 20 The requirement that individuals be unconditionally 21 discharged from community supervision before they can vote, 22 therefore, was included over the African American leaders' 23 objections. 24 aspect of the statutory scheme enacted in 1877. 25 forward the policy that people -- the policy of And that requirement carries forward a central Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter It carries 61 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 disenfranchising people with felony convictions, even if they 2 are not incarcerated, often for years. 3 adopted by the General Assembly in 1877 and that remains the 4 policy today. 5 That was the policy There is talk in the scholarship, Your Honors, of 6 what's referred to as The New Jim Crow, referring to recent 7 second generations of types of voter suppression against 8 African Americans, but with respect to disenfranchising people 9 living in North Carolina communities because they have felony 10 convictions, that's not The New Jim Crow; given everything we 11 just looked at, it's the original Jim Crow that's still being 12 enforced. 13 of the people who enacted it in 1877 intended. 14 And the law continues to have precisely the effects The disparate impact on African Americans is 15 staggering. 16 statistics detailing how disenfranchising people on community 17 supervision disenfranchises African Americans at a large and 18 grossly disproportionate rate. 19 Our expert, Dr. Baumgartner, provided numerous I'm going to walk through now some of the 20 statistics, and it bears emphasis that all of these statistics 21 are uncontested. 22 details I'm about to show you. 23 There is no dispute of fact as to the Looking at this first slide, what Dr. Baumgartner 24 shows is that even though African Americans comprised just 25 21.5 percent of the voting-age population, that's the pie Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 62 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 chart on the left, they comprised 42.4 percent of those who 2 are disenfranchised while on some form of community 3 supervision. 4 that is disenfranchised because they are on community 5 supervision is 2.7 times the percentage of the white 6 population that is disenfranchised on this basis. Statewide, the percent of the black population 7 And if we could pull up the next chart. 8 This chart shows the ratios in individual counties. 9 What this chart shows is the percentage of the black 10 voting-age population that is disenfranchised by virtue of 11 being on community supervision divided by the percent of the 12 white population in that same county that's disenfranchised on 13 this basis. 14 population is disenfranchised in a particular county and 15 .5 percent of the white population is disenfranchised in that 16 county, the ratio would be 2 on this chart, because the rate 17 is double for African Americans what it is for whites. For example, if 1 percent of the black voting-age 18 JUDGE BELL: 19 having trouble seeing the numbers. 20 all? 21 22 Is there a way to blow this up? I'm Can that be enlarged at If not, that's okay. MS. ROBLEZ: I'm not sure if there's an easy way to zoom this in. 23 JUDGE BELL: Okay. Perhaps you can just send 24 that -- maybe send your PowerPoint to us at the conclusion 25 today. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 63 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 MR. JACOBSON: Sure. And I can give you the page 2 reference later, but this chart also appears in 3 Dr. Baumgartner's opening report. 4 over. 5 JUDGE BELL: 6 MR. JACOBSON: 7 It's just copied and pasted Thank you. And the same for the prior chart I just showed you, Your Honors. 8 JUDGE BELL: 9 MR. JACOBSON: Okay. So like I mentioned, this chart 10 shows the ratio of the percentage of the black population 11 that's disenfranchised from the county because of community 12 supervision affected by the ratio -- by the percentage of the 13 white population. 14 single county in North Carolina in which the white population 15 and the black populations are sufficiently large, to perform 16 comparisons, the disenfranchisement rate is greater for blacks 17 than for whites. 18 ratio is over 1 for every county on the chart. 19 the top, it starts at 1.03 and then it grows larger. 20 And as you can see, Your Honors, in every What shows you that is the fact that the You can see at In 44 different counties, the disenfranchisement 21 rate for African Americans is over three times that it is for 22 whites. 23 most populous counties. 24 the chart -- and I apologize. 25 But you can see most of North Carolina's most populous And the ratios are even higher in North Carolina's If you look down near the bottom of The font is a little bit small. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 64 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 counties have the highest rates at the bottom of the chart. 2 In Durham County, the percentage of the black 3 population disenfranchised because of being on community 4 supervision is 5.82 times that of the white population. 5 Wake County, the ratio is 6.21. 6 Mecklenburg, it's 7.26. 7 bottom, the ratio is an astronomical 7.82. 8 this chart, I'll note, is on Page 16 of Dr. Baumgartner's 9 opening report. 10 In In Buncombe, it's 6.93. In And in Orange County, at the very And, Your Honors, Putting aside the ratios and just speaking in 11 aggregate terms, across the entire state, more than 12 1.24 percent of the African American voting population is 13 disenfranchised by virtue of being on community supervision. 14 In 19 different counties, more than 2 percent of the African 15 American voting population is disenfranchised in this basis. 16 That is a staggering number, Your Honors. 17 of all black people living in 44 different counties are barred 18 from voting. 19 More than 2 percent These next maps show this mass disenfranchisement 20 and the extent of the racial disparities. 21 top -- and I would note, Your Honor, these maps also appear in 22 Dr. Baumgartner's report on Pages 18 to 19. 23 The map on the The map on the top reflects the percentage of the 24 white population in each county that's disenfranchised by 25 virtue of being on community supervision. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter The map on the 65 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 bottom shows the percentage of the black population that's 2 disenfranchised. 3 disenfranchisement. 4 colors from the top, the bottom chart, the differences could 5 not possibly be more stark. 6 Darker colors indicate a higher rate of Just comparing the differences in the Across all races across the state, there are 51,441 7 people disenfranchised because they are on community 8 supervision from a conviction in North Carolina State Court. 9 There are an additional 5,075 people disenfranchised because 10 they are on community supervision from a conviction in federal 11 court. 12 unknown number of additional people who live in North Carolina 13 who are disenfranchised because they have not received an 14 unconditional discharge from a conviction in another state's 15 courts. 16 could be a significant number of people because there are 17 people who have finished all terms of their sentence from the 18 conviction in another state's court except for the payment of 19 financial obligations, which would result in those people not 20 being allowed to vote under Subsection 5 of 13-1, which 21 relates to people with out-of-state convictions. 22 That brings the total number to 56,516. There are an I'll talk more about that a little later, but that I'll turn, now, Your Honors, to the merits of our 23 claims. 24 North Carolina Constitution that concerns felony 25 disenfranchisement. Article VI, Section 2 (3) is the provision of the That provision is best read as a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 66 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 delegation of authority to the General Assembly prescribed by 2 law the contours of felony disenfranchisement and the 3 legislation that the General Assembly enacts pursuant to this 4 delegation must comport with all other provisions of the 5 North Carolina Constitution. 6 provision is a self-executing provision and that, on its own 7 terms and in the absence of any implementing legislation, it 8 would disenfranchise all people with felony convictions for 9 life. Defendants are wrong. Defendants contend that this And as I'll explain later, it 10 doesn't really matter which side is right on this question 11 because the General Assembly, of course, has passed 12 implementing legislation. 13 Nevertheless, we submit that Article VI is a 14 delegation to the General Assembly to pass implementing 15 legislation. 16 the provision, and it is necessary to reconcile and harmonize 17 the provision with other provisions of the North Carolina 18 Constitution. 19 That position is consistent with the history of The North Carolina Supreme Court has held 20 repeatedly that provisions of the State Constitution when 21 they're in tension with one another, it must be "harmonized". 22 The court in Stephenson v. Bartlett explains that every 23 constitutional provision must be "reconciled with other state 24 constitutional guarantees" and that any given provision 25 "cannot be applied in isolation or in a manner that fails to Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 67 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 comport with other requirements of the State Constitution." 2 And North Carolina appellate courts have further 3 held that when harmonizing competing provisions of the State 4 Constitution that relates to voting rights, one should 5 harmonize those provisions in a way that is more protective of 6 voting rights. 7 two provisions, tie goes towards being more protective of 8 voting rights. 9 In other words, when there's tension between Here, interpreting Article VI, Section 2, Clause 3 10 to be a self-executing provision that would provide for 11 lifetime disenfranchisement, absent implementing legislation, 12 would be incompatible with other provisions of the North 13 Carolina Constitution. 14 antipolitical to the free elections clause and the equal 15 protections clause to disenfranchise millions upon millions of 16 North Carolinians for life, a grossly disproportionate number 17 of whom are African Americans. 18 In particular, it would be The appellate decisions in Stephenson v. Bartlett 19 and Holmes v. Moore are both on point. In Stephenson, the 20 North Carolina Supreme Court interpreted what is known as the 21 whole county provision of the Constitution relating to 22 redistricting. 23 "no county shall be divided in drawing legislative districts," 24 but nevertheless the court declined to interpret that 25 provision in a strictly "mechanical fashion" because doing so That provision states in very absolute terms, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 68 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 would be in tension with the State Equal Protection Clause. 2 So the Court instead interpreted the whole county provision in 3 a way that harmonized it with the Equal Protection Clause. 4 In Holmes v. Moore, the Court of Appeals 5 interpreted the new state constitutional provision relating to 6 voter ID. 7 says that voters shall present photographic ID to be able to 8 vote in person. 9 Assembly to enact implementing legislation. The voter ID provision of the State Constitution And it delegates authority to the General The Court of 10 Appeals rejected the Defendant's arguments that the 11 implementing legislation was from immune from attack, and 12 their other constitutional provisions are somehow entitled to 13 special treatment because it was authorized by the 14 constitutional amendment. 15 harmonized the voter ID constitutional provision with the 16 Equal Protection Clause by holding that implementing 17 legislation that the General Assembly passes on voter ID must 18 comply with the Equal Protection Clause. 19 a strong likelihood that the voter ID legislation violated the 20 Equal Protection Clause and then joined in on this basis. 21 a result, voter ID will not be required for 2020, even though 22 the constitutional provision on its own terms says that voters 23 shall present photographic ID. 24 25 Rather, the Court of Appeals The court then found Felony disenfranchisement provision is the same type of provision as the voter ID constitutional provision. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter As 69 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 They both require implementing legislation. 2 Article VI is also consistent with that understanding. 3 General Assembly, as I mentioned, passed implementing 4 legislation in 1877 in the very first session after the 5 constitutional provision was enacted or ratified in 1876. 6 General Assembly at the time of the constitutional provisions 7 enactment thus understood the provision to require 8 implementing legislation, and at no point ever in the history 9 of Article VI has the provision ever operated by its own force 10 The history of The The without implementing legislation. 11 In any event, as I mentioned, Your Honors, the 12 debate over whether Article VI requires implementing 13 legislation is largely academic because the General Assembly 14 has passed implementing legislation here, and any legislation 15 that the General Assembly passes must comport with all 16 provisions of the State Constitution. 17 disputed. 18 make clear that where constitutional provision like Article VI 19 authorizes the General Assembly to pass implementing 20 legislation on the subject, a challenge that implementing 21 legislation under a different constitutional provision is 22 subject to the normal standards that apply under that 23 different constitutional provision. 24 25 That can hardly be Stephenson, Moore, and also Blankenship v. Bartlett In Stephenson, the constitutional provision gave the General Assembly authority to create legislative Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 70 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 In Moore, the Constitution gave the General 1 districts. 2 Assembly authority to pass voter ID legislation. 3 Blankenship, the Constitution gave the General Assembly 4 authority to create "a convenient number of superior court 5 districts." 6 that the implementing legislation under the normal standards 7 that applied under the constitutional provision, that was the 8 basis for the challenge in all of those cases, it was the 9 State Equal Protection Clause. And in But in all three cases, the Courts still analyzed With the one caveat being that 10 in Blankenship the Court applied intermediate scrutiny rather 11 than strict scrutiny, as I'll talk about a little bit later. 12 So these cases are dispositive of Defendants' 13 suggestion here that the constitutional provision relating to 14 felony disenfranchisement renders the implementing legislation 15 immune from review under other constitutional provision. 16 That's also common sense, Your Honors. 17 obviously cannot enact a statute providing that only felons of 18 one race or one gender can have their rights restored. 19 the reason the legislature couldn't enact such a statute is 20 that it would violate the State Constitution Equal Protection 21 Clause and Free Elections Clause. 22 The legislature And We should also all be able to agree that the 23 legislature cannot enact a statute providing that only felons 24 who own a certain acreage of land can have their rights 25 restored. And the reason the legislature couldn't enact such Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 71 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 a statute is that it would violate the States Constitution's 2 ban on property qualifications for voting. 3 The bottom line is that no matter how you view or 4 interpret the constitutional provision on felony 5 disenfranchisement, there are constraints on the implementing 6 legislation that the General Assembly may pass and those 7 constraints are the other provisions in the State 8 Constitution. 9 One of those provisions, as I mentioned, is the 10 Free Elections Clause, which is enshrined in Article I, 11 Section 10 of the Constitution and mandates that all elections 12 shall be free. 13 provision of the 1689 English Bill of Rights which provided 14 that, "Elections of members of Parliament ought to be free." 15 That English provision was enacted specifically to combat 16 prior efforts by the King to manipulate elections by 17 manipulating the composition of the electorate. 18 would issue edicts or laws that restricted who was eligible to 19 vote in elections, and the Free Elections Clause was enacted 20 specifically to counteract that. 21 United States adopted Free Elections Clauses modeled after 22 this English provision, including North Carolina. 23 The Free Elections Clause traces its roots to The King Numerous states in the The most thorough and authoritative interpretation 24 of North Carolina's Free Elections Clause is the three-judge 25 panel's opinion last year in Common Cause v. Lewis, the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 72 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 partisan gerrymandering case. 2 the history of the clause, the Court concluded that, "The 3 meaning of the Free Elections Clause is that elections must be 4 conducted freely and honestly to ascertain fairly and 5 truthfully the will of the people." 6 right to free elections that ascertained the will of the 7 people is "a fundamental right of the citizens, enshrined in 8 North Carolina's Declaration of Rights, a compelling 9 government interest, and a cornerstone of our democratic form 10 After examining the text and The Court held that the of government." 11 So the Free Elections Clause, Your Honors, mandates 12 that elections in North Carolina faithfully ascertain the will 13 of the people. 14 live in North Carolina communities are among the people for 15 these purposes. 16 the Texvy (phonetic) case from 1980 that representative 17 government is supposed to reflect the will of the body politic 18 who "share an identity in humane, economic, ideological, and 19 political concerns." 20 on community supervisions are members of the community who 21 share an identity and share economic, ideological, and 22 political concerns, the same as all other members of the 23 community. 24 the same school as their neighbors, work in the same jobs, and 25 share all of the same other concerns as other members of the And individuals with felony convictions who The North Carolina Supreme Court explained in People with felony convictions who are These individuals pay taxes, send their kids to Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 73 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 community. 2 by elected officials the same as everyone else in the 3 community. 4 Carolina communities the right to participate in choosing the 5 state's elected leaders, North Carolina's disenfranchisement 6 of individuals on community supervision abridges the right to 7 free elections that faithfully ascertain the will of the 8 people. 9 than 1 percent of the total voting-age population of that Their lives are affected by the policies enacted In denying 60,000 people who live in North In at least nine counties in North Carolina, more 10 county is disenfranchised because they are on community 11 supervision. 12 faithfully ascertain the will of the people when such large 13 segments of the community cannot vote. 14 disenfranchisement of people on community supervision strikes 15 particularly at the heart of the Free Elections Clause because 16 of its disparate effects on African Americans. 17 There can be no guarantee that elections And the As I detailed earlier, both the disparities and the 18 gross number of African Americans who are disenfranchised are 19 enormous. 20 black voting-age population in the entire state is 21 disenfranchised by virtue of being on community supervision. 22 In 19 different counties, more than 2 percent of the total 23 black voting-age population is denied the right to vote on 24 this basis. Those are numbers that should shock the 25 conscience. Elections cannot faithfully ascertain the will of Across the entire state, 1.24 percent of the total Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 74 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the people when such a large and disproportionate percentage 2 of one racial group cannot vote. 3 In fact, Defendants have not disputed in their 4 briefs, Your Honor, that the disenfranchisement of people on 5 community supervision has potentially affected the outcome of 6 numerous North Carolina elections. 7 presented an analysis to try to rebut that, and Mr. Rabinovitz 8 spoke about it earlier, but, in fact, in their briefs 9 themselves, neither of the Defendants have disputed the Dr. Callanan certainly 10 proposition that the disenfranchisement of people on community 11 supervision can and have potentially affected election 12 outcomes. 13 And Defendants do not dispute this for good reason. In the 2018 general elections alone, there was 16 14 county-level elections where the margin of victory was smaller 15 than the number of people disenfranchised in that county. 16 Dr. Baumgartner demonstrated this in his report, and we'll 17 pull up the table now. 18 in Dr. Baumgartner's report of the 16 county elections in 2018 19 where the margin of victory, which is listened the middle 20 column, was smaller than the number of people who were 21 disenfranchised in that county because they are on some form 22 of community supervision. 23 Conviction, I should note, this does not even include people 24 disenfranchised based on federal convictions or out-of-state 25 convictions. This is the list and this, again, is From the North Carolina State Court Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 75 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 As you can see here, for instance, in the Alleghany 2 County Board of Commissioner race, the margin of victory was 3 just 6 votes, but there's 68 people disenfranchised because of 4 being on community supervision. 5 Education race, the margin of victory was 16 votes, but there 6 are 125 people disenfranchised in Ashe County. 7 Beaufort County Board of Commissioners race, the margin of 8 victory -- I'm sorry, the vote margin was 63 votes, but there 9 are 457 people disenfranchised by virtue of being on community In the Ashe County Board of In the 10 supervision. 11 that these are -- this is only from the 2018 general election 12 alone and only looking at county level elections. 13 And so on. And I should emphasize, Your Honors, In these elections we just looked at, those local 14 elections matter in people lives. 15 important aspects of people's lives like schooling, policing, 16 and so on. 17 number of disenfranchised people on community supervision 18 exceeded the vote margin, we, of course, can't be (audio 19 distortion) or know for sure whether the outcome would have 20 been different if these folks were allowed to vote, but we 21 also -- but we can be certain that it's possible that it could 22 have affected the election outcome. 23 possible suffices to taint those election outcomes. 24 25 They affect intimately For these 16 elections and any others where the And the fact that it's A good analogy is the controversy surrounding the election in North Carolina in the 19th Congressional District Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 76 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 in 2018. 2 number of votes impacted by the fraud was larger than the 3 margin of victory. 4 how the votes impacted by the fraud would have been split 5 between the two candidates, but that did not matter. 6 dispositive that the state couldn't be absolutely certain that 7 the fraud didn't affect the outcome because the total number 8 of people impacted was larger than the margin. 9 true here. There the election had to be rerun because the total Just like here, there was no way to know It was The same is Rather than dispute the effects of Section 13-1 on 10 North Carolina elections and the extent to which the statute 11 undermines the will of communities, defendants mount surely 12 legal defenses based on erroneous use of the Free Elections 13 Clause. 14 The State Board argues in their brief that the Free 15 Elections Clause doesn't protect against restrictions on, 16 quote, "the composition of the electorate who's allowed to 17 vote." 18 itself explains on Page 17 of its own brief, North Carolina's 19 Free Elections Clause was modeled on the provision of the 20 English Bill of Rights, which was put into place specifically 21 in response to practices by the King to, quote, and I'm 22 quoting the State Board's own brief, "to manipulate the 23 composition of the electorate by expanding or shrinking the 24 electorate." 25 That could not be more wrong. As the State Board So the central purpose of the Free Elections Clause Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 77 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 was to prevent against government-imposed restrictions on the 2 composition of the electorate. 3 parties cannot challenge restrictions on the composition of 4 the electorate under the Free Elections Clause turns the 5 history and intent of the clause on its head. 6 For the State Board to say the And the State Board's theory simply cannot be 7 correct given the consequences it would have. 8 theory, any restriction at all on who is a, quote, "qualified 9 voter" is automatically permissible under the Free Elections Under their 10 Clause because they say the Free Elections Clause only 11 protects qualified voters. 12 would mean that it would not violate the Free Elections Clause 13 if the State said that only white men are qualified voters. 14 Because under their theory, the Free Elections Clause would 15 then only protect white men. 16 to reject the State Board's theory out of hand. 17 That reasoning is circular and it That alone is a basis on which Legislative Defendants take a similar but slightly 18 different approach to the Free Elections Clause. 19 that plaintiffs must claim -- I'm sorry -- that plaintiffs' 20 claim must fail because a person on community supervision 21 purportedly does not hold an individual fundamental right to 22 vote. 23 community supervision do not maintain an individual 24 fundamental right to vote, but the court does not need to 25 resolve that question for purposes of the Free Elections They argue Legislative Defendants are wrong that individuals on Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 78 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Clause because the clause protects more than the individual 2 right to vote of an individual voter. 3 Clause safeguards the collective rights of the people, which 4 includes people who do not have a felony conviction to have 5 elections that reflect the will of their communities. 6 the State Board itself recognizes that distinction between the 7 two different fundamental rights on Page 23 of their brief. Even Here, the North Carolina NAACP has over 20,000 8 9 The Free Election members who live in North Carolina, obviously, the vast 10 majority -- overwhelming majority of them are not on community 11 supervision from a felony conviction. 12 of people on community supervision deprives all of those 13 members, all 20,000 of them, of the right to be governed by 14 leaders whose elections reflect the will of their communities. The disenfranchisement The right to free elections to ascertain the will 15 16 of the people is a fundamental right. 17 Common Cause v. Willard case, and defendants do not dispute 18 it. 19 infringe upon that fundamental right of free elections to 20 ascertain the will of the people, then strict scrutiny 21 applies. 22 Your Honors, after walking through each of our affirmative 23 claims. 24 25 That's stated in the Defendants also do not dispute that if Section 13-1 does I'll go through the strict scrutiny analysis later, I'll turn now to the Equal Protection Clause. The disenfranchisement of people on community supervision is also Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 79 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 subject to heightened scrutiny under the North Carolina Equal 2 Protection Clause. 3 different ways in which heightened scrutiny can be triggered 4 under the North Carolina Equal Protection Clause. 5 the statute creates a classification that implicates a 6 fundamental right; and, second, if the statute was enacted 7 with racially discriminatory intent. 8 here, and I'm going to start with the intentional race 9 discrimination claim. The parties agree that there are two First, if We have both of those And to be very clear at the outset as 10 to the legal framework for analyzing this claim, there is no 11 dispute between the parties that if the relevant parts of the 12 statute are motivated by racially discriminatory intent, it 13 does not matter whether a fundamental right to vote is 14 implicated. 15 argue that people with felony convictions don't have a 16 fundamental right to vote, that argument doesn't matter or 17 apply for purposes of this race discrimination claim. 18 parties agree on that. 19 agree that the existence of the constitutional provision on 20 felony disenfranchisement does not impact the race 21 discrimination claim. 22 if this statutory disenfranchisement of people not 23 incarcerated was motivated by racial discrimination, it cannot 24 stand irrespective of the constitutional provision. 25 In other words, defendants -- while defendants The Relatedly, the parties also seem to Defendants do not seem to dispute that The parties also agree that the framework outlined Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 80 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 in Holmes v. Moore is the framework that governs Plaintiffs' 2 intentional race discrimination claim. 3 the initial burden is on Plaintiffs to show that race was a 4 motivating factor, not the sole or predominant factor, but a 5 motivating factor in the enactment of the law. 6 analyzes that question using what are known as the Arlington 7 Heights factors, which include the relevant historical 8 background, its legislative history, and its disparate racial 9 impact. 10 Under that framework, And the Court With respect to the historical background, it's 11 undisputed that North Carolina has a well-documented history 12 of enacting laws to suppress the voting rights of African 13 Americans. 14 people with criminal convictions specifically, it's undisputed 15 that this has been used as a tool historically to suppress 16 African Americans. 17 And with respect to the disenfranchisement of I chronicled earlier a disenfranchising people with 18 criminal convictions was used after the Civil War with the 19 open and express intent to prevent African Americans from 20 voting. 21 Americans to render them unable to vote, moved on to the 22 enactment of the 1876 constitutional amendment to expand 23 disenfranchisement to cover felonies and not just infamous 24 crimes, and culminated in the 1877 felonies disenfranchisement 25 legislation that was drafted by Jim Henderson, an avid Jim It started with the rampant whipping of African Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 81 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Crow supporter, who presided over lynchings of African 2 Americans. 3 that more clearly demonstrates discriminatory intent. 4 It is difficult to imagine a historical background Turning to the legislative history. The 5 legislative history here traces to the 1877 statutory scheme I 6 described earlier. 7 think that this statute first came into existence in the 8 1970s, but that's simply is not the case. 9 Assembly amended the statute in the 1970s, but the legislative From reading Defendants' briefs, one would The General 10 history of the statutory scheme traces back to the 1870s, and 11 the court has to trace that history under the Arlington 12 Heights framework. 13 In Holmes v. Moore, for example, the voter ID case, 14 the Court of Appeals traced the new voter ID law back to the 15 prior voter ID legislation that had been enacted in 2013. 16 the Court held that the connections between the two statutes 17 meant that the discriminatory intent behind the 2013 18 legislation carried through to the new law. 19 And In a case dealing with felony disenfranchisement 20 specifically in this respect is the U.S. Supreme Courts 21 decision in Hunter v. Underwood from 1985. 22 about Alabama's felony disenfranchisement laws. 23 clear record there, just like here, that when the laws were 24 initially adopted in 1801, that was done with racially 25 discriminatory intent. That was a case There was a The State argued in that case that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 82 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 certain changes to the law in the intervening 80 years had 2 removed the taint of the original passage, but the Supreme 3 Court rejected that argument. 4 specifically said that if the exact same law -- the exact same 5 statute that existed at the time of the Court's decision had 6 been enacted from scratch without the prior history, it may 7 have been constitutional, but the Court couldn't ignore that 8 the law was infused with the original racial motivation. 9 Here, just like in Hunter and Holmes, a felony The Supreme Court even 10 disenfranchisement statute carries forward key aspects of the 11 statutory scheme that undisputedly was enacted with 12 discriminatory intent. 13 First, the class of felonies covers continues to be 14 as broad as possible, disenfranchising people for any and all 15 felonies. 16 punishable by up to three years in prison to vote before one's 17 rights are restored, just like it was under that 1877 18 legislation. 19 statutory scheme, the current statute maintains a policy of 20 disenfranchising people convicted of all felonies for some 21 period of time even when they are not incarcerated. 22 discussed earlier, the African American legislators in the 23 1870s tried to remove this aspect of that law, but they were 24 unsuccessful. 25 absolutely continues to carry forward in the statute today. Second, the statutory scheme still makes it a crime And third, as was the case under the 1877 As So the stain of the original 1877 legislation Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 83 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 On the final Arlington Heights factor, the 2 disparate impact, the disparate impact here is extraordinary 3 and undeniable. 4 statistics, but just to reemphasize a few of them: 5 Americans comprise 21 percent of the voting-age population in 6 North Carolina, with 42 percent of people who cannot vote 7 because they are on community supervision. 8 the black population that's disenfranchised on this basis is 9 2.76 times the percentage of the white population. 10 I walked through earlier some of the African The percentage of And just to follow up on the discussion earlier in 11 the context of Dr. Callanan's report and what it means for 12 there to be disparate impact, the statute that disenfranchises 13 people on community supervision, that is a discrete policy 14 that exists in its own discrete statutes that has the effect 15 on who's allowed to vote today. 16 statute did not exist, who would be allowed to vote if the 17 statute didn't exist? 18 would be allowed to vote if the statute didn't exist would be 19 disproportionately African Americans compared to their share 20 of the population. 21 agreed by all courts, that I'm aware of, that analyzed 22 disparate impact. 23 In other words, if the Well, the population of people who And so that is the sense in which it is And I would point Your Honors to the Holmes v. 24 Moore decision where they analyzed disparate impact in that 25 manner, and also the Hunter v. Underwood decision that I Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 84 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 mentioned earlier, which, just like in this case, involved the 2 facially neutral felony disenfranchisement law that the Courts 3 said it had a disparate impact that supported a showing of 4 discriminatory intent under the Arlington Heights factors. 5 Given the historical background, the legislative 6 history, and the disparate impact, there can be no genuine 7 dispute of fact that raises at least a motivating factor in 8 why North Carolina disenfranchises people even when they are 9 not incarcerated. Under Holmes, the burden therefore shifts 10 to defendants to show that the restrictions would exist 11 without the discriminatory motivation, and Defendants have not 12 even attempted to carry that burden and make that showing. 13 I'll turn now to our separate equal protection 14 claim that the statute creates infamous whole classifications 15 that implicate the fundamental right. 16 this respect that the North Carolina Equal Protection Clause 17 provides broader protections for voting rights than the 18 Federal Equal Protection Clause. 19 Court expressly held as much in Stephenson v. Bartlett, in 20 Blankenship v. Bartlett, and the three-judge panel in the 21 Common Cause case did as well. 22 the Court relied under the right under the North Carolina 23 Equal Protection Clause to, quote, "substantially equal voting 24 power," which the North Carolina Supreme Court held is a 25 fundamental right in this state. It's settled law in The North Carolina Supreme In all three of those cases, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 85 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 The right to substantial equal voting power is a 2 relative right. The North Carolina Supreme Court has held 3 that the General Assembly cannot create classifications that 4 deprive one group of people of substantially equal voting 5 power relative to another group of similarly situated people. 6 If the General Assembly does create such a classification that 7 denies substantially equal voting power to a group of people, 8 the law is subject to heightened scrutiny regardless of 9 whether the group is a suspect class and regardless of whether The Stephenson v. 10 there's any form of illicit intent. 11 Bartlett case stands for that proposition. 12 In addition, any scrutiny applies where a law 13 creates substantially unequal voting power between similarly 14 situated groups of people regardless of whether an individual 15 person in each group standing alone has a fundamental right to 16 vote in that particular election. 17 Supreme Court cases illustrate this principle. 18 Blankenship v. Bartlett, an individual's right to vote and to 19 receive representation in judicial elections wasn't a 20 fundamental right, but the Court applied heightened scrutiny 21 because the General Assembly created judicial districts that 22 led to a, quote, "disparity in voting power between similarly 23 situated residents of Wake County." 24 Your Honors, that we didn't discuss as much in our brief, but 25 maybe we should have, is the North Hampton County Drainage Three North Carolina First, in An even better example, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 86 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 District case from the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1990. 2 There, the North Carolina Supreme Court had held in a prior 3 case that individuals do not have a fundamental right to vote 4 in drainage district elections. 5 the Supreme Court held that where a county does allow for 6 voting in drainage district elections, it can't provide 7 substantially unequal voting power to different groups within 8 the district. But in North Hampton County, 9 A third case that highlights the difference between 10 a relative and absolute right is King v. Beaufort County Board 11 of Education. 12 held that the suspended student does not have a fundamental 13 right to alternative education. 14 scrutiny applies where the state provides alternative 15 education for some suspended students, but not others, given 16 the state constitutional right to equal educational access 17 across different students. 18 In that case, the North Carolina Supreme Court But nevertheless, heightened And so to give some concrete examples in the 19 present context, if the General Assembly said that only people 20 with felony convictions who were over 50 years old can vote, 21 or only people with felony convictions who are registered to 22 vote before their conviction can vote, heightened scrutiny 23 would apply because the rights restoration scheme would create 24 a classification that affords differential voting power to 25 similarly situated groups of citizens. So while Defendants Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 87 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 cite various federal out-of-state cases to argue that an 2 individual convicted of a felony does not have a fundamental 3 right to vote, and while we strongly disagree with them that 4 an individual convicted of a felony lacks the fundamental 5 right to vote, the Court, again, does not need to resolve that 6 question because the right to substantially equal voting power 7 under the North Carolina Constitution focuses on government 8 actions that affect the relative voting power of similarly 9 situated groups of citizens. 10 Here, Section 13-1 creates classifications that 11 supplies a group of North Carolinians of substantially equal 12 voting power relative to another group of similarly situated 13 individuals. 14 between individuals living in North Carolina communities on 15 felony community supervision and everyone else living in North 16 Carolina communities. 17 substantially equal voting power and, indeed, of any voting 18 power at all. 19 First, the statute creates a classification It denies the former group of Second, it -- the statute creates a classification 20 between individuals with a felony conviction who are serving 21 community supervision and individuals with a felony conviction 22 who have completed their community supervision. 23 are plainly similarly situated for purposes of elections in 24 public policy. 25 felony, have been deemed safe by the state to return to Those groups Both groups of people have been convicted of a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 88 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 society and live and work amongst their communities. 2 both have the same interest in and are affected by the outcome 3 of the North Carolina elections in exactly the same way. 4 the group of people on community supervision is denied 5 substantially equal voting power relative to the group that 6 has finished community supervision. 7 substantially equal voting power is a fundamental right in 8 North Carolina, each of the classifications just mentioned 9 triggers heightened scrutiny, which I'll turn to in a few 10 They But Because the right to moments. 11 For the final affirmative claim that I'll be 12 discussing is the free speech and association claim. Like the 13 Equal Protection Clause, North Carolina courts have held that 14 North Carolina's free speech and association clauses provide 15 broader protections than their counterparts in the Federal 16 Constitution. 17 explicitly held that, and the North Carolina Supreme Court's 18 decision in Corum v. University of North Carolina also stands 19 for that proposition. 20 "voting for the candidate of one's choice and associating with 21 the political party of one's choice are core means of 22 political expression protected by the North Carolina 23 Constitution's freedom of speech and freedom of assembly 24 clauses." 25 core form of political expression or that registering to vote The three-judge panel in Common Cause v. Lewis As the Common Cause court held, quote, Notably, Defendants do not dispute that voting is a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 89 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 with a political party is a core form of political 2 association. And those propositions are straightforward. 3 With respect to voting, it's the most direct and 4 impactful means in a democracy of expressing one's views in 5 support of a candidate of certain -- for certain policies. 6 Indeed, it's settled law, Your Honors, that donating money to 7 a political candidate is a form of speech. 8 money to a candidate constitutes a form of speech, then surely 9 voting for that same candidate must be as well. 10 And if giving As for political association, registering to vote 11 with a political party is one of the most direct means of 12 banding together with like minded citizens to promote specific 13 user policies. 14 from voting, Section 13-1 operates as a direct ban on core 15 political speech. 16 expressing their views at the ballot box. 17 burdens political association by precluding individuals on 18 community supervision from registering to vote. 19 that precludes North Carolinians from engaging in political 20 speech or association is subject to heightened scrutiny. In banning people on community supervision It directly precludes people from 13-1 also severely Any statute 21 I'll now turn Your Honors to the level of scrutiny 22 that applies to our claims that I just walked through and the 23 weighing of government interest. 24 explained, strict scrutiny should apply to each of our claims 25 under the Equal Protection Clause, the Free Elections Clause, For the reasons I've already Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 90 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 and the Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses. However, if 2 the Court disagrees that strict scrutiny is warranted, then 3 intermediate scrutiny should apply. 4 all-or-nothing proposition where the only possibilities are 5 strict scrutiny or rational basis, that's simply not the case. 6 As we described in our reply brief filed on Monday, Defendants presented an 7 there's precedent from the North Carolina Supreme Court 8 applying intermediate scrutiny in circumstances like these 9 where the government's discretion to regulate in a particular 10 field had to be balanced against other constitutional 11 protections. In the King case I mentioned earlier, the North 12 13 Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged the need to show deference 14 to school boards on the issue of providing alternative 15 education for some suspended students. 16 rational basis review did not, quote, "adequately protect 17 students given the state constitutional rights to equal 18 educational access and a sound basic education." 19 said it would apply intermediate scrutiny to, quote, 20 "harmonize these competing interests." 21 case, the Court applied intermediate scrutiny to balance the 22 discretion constitutionally afforded the General Assembly to 23 create a, quote, "convenient number of judicial districts with 24 the rights of citizens under the state Equal Protection 25 Clause." The health and The Courts In the Blankenship Here, if strict scrutiny does not apply, the court Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 91 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 should apply intermediate scrutiny to balance the authority 2 and discretion afforded to the General Assembly to regulate 3 felony disenfranchisement with the rights of North Carolinians 4 under the Free Elections Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and 5 Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clause. 6 Supreme Court in the King case, "applying rational basis 7 review would not adequately protect those rights and 8 interests." 9 Defendants would have to show that the law advances important 10 government interest and is no more restrictive than necessary 11 to further those interests. 12 the Blankenship cases I mentioned. In the words of the If intermediate scrutiny were to apply, the That comes from the King case and Defendants here have not shown and cannot show that 13 14 disenfranchising people on community supervision advances a 15 compelling or important government interest and is necessary 16 to further those interests under either strict or intermediate 17 scrutiny. 18 advances any legitimate interest at all and so fails any level 19 of scrutiny. 20 In fact, Defendants have not shown that the law As we discussed at the last hearing, Your Honors, 21 the State must show that the law continues to serve government 22 interest today and not just at the time the law was enacted. 23 What's remarkable here in this case is that neither 24 Legislative Defendants, nor the State Board Defendants have 25 put forward any evidence at all in the record that Section Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 92 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 13-1 disenfranchisement of people on community supervision 2 serves any interest today. 3 their part had two expert witnesses, but neither of them even 4 purported to demonstrate that the law serves the government 5 interest the Legislative Defendants listed in their 6 interrogatory responses. 7 The Legislative Defendants for In their brief, Legislative Defendants largely 8 copied and pasted the bullet points from their Interrogatory 9 response from the government interest reportedly served by the 10 law. 11 evidence in the brief backing up those bullet points for any 12 real discussion of them at all. 13 purported government interest into a brief without any 14 substantiation cannot satisfy any level of scrutiny. That's on Page 23 of their brief. But there's no Merely pasting a list of 15 Meanwhile, the State Board describes purported 16 interest on Pages 28 through 31 of their brief, but those 17 interests are all irrelevant, waived or otherwise inadequate. 18 If you look at the paragraphs that start with 4th through 7th 19 on Pages 29 through 30 of their brief, the State Board 20 describes various interests served by the procedural 21 advancements made by the 1970s enactment, like making 22 restoration automatic rather than requiring that you go 23 petition a judge. 24 served important interests, but Plaintiffs aren't challenging 25 those aspects of the law in this case. And there's no doubt that these amendments We're not challenging Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 93 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the aspect of 13-1 that makes rights restoration automatic 2 rather than requiring petitioning a judge or that no longer 3 requires bringing five witnesses to attest to your good 4 character. 5 namely the ones that continue disenfranchising people on 6 probation or parole until they receive an unconditional 7 discharge. 8 serve government interest today. 9 We're challenging other provisions of the statute, Defendants have to show that those provisions To give you an example, Your Honors, the statute 10 provided for both a poll tax and a literacy test, and the 11 General Assembly later amended it to remove the poll tax, the 12 State couldn't defend the continuing literacy tests by talking 13 about all the interests served by removing the poll tax. 14 had to explain the interest served by the continuing existence 15 of the literacy test in the law. 16 It Turning to the other three interests the State 17 Board lists on Page 28 of their brief. The first one is 18 implementing the constitutional provision about felony 19 disenfranchisement. The Holmes v. Moore definitively rejects 20 this justification. Defendants in that case made the exact 21 same argument, that a constitutional mandate to enact 22 implementing legislation on a topic justified that 23 legislation, but the Court of Appeals rejected that. 24 with voter ID, although the General Assembly has an obligation 25 to pass some form of felony disenfranchisement laws, that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter Here, as 94 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 alone does not justify the choices the General Assembly made 2 in passing the implementing legislation. 3 The second interest the State Board lists is that 4 people who break the law have purportedly, quote, "foregone 5 altogether the right to elect leaders who enact and enforce 6 the laws." 7 And the third interest the State Board lists is 8 that the State can require, quote, "some showing of 9 rehabilitation before restoring a person's voting rights." 10 These interests do not support the statute for the reasons 11 explained in our reply brief, but the Court does not even need 12 to get into them because they are waived. 13 simply did not list these interests in response to the 14 interrogatories asking them to identify the government 15 interest that support the law, and so they can't rely on them 16 now. 17 were not able to ask about these purported interests in the 18 30(b)(6) deposition of the State Board's witness. 19 The State Board It would be manifestly unfair given that we, Plaintiffs, It's clear why the State Board has come up with 20 these new, undisclosed interests now is because Ms. Bell, 21 State Board executive director, affirmatively disclaimed at 22 her deposition any reliance on the government interest that 23 were listed in the interrogatory response. 24 that the State Board was not asserting that the law actually 25 serves each purported interest as a factual matter in present Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter Ms. Bell stated 95 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 day, and that the Board is not aware of any evidence that the 2 law advances each purported interest. 3 that you can see from the deposition with respect to the 4 purported interest in avoiding confusion. 5 And here's an example You can see, Your Honors, on the excerpt on the 6 left that Ms. Bell indicated that the Board is not asserting 7 the disenfranchisement of people on community supervision 8 avoids confusion as a factual matter in present day. 9 the excerpt on the right, Ms. Bell indicates that the State And in 10 Board has no evidence that the law avoids confusion the 11 present day. 12 the ones I just showed you with respect to four of the other 13 five purported government interests that we were permitted to 14 ask about at the deposition; namely, that the law purportedly 15 simplifies the administration of the process of restoring 16 voting rights; regulates, streamlines, and promotes voter 17 registration and electoral participation among North 18 Carolinians convicted of felonies, eliminates burdens on North 19 Carolinians convicted of felonies, and encourages compliance 20 with court orders. 21 those interests. 22 Ms. Bell gave substantially the same answers to Ms. Bell disclaims reliance on all of For the remaining government interests we were able 23 to ask about, that the law purportedly ensures that people 24 satisfy their obligations before their rights are restored, 25 Ms. Bell interpreted that at her deposition just to mean that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 96 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the State Board itself has a legal obligation to apply 13-1 as 2 correctly written, which obviously is not a government 3 interest supporting the statute itself. 4 the evidence that emerged in discovery makes clear that 5 disenfranchising people on community supervision actually 6 undermines the interest the defendants have cited. 7 evidence makes clear that disenfranchising people on community 8 supervisions does the opposite of simplifying the 9 administration of the process, avoiding confusion, and In fact, Your Honors, The 10 streamlining and promoting voter registration in electoral 11 participation. 12 Frankly, Your Honors, it became clear during the 13 State Board's deposition that the administration of the 14 process is a mess. 15 felony in the North Carolina state courts, if the person is 16 registered to vote at the time of the conviction, the State 17 Board will notify the relevant county Board of Elections of 18 the conviction and the county board will send that person a 19 notification that they are now ineligible to vote and that 20 their registration will be canceled. With respect to people convicted of a 21 And if we could pull up the next slide. 22 You can see this is the letter I just mentioned, 23 that the State Board develops this template and then every 24 county Board of Elections sends this to individuals informing 25 them that they are no longer eligible to vote, they're not Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 97 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 qualified to vote, and that their registration is going to be 2 canceled. 3 to vote but then tries to register to vote after their 4 conviction, similarly the State Board will inform the county 5 board, who will then send an individual letter notifying them 6 that they're not eligible to vote. If, on the other hand, the person is not registered 7 If we could turn to the next slide. 8 This is a letter, again, a template developed by 9 the State Board that counties send to voters saying, you are 10 not eligible to register to vote because of your felony 11 conviction. 12 When an individual convicted in a North Carolina 13 state court completes community supervision, the Department of 14 Public Safety notifies the State Board of Elections. 15 the State sends the Board a complete list of people who have 16 completed their community supervision and are once again 17 eligible to vote, and that lists includes contact information 18 for each individual. 19 county Boards of Elections take that list and actually notify 20 people that they are once again eligible to vote. 21 In fact, But neither the State Boards or the So even after a person is eligible to vote, the 22 last communication they will receive from an election official 23 is still that letter we just looked at telling them that they 24 are ineligible to vote. 25 the State Board relies on DPS to notify individuals about Rather than notify people directly, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 98 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 their restoration of their rights through a piece of paper 2 that's handed -- that's supposed to be handed out to 3 individuals. 4 State Board does nothing to monitor the extent to which they 5 actually provide that information to individuals, or whether 6 even if they do, that piece of paper is just one paper in a 7 giant stack of papers that an individual receives from DPS 8 upon their discharge. 9 But Ms. Bell admitted at her deposition that the What I just described, Your Honors, are the 10 protocols for people convicted in North Carolina state court. 11 The situation is even worse for people -- disenfranchised 12 people convicted in felony court -- I'm sorry, in Federal 13 Court. 14 The State Board receives information from the 15 Federal U.S. Attorneys Office about people convicted of a 16 felony in a Federal Court in North Carolina. 17 Board tells the County Boards, who send those people the same 18 letters we just looked at, telling them that they are 19 ineligible to vote. 20 convictions, the State Board does not receive an update from 21 anyone when a person with a federal conviction completes his 22 community supervision and is again eligible to vote. 23 Then the State But unlike the North Carolina state court Here are deposition excerpts where Ms. Bell admits 24 this. 25 receive any correspondence from a federal authority when If you look at the excerpts, she says they do not Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 99 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 people convicted of federal crimes have completed their 2 sentence. 3 same. 4 And the excerpts on the right similarly states the So the State Board's most recent information for 5 anyone with a federal conviction is that they are ineligible 6 to vote and should not be allowed to register to vote. 7 deposition, Ms. Bell was not able to give me an answer that 8 made any sense as to how people who finished their federal 9 sentences would be allowed to vote given this. At the What's more, 10 for people with felony convictions, it appears that nobody 11 tells them that they are once again eligible to vote when they 12 complete their community supervision. 13 Department of Public Safety does not interact with such 14 individuals. 15 the State Board does not know whether federal probation 16 officers notify those individuals about the restoration of 17 their rights upon their completion of their sentences. 18 here, again, is an excerpt from Ms. Bell's deposition where 19 she says that she is not aware about whether anyone provided 20 such information -- as such, individuals information about the 21 restoration of their rights. 22 The North Carolina And Ms. Bell testified at her deposition that And For the final category of disenfranchised people, 23 those convicted of a felony in another state's court who live 24 in North Carolina. 25 Board receives any information at all about such people, Ms. Bell was unaware whether the State Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 100 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 either while ineligible to vote or after they finish their 2 sentence and become eligible to vote. 3 The administrative complications and confusion 4 caused by disenfranchising people on community supervision 5 goes beyond this notification process. 6 discovery and the deposition of Ms. Bell, nearly all of the 7 State Board's forms for voters and internal manuals for 8 election officials said that people cannot vote until the 9 completion of their, quote, "probation or parole without At the time of 10 mentioning post-release supervision." 11 Honors I'm sure know, post-release supervision is an entirely 12 different thing from parole and, in fact, supplanted parole in 13 the Structured Sentencing Act. 14 Of course, as Your So if you were a person on post-release supervision 15 who read any of the forms I'm about to show you, you may well 16 think you are eligible to vote. 17 Honors, that I'm about to show you, these were attached as 18 exhibits to our reply brief. 19 registration form that was produced to us in discovery. 20 you can see at the top, it makes a voter attest that they've 21 not been convicted of a felony, or if they have been convicted 22 of a felony, they have completed their sentence, including any 23 probation. 24 post-release supervision. 25 bottom, which is the second page of the registration form, it And all of these forms, Your The first one is a voter As There's no mention of parole, no mention of You look at the portion of the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 101 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 instructs people that if they've been convicted of a felony, 2 they must complete their sentence, including probation and/or 3 parole. 4 sorry, no mention of post-release supervision. 5 deposition, where I pointed this out to Ms. Bell, the State 6 Board changed Section 10 of this form, the top half, to now 7 mention the words "post-release supervision." 8 half of the form still -- as the last I checked several days 9 ago -- still makes no mention of the post-release supervision. 10 The next form I'll show you, this is an application Again, no mention of community supervision -- I'm After the But the bottom 11 that voters fill out to vote for one-stop voting. 12 you look at it, you can see it says probation or parole 13 without mentioning post-release supervision. 14 testified that she was not aware of whether this form was 15 being updated to mention post-release supervision. 16 Again, if Ms. Bell The next form, this is an educational document that 17 the State Board distributes specifically to educate people 18 with criminal convictions in North Carolina. 19 it says, probation or parole without mentioning post-release 20 supervision. 21 And yet again, And this next document I'll show you, Your Honors, 22 is a manual that the State Board gets to poll workers across 23 the state. 24 are supposed to answer if there's any dispute about a voter's 25 eligibility. It includes a list of questions that poll workers One of those questions is, are you currently on Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 102 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 probation or parole for a felony conviction? 2 person on post-release supervision who's asked this question, 3 you would truthfully answer that question, no, and then you 4 could be permitted to vote. 5 for a crime for doing so. 6 notification issues I've described previously are just some of 7 the ways in which the disenfranchisement of people who are not 8 incarcerated creates confusion. 9 So if you are a And then you could be prosecuted These confusing forms and On an instinctive level, many people think once 10 they're released from prison, they regain their rights. 11 there's lots of public evidence of that and there's evidence 12 in the record here as well. 13 with the so-called Alamance 12, who are two individuals in 14 Alamance -- 12 individuals in Alamance County who were 15 prosecuted for voting in the 2016 election when they did not 16 know they were ineligible. 17 submitted by the North Carolina Justice Center in this case, 18 you will find an affidavit submitted by Anthony Bates, who's 19 one of those members of the Alamance 12, explaining that he 20 had no idea he wasn't allowed to vote. 21 Carolina are unsure whether they have received a court 22 unconditional discharge and are eligible to vote. 23 Plaintiff Diana Powell from Plaintiff Justice Served explained 24 in her affidavit, a lot of people are unsure whether they've 25 received an unconditional discharge if their probation has And I'm sure Your Honors are familiar If you look at the amicus briefs Other people in North Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter As 103 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 finished but they still owe financial obligations. 2 The confusion that exists under the current law, 3 combined with the high-profile prosecutions that have occurred 4 leave many people to be fearful of voting even after they are 5 eligible to vote again, particularly in the black community. 6 So any suggestion that the current disenfranchisement scheme 7 somehow avoids confusion or streamlines the process or 8 avoids -- or simplifies the administration of the process, 9 that's just belied by mountains of evidence. 10 Finally, Your Honors, I'll address the question of 11 the remedy of the constitutional violations I've discussed. 12 The Defendants argued that even if Plaintiffs are correct, the 13 statute is unconstitutional in disenfranchising people in 14 community supervision, there's nothing the court can do about 15 it. 16 remedy, either permanent or preliminary, and this court has 17 broad discretion to fashion an equitable remedy, including 18 when enjoining a statute on constitutional grounds. 19 there can be an injunction that while the statute can continue 20 to deny the restoration of voting rights for as long as 21 somebody is an inmate, it may not do so for people who are 22 placed on community supervision. 23 can enjoin the requirement that people on probation, parole or 24 post-release supervision must receive a, quote, "unconditional 25 discharge to have their rights restored." That's simply not correct. An injunction is an equitable Here In other words, the Court Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter Defendants suggest 104 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 that the Court has to engage in some form of hyper formalism 2 where it takes a pencil and can only strike through specific 3 words and see how the statute then reads. 4 precedents, both from the North Carolina Appellate Courts and 5 the U.S. Supreme Court make clear that's not the case. 6 But numerous And Your Honors, I -- in the interest of time, I 7 won't go into the details, but I'll point you to the State v. 8 Hilton case very recently from the North Carolina Court of 9 Appeals that raises this exact type of issue. And also, 10 although not mentioned in our brief, the State v. Grady case 11 from the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2019 also presented 12 this issue of imposing a remedy where you don't to this sort 13 of strike-through exercise in an injunction that defendants 14 suggest is necessary. 15 16 17 JUDGE BELL: What was the first cite, Mr. Jacobson, the first one? MR. JACOBSON: State v. Hilton. And that's a case 18 we described in some detail in our reply brief, Your Honor. 19 It's from the North Carolina Court of Appeals and was decided 20 in May of this year. 21 JUDGE BELL: Thank you. 22 MR. JACOBSON: And, in fact, if you look at the 23 dissent in that case, it reads as potentially the same 24 arguments that defendants are raising here but, obviously, the 25 defense did not carry the day in that case. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter So this court 105 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 can -- so nevertheless, Your Honors, if this Court did have to 2 engage in this sort of hyperformalism, strike-through exercise 3 that defendants suggest, it can do that and still grant 4 Plaintiffs the relief we seek. 5 enjoin the word unconditional throughout Section 13-1, and 6 then Subsection 1 would then read, the voting rights are 7 restored on the discharge of an inmate, of a probation, or 8 parolee where the discharge of a person on probation or parole 9 refers to the release of that person by a court for DPS on to Specifically, the Court can 10 community supervision. 11 engage in that sort of exercise, but if it feels like it has 12 to, the court can simply enter that injunction. 13 remedy issue that defendants raise is the severability, and 14 that's an easy one in this case. 15 Again, the court doesn't need to The final To rule on severability is that if the provisions 16 that remain in the statute can continue to operate 17 independently after the intending portions are enjoined, the 18 court must sever. 19 13-1, withholding of voting rights from people in prison and 20 continue to operate just as it always has even if people on 21 community supervision have their rights restored. 22 nothing about disenfranchising people in prison that is 23 mutually dependent on disenfranchising people on community 24 supervision. 25 And that's clearly the case here. Section There's Unless Your Honors have any further questions about Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 106 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 anything I've discussed, I will turn it over now to 2 Mr. Atkinson to pick up where I have left off. 3 JUDGE BELL: I have a question that I don't know if 4 it's one that would go to you, Mr. Jacobsen, or this is 5 something we can defer to if we need until tomorrow. 6 any distinction in the application of the statute for 7 individuals on unsupervised probation versus supervised 8 probation and the notification of the completion of the terms 9 of unsupervised probation? 10 MR. JACOBSON: Is there To my knowledge, Your Honor -- and 11 we can certainly confer on this and get back to you -- there's 12 no distinction in the operation of the statute itself. 13 Individuals on unsupervised probation have to receive an 14 unconditional discharge if they've been convicted of a crime 15 and pled guilty the same as anybody else. 16 17 JUDGE BELL: But if they are not being supervised by DPS, is there any type of notification process? 18 MR. JACOBSON: Not that was evident in the 19 discovery materials produced by the State Board in this case. 20 They might have an answer that goes beyond what was produced 21 in discovery, but certainly nothing that we've seen that 22 indicates that that happens. 23 24 25 JUDGE BELL: All right. And what about juvenile probation? MR. JACOBSON: In my understanding, Your Honor, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 107 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 that anybody convicted of a felony in North Carolina who's of 2 age of voting is disenfranchised until their probation is 3 unconditionally discharged. 4 on that with my colleagues and make sure I'm giving you a 5 correct answer on that. But, again, I'm happy to confer 6 JUDGE BELL: 7 JUDGE GREGORY: 8 Mr. Jacobson, I want to make sure if I'm correct. 9 Okay. Thank you. I have a quick question. Using larceny as an example. If a person gets convicted of 10 felony larceny, no prior record, this person's placed on 11 felony probation. 12 complied with statute 13-1; correct? 13 MR. JACOBSON: 14 received that discharge. 15 He or she cannot vote unless they've JUDGE GREGORY: That's correct. Until they've The same -- another person 16 convicted of misdemeanor larceny (audio distortion), so one 17 person $1,000 or more, another person $1,000 or less -- I'm 18 sorry, less than $1,000 can be convicted of a misdemeanor 19 larceny, can actually go to jail, depending on the prior 20 record, but can still vote because they are not convicted of a 21 felony; correct? 22 23 24 25 MR. JACOBSON: That's correct, Your Honor, and then -JUDGE GREGORY: If I go further, so therefore, the governmental interest between those two people -- I'm unclear. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 108 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Maybe that's not a question for you. 2 for the defendant. 3 the two defendants is simply one has a felony because $1,000, 4 the other one doesn't, and yet the governmental interest to 5 me, I don't know what the difference is between -- would be 6 between the two. 7 us sort of a sense? 8 9 But I want to -- that value amount between I wanted to just mention that. MR. JACOBSON: great point. It's probably a question Yes, Your Honor. Can you give In fact, that's a That is another way in which for purposes of the 10 equal protection analysis, the statute creates a 11 classification between similarly situated groups of 12 individuals, who are similarly situated, for exactly the 13 reasons you just gave without any supporting government 14 interest behind it. 15 JUDGE GREGORY: As a side note -- and this is not 16 (audio distortion) on the spot, Judge Bell, in a moment. 17 as a side note, in North Carolina, if you Google that you're a 18 convicted felon, you can't run for office. 19 can actually run for office as a convicted felon. 20 correct, you can actually run for office as a convicted felon. 21 You can't commit a felony while in office, but you can 22 actually run for office as a convicted felon in federal court. 23 You can't do it in state court. 24 your understanding? 25 MR. JACOBSON: But But federally, you Is that correct? If I'm Is that Your Honor, I'll confess that -- Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 109 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 JUDGE GREGORY: 2 MR. JACOBSON: 3 Can you hear me? Your Honor, I'll address it. a little bit choppy, but I think I understand. 4 JUDGE GREGORY: 5 MR. JACOBSON: 6 JUDGE GREGORY: 7 MR. JACOBSON: I'm not sure if you heard me. Can you hear me, Your Honor? I can now. Your Honor, I'll confess that I'm 8 not -- that's not an aspect of the statute that I'm 100 9 percent positive on, so I don't want to venture a guess. 10 JUDGE GREGORY: Jessica. Actually, with that said, I'm done, I wanted to just to pose that. 13 14 But I have no reason to doubt what you just said. 11 12 It got JUDGE BELL: Thank you. Mr. Atkinson, if you are ready, sir. 15 MR. ATKINSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Once again, 16 Daryl Atkinson, attorney with Forward Justice, counsel for the 17 plaintiffs. 18 I will remind Your Honors I will argue that 13-1 is 19 facially unconstitutional because it tethers restoration of 20 the ability to vote on payment of any financial obligation. 21 More specifically, I will argue that 13-1 violates Article I 22 Section 11, the ban on property qualifications. 23 argue that 13-1 violates Article I, Section 19 of the Equal 24 Protection Clause because it creates an impermissible wealth 25 base classification. Then I will In conclusion, I will argue that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 110 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction because 2 we're likely to succeed on the merits, and the equities are in 3 our favor. 4 13-1 tethers the right to vote to financial 5 payments thereby violating North Carolina's Constitutional ban 6 on property qualifications. 7 Your Honor, I want to briefly walk through some of the basic 8 law and uncontested facts related to legal financial 9 obligations in North Carolina. 10 But before I get into the merits, So in North Carolina, people with felony 11 convictions -- with felony convictions as conditions of their 12 probation, parole and post-release supervision must pay the 13 cost of court, any fines ordered by the court and make 14 restitution. 15 for the costs of appointing counsel, public defender or 16 appellate defender to represent them in the cases for which 17 they were placed on probation. 18 and post-release supervision also impose additional costs. 19 Each requires payment of $40 supervision fee. 20 authorizes a multi-year extension of the term of probation 21 and, thus, under 13-1, the challenged statute, a multi-year 22 extension of the disenfranchisement. 23 People must also pay the State of North Carolina Furthermore, probation, parole Failing to pay Some of the uncontested facts, Your Honor. Over 24 the last two decades, the General Assembly has imposed a wide 25 array of court costs on those convicted of felony offenses. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 111 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 You can see the list here. 2 but I'll note a few. 3 the facilities fee, $30; the pretrial release fee, $15; the 4 DNA fee, $2. 5 of the date specified in the Court's judgment must also pay a 6 late fee. 7 while wages have remained stubbornly stagnant. I'm not going to list them all, The General Court of Justice fee, $154; People unable to pay these fees within 40 days These costs have increased by nearly 400 percent 8 According to data from the Pew Research Center, 9 today's real average wage, that's when you adjust wage for 10 inflation, has about the same spending power as it did 40 11 years ago. 12 legal financial obligations that have increased more than 13 400 percent in 20 years. 14 evidence in their brief that shows the growth of fees and 15 court costs in criminal cases was first acknowledged in 1986 16 as a deliberate policy choice to rely increasingly on the 17 justice system as a source of public revenue. 18 same Amikai in the same brief put forth evidence in 2016, 19 30 years later the White House Council of Economic Advisers 20 observed that state and local jurisdictions were pressured to 21 transfer the burden of criminal justice expenditures from 22 taxpayers to defendants. 23 Now, juxtapose that with the increasing cost of Amikai Cato Institute put forth Moreover, the Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Frank Baumgartner, who 24 analyzed all legal financial obligations owed for all people 25 on probation and post-release -- and this evidence is Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 112 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 unrebutted and uncontested -- are instructive of the 2 ubiquitous, burdensome, and far-reaching nature of legal 3 financial obligations in North Carolina, Your Honor. 4 So, for example, people on felony probation, if 5 they had court costs associated with their conviction, the 6 medium amount owed was $573. 7 attended to their sentence, the median amount was $340. 8 people on probation who owed restitution, the median amount 9 was $1,400. People who had additional fees For The total median amount owed for people on 10 probation -- there are over 40,000 people that expert witness 11 Dr. Frank Baumgartner analyzed, found that the median amount 12 owed for people on probation was $2,441, a significant 13 financial burden. 14 Carolina law, everyone on probation owes a $40 a month 15 supervision fee. 16 40,000 people, 90 percent of them owe an additional legal 17 financial obligation including court costs, another type of 18 fee or fine. 19 By default, Your Honor, under North But what Dr. Baumgartner found is that the That other owed debt for people on post-release 20 supervision is similarly daunting, Your Honors, and you can 21 see the median amounts listed right there. 22 post-release supervision, the median amount owed when it came 23 to court costs was $839. 24 was $40. 25 $1,500. For people on Other fees, their median amount owed For restitution, their median amount owed was 32 percent of the 51,441 people on community Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 113 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 supervision owe restitution related to their cases. 2 amount owed for people on probation, 1,400. 3 owed for people on post-release supervision, 1,500. 4 Restitution is one of the results is where you can extend 5 beyond the statutory limit to pay restitution an additional 6 three years, and that's a result in an additional term of 7 disenfranchisement, Your Honor. 8 9 Median Median amount Additional evidence from expert witness Dr. Frank Baumgartner's reply report shows that of the 44 -- 10 approximately 44,000 felonies that were analyzed were failure 11 to pay costs, FTCs were issued. 12 49 percent of those people. 13 Dr. Baumgartner's expert evidence on FTC data shows that 14 African Americans are disproportionately unable to pay their 15 financial obligations in connection with felony convictions. 16 African Americans represented Whites represented 44 percent. It's been brought up, Your Honor, and we know that 17 judges have the statutory ability to weigh costs, but the 18 evidence that we put into the record that's been unrebutted 19 shows that waiver of costs is not a liberally used practice in 20 North Carolina amongst our judges. 21 most recent waiver report from the Administrative Office of 22 the Court, the statewide waiver trend has been going down in 23 recent years for the years that we have data. 24 2016, the approximate number of waivers was about 87,000. 25 2017, it went down to about 45,000. In fact, according to the For example, in In 2018, it went down again Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 114 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 to 28,000. 2 cases. 3 were not waived in 848,375 cases, Your Honor. 4 from that unrebutted data, that small waiver rate hardly 5 reduces the burdens on North Carolinians who were forced to 6 pay money to be able to receive an unconditional discharge. In 2018, waivers of costs were given in 28,036 Hard costs were partially waived in 392 cases. Costs As you can see 7 It is an incontrovertible fact that the 8 overwhelming majority of criminal defendants in North Carolina 9 are indigent. Any of us who are in District and Superior 10 Courts regularly know that poverty is a common characteristic 11 of people who come into our criminal legal system. 12 to the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, 80 percent 13 of criminal defendants are indigent and cannot afford a 14 lawyer. 15 must evaluate whether 13-1's requirement that people receive 16 an unconditional discharge through the satisfaction of all 17 conditions of community supervision, which include the payment 18 of legal financial obligations. 19 you have to evaluate whether that violates Article I, Section 20 11, the ban on property qualification. 21 According It is with this context, Your Honors, that the courts It is with this context that By disenfranchising people based on the failure to 22 pay costs, fees, and restitution, 13-1 violates North 23 Carolina's constitutional ban on property qualification. 24 Article I, Section 11 provides as follows: 25 whites and privileges are not dependent on or modified by Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter As political 115 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 property, no property qualification shall affect the right to 2 vote or hold office. 3 Constitution deemed the ban upon property qualifications 4 verboten the establishment of a more democratic government. 5 Hog did alleged evidence in their brief from Statesman C.C. 6 Poole, who delivered a speech at the 1868 Constitutional 7 Convention where the property clause was put into the 8 Constitution. 9 eligibility to office. The framers of the North Carolina And the speech was question of suffrage And Statesman Poole is quoted as 10 following: 11 the best and most honest men are too frequently devoid of 12 financial ability and often died in poverty, but the state 13 cannot spare such men from her counsel. 14 Explaining to the constitutional convention that Your Honors, from the very beginning, our framers 15 of the North Carolina Constitution instituted the ban on 16 property qualifications because they did not want money or 17 wealth to be an obstacle to people participating in the 18 electorate. 19 Carolina law, property interest alone cannot establish voting 20 rights. 21 defined money and other financial assets as property under 22 numerous federal and state constitutional provisions. 23 property should be defined the exact same way under North 24 Carolina's ban on property qualification. 25 consistent with the original intent of the clause, Your Honor. North Carolina courts have held that under North Federal and North Carolina courts have consistently Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And And this is 116 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 In our reply brief, we highlighted the Supreme 2 Court case that answered this question and around what does 3 property mean in the property qualifications clause? 4 Wilson v. Alderman of the City of Charlotte, I want to read 5 this clause to you from the court -- or this quote from the 6 court. 7 qualifications clause is not confined to tangible property, 8 but rather is used in its most general sense and embraces 9 everything which a man may have exclusive dominion over, and In And they held that the term property in the property 10 that certainly includes money, Your Honor. 11 qualifications that exclude classes of people from the 12 franchise are the precise evil that the ban on property 13 qualifications sought to prevent. 14 Financial North Carolina General Statute 13-1 violates the 15 constitutional ban on property qualification by 16 disenfranchising people based on the failure to pay court 17 costs, fees, and restitution; what we have termed legal 18 financial obligations. 19 More specifically, the statute's requirement that a 20 person receive an unconditional discharge effectively requires 21 that person to own a particular amount of property, money, 22 equal to the total amount they owe in costs, fees, and 23 restitution in order to ensure -- in order to ensure that they 24 regain their voting rights. 25 rights and privileges dependent on money, i.e. property, in Simply put, 13-1 makes political Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 117 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 violation of Article I Section 11. 2 JUDGE BELL: Can I ask a question here, Mr. 3 Atkinson? 4 yesterday was a couple of -- related to the same sort of 5 thing. 6 jurisdictions, that if a person is otherwise successful on 7 probation that only owes monetary obligation, that we will 8 reduce those monetary obligations to a civil judgment and 9 terminate probation. One of the questions that the three of us had It's a common practice, at least in a couple of our Does that have a -- is that considered 10 an unconditional discharge from DPS's perspective or is the 11 fact that a civil judgment reflecting the money as still being 12 owed, does that have impact of continued disenfranchisement? 13 Or do you -- and if you don't know the answer, if that's 14 something you could come back to either later today or 15 tomorrow, I'd appreciate it. 16 MR. ATKINSON: Sure, Your Honor. My understanding 17 of the law is that when a financial account is converted into 18 a civil judgment, that it no longer financially is one of the 19 conditions of community supervision that have to be met. 20 There may be other conditions that have to be met, but as far 21 as the money, it's been converted into a civil judgment. 22 will say though, Your Honors, that still leaves it to the 23 vagaries of individual judges to make that conversion into a 24 civil judgment. 25 requires judges to do that. I There's nothing under North Carolina law that So just by default, people would Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 118 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 still owe that money, and it still could be a potential huge 2 obstacle to them regaining that unconditional discharge, which 3 unlocks their ability for their rights to be stored. 4 JUDGE BELL: Which potentially kind of segues into 5 another question the three of us had, and that was -- and 6 perhaps you can point me or point us to any section of the 7 expert reports. 8 across the state, where some jurisdictions the standard felony 9 probation is 18 months, in some jurisdictions it's 36, some When examining the disparate sentencing 10 jurisdictions no fines are imposed, other jurisdictions fines 11 are always imposed. 12 that speak directly to that? 13 recalling off the top of my head. Is there any part of your expert reports And I'm sorry that I'm not 14 MR. ATKINSON: 15 your question correctly, Your Honor. 16 expert report detailed the different impositions of legal 17 financial obligations across jurisdictions and how 18 jurisdictions treat those differences? 19 JUDGE BELL: So let me make sure I understand Yes. You're asking if our That, as well as length of 20 probation time. 21 least in the last year, was routinely entering five-year 22 probation terms. 23 I mean, I share that there's a judge that, at MR. ATKINSON: So let -- with regards to the 24 average probation length, that is in our expert witness report 25 by Dr. Frank Baumgartner. It's roughly 30 months. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter With 119 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 regards to looking at county level differences and the 2 imposition of financial penalties, our expert witness did not 3 do that, Your Honor. 4 imposition of legal financial obligations applied to people 5 statewide. They looked at statewide and how these 6 JUDGE BELL: 7 MR. JACOBSON: Correct. 8 MR. ATKINSON: Correct. 9 JUDGE BELL: 10 11 12 So those averages took everybody? Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. You can continue. JUDGE DUNLOW: I have a question, please, I'd like to get an answer to. 13 MR. ATKINSON: Yes, sir. 14 JUDGE DUNLOW: So back to the civil judgment aspect 15 of it, sort of a little bit different question there is, in a 16 situation where a defendant comes back into court for 17 probation violation, for whatever, maybe there was a large 18 amount of restitution or fines, whatever the financial 19 obligations may be, and the determination is made to terminate 20 the defendant's probation at that point, but there is not an 21 order to convert that to a civil judgment. 22 the defendant's probation is terminated, does that then remove 23 the disenfranchisement or does it continue -- does the 24 defendant continue to be disenfranchised even after probation 25 is terminated until those monies are paid? Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter Does the fact that 120 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 MR. ATKINSON: That's a great question, Your Honor. 2 And from my understanding, termination of probation, unless -- 3 under 13-1, unless that individual gets an unconditional 4 discharge from their community supervision, the plain language 5 of the statute would block their restoration of voting rights 6 unless they get that unconditional discharge. 7 the specifics around community supervision, whether probation 8 can be terminated and then someone still not get an 9 unconditional discharge because of payment of money, but -- I do not know 10 and that was not -- at least from everything that we got from 11 the Department of Public Safety with regards to its discovery, 12 we did not see any evidence that could answer that particular 13 question, Your Honor. 14 do further research on and try to run down for you. 15 But it's certainly something that I can JUDGE BELL: I would really like to know the answer 16 to that question if probation is terminated, because sometimes 17 it's quite frequently referred to as an unsuccessful 18 termination of probation or something similar to that. 19 want to know when those orders are entered, does the 20 disenfranchisement continue at that point or is it ended? 21 MR. ATKINSON: Okay. And I Well, we can certainly try to 22 followup and get the answer to that question for you, Your 23 Honor. 24 13-1's violation of the ban on property 25 qualifications may be particularly injurious for people living Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 121 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 in North Carolina with out-of-state convictions. 2 convicted in another state may not vote until they receive an 3 unconditional discharge by the agency of that state having 4 jurisdiction of such person. 5 Statute 13-1, Subsection 5. 6 felony convictions cannot obtain an unconditional discharge 7 until they pay their financial obligations. A person That's North Carolina General In some states, people with 8 For instance, in Kentucky, for example, the parole 9 for a person owing restitution shall be until the restitution 10 is paid in full, even if this would lengthen the period of 11 supervision beyond the statutory limit of parole supervision 12 or the statutory limit for serving out a sentence imposed. 13 And the citation for that is Kentucky Revised Statute 439.563 14 Subsection 5. 15 who's convicted of a crime in Kentucky or another state with a 16 Kentucky-like regime, they would have to possess a sufficient 17 amount of money to pay their financial obligations to receive 18 that unconditional discharge, and that is an absolute 19 precondition to them voting. As a result, a person living in North Carolina 20 In sum, Your Honors, the Plaintiffs have submitted 21 insurmountable, unrebutted evidence into the record that 13-1 22 violates Article I Section 11's constitutional ban on property 23 qualification because it tethers the restoration of the right 24 to vote, to paying these LFOs in order to ensure one gets an 25 unconditional discharge. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 122 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 Now, the defendants in their brief, they do not 2 deny that money is a form of property that is subject to the 3 ban on property qualifications, Article 1 Section 11. 4 fact, State Board Defendants do not dispute that it may be an 5 unconstitutional property qualification to require a person 6 convicted of a felony to pay money as a necessary condition to 7 regaining the franchise. 8 Defendants insist that 13-1 does not violate the ban on 9 property qualification because the statute purportedly does In But both State Board and Legislative 10 not speak to financial obligations. 11 assert that it is other statutes that impose costs, fees, 12 restitutions as conditions of probation and permit courts to 13 extend probation for failing to pay them. 14 dispute this, Your Honor, but this is a red herring. 15 Plaintiffs do not challenge the legality of the statutes that 16 impose financial obligations as conditions of community 17 supervision. 18 Plaintiffs challenge the States's ability to extend probation 19 for failing to pay. 20 State Board Defendants And we do not That is not what our lawsuit is about. Nor do What Plaintiffs challenge is the State tethering 21 the restoration of voting rights to the payment of financial 22 obligation. 23 requiring individuals to receive an unconditional discharge 24 from community supervision to have their own rights restored 25 where individuals can be prevented from obtaining that 13-1, the challenge statute here, does so by Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 123 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 unconditional discharge because of the failure to pay money. 2 Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have not identified 3 specific persons who have had their probation extended and, 4 thus, their disenfranchisement prolonged for failure to pay 5 financial obligations, Your Honor. 6 irrelevant. 7 This is both incorrect and Incorrect because Plaintiff Henry Harrison 8 explained in his affidavit that he has had his probation 9 extended previously for failure to pay financial obligation. 10 And Defendants have not contested that our organizational 11 Plaintiffs have standing based on their diversion of resources 12 and educating people about the need to pay financial 13 obligations to regain their voting rights. 14 Defendants' assertion, more importantly, though, 15 Your Honors, is irrelevant. 16 statute that contains a property qualification to vote. 17 facially unconstitutional as to everyone, including the people 18 who meet the qualification. 19 is on point in this regard, Your Honor. 20 struck down (audio distortion) as facially unconstitutional. 21 The law was invalid as to all citizens. 22 explained, regardless of whether the citizen has $1.50 in his 23 pocket or nothing at all, pays the fee or fails to pay the 24 fee. 25 And it's irrelevant because of It's Seminal case Harper v. Virginia And the Harper court The Supreme Court The statute was facially unconstitutional. In sum, Your Honor, Plaintiffs have submitted Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 124 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson Wake County July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 1 significant unrebutted evidence into the record that 13-1 2 violates Article I Section 11's Constitutional ban on property 3 qualifications by tethering the restoration of voting rights 4 to the payment of legal financial obligation. 5 Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law 6 because there are no genuine issues of material fact related 7 to this claim. 8 9 Consequently, I'm going to now move on to the equal protection argument, Your Honor. North Carolina Statute 13-1, the 10 disenfranchisement of individuals living in North Carolina 11 communities violates North Carolina's Equal Protection Clause, 12 Article I Section 19. 13 Equal Protection Clause. 14 to some individuals based solely on failure to pay financial 15 obligation, the statute creates a wealth-based classification 16 that denies substantially equal voting power to poor persons. 17 13-1 triggers strict scrutiny under the Because in depriving voting rights Heightened scrutiny applied from the North 18 Carolina's Equal Protection Clause whenever the challenged 19 statute draws a distinction among similarly situated citizens 20 that deprives one group of citizens of substantial equal 21 voting power to another. 22 community supervision to receive an unconditional discharge 23 before they can vote. 24 every person on community supervision owes some form of 25 financial obligation and must pay off those obligations in On its face, 13-1 requires people on By default, under North Carolina law, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 125 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 order to ensure that they receive an unconditional discharge. 2 As a result, Your Honors, two similarly situated probationers 3 who owe the same amount of money, the one who can afford to 4 pay will ensure that they receive an unconditional discharge, 5 while the one without sufficient means may not receive an 6 unconditional discharge. 7 classification, plain and simple, on its face. 8 face requires people on community supervision to pay financial 9 obligations to ensure their voting rights are restored. That's a wealth-based 10 That's facially unconstitutional. 11 JUDGE BELL: 12 MR. ATKINSON: 13 JUDGE BELL: So 13-1 on its The board -- One other -Yes, ma'am. One other question on that. One of 14 the -- aside from potential restitution amounts, the highest 15 amount that I see in judgments is associated with jail fees. 16 Is that addressed -- and, again, I'm sorry if I've been 17 reading these over time. 18 not able to make bond, their jail fees are going to far exceed 19 the jail fees of a person who has means and is able to make 20 bond. 21 Dr. Baumgartner's calculation of costs associated -- 22 But for a person without means who's And that -- are those jail fees included in MR. ATKINSON: I mean, you bring up an excellent 23 point, Your Honor. 24 got from the request for production from the Department of 25 Public Safety. However, I'm not completely sure what we It categorized these as "other fees." Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter So 126 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 people owe supervision fees, which is the $40 a month, but 2 then they had this big lump of other fees. 3 can include your public defender fee or your DNA fee or 4 possibly your jail fee that you are speaking of. 5 another question that we could more specifically try to run 6 down for you to see if jail fees are included. 7 is well taken that that even exacerbates the debt for someone 8 in poverty who can't afford to pay bond to get out because 9 those fees would accrue against them. 10 JUDGE BELL: 11 MR. ATKINSON: And I imagine that But that's But your point Okay. Defendants stress that North 12 Carolina law merely authorizes, but does not require a court 13 to extend the period of probation, and, thus, the period of 14 probation is not necessarily extended for failure to pay such 15 a financial obligation. 16 North Carolina law, every probationer owes some form of 17 financial obligation. 18 to ensure that his or her probation is not extended is to pay 19 those obligations. 20 But by default, Your Honors, under And the only way for that probationer So it doesn't matter whether every person who has 21 an outstanding financial obligation will have their 22 supervision period extended as defendants contend. 23 matters is that every probationer could have their supervision 24 extended based on unpaid financial obligations; thus every 25 probationer must pay those obligations to ensure they regain Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter What 127 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 their right to vote. State Board Defendants contend that Plaintiffs 2 3 should have brought an as-applied challenge solely on behalf 4 of indigent people who are, in fact, precluded from 5 re-enfranchisement based on their inability to pay costs, 6 fees, and restitution. 7 bring such an as-applied challenge or to limit the relief they 8 seek to indigent persons who are unable to pay their financial 9 obligations. But nothing required Plaintiffs to Once again, the Supreme Court in Harper is 10 11 instructive here, Your Honors. 12 under the equal protection principles whenever it makes the 13 affluence of a voter or payment of a fee an electoral 14 standard. 15 those unable to pay the fee to vote or those who fail to pay 16 the fee is facially unconstitutional because it makes wealth a 17 condition of voting for everyone, including those who have 18 means. 19 A law is facially invalid The Court explained that a system which includes Thus, while State Board Defendants emphasize that 20 the actual Plaintiffs in Harper were unable to pay the poll 21 tax, the Supreme Court struck down the poll tax in its 22 entirety, not only as to the actual plaintiff. 23 Defendants' view, it might be constitutionally permissible to 24 impose a poll tax that some people could afford to pay. 25 plainly is not the law, Your Honor. Under That Like the poll tax in Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 128 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Harper, 13-1's requirement that people on community 2 supervision receive an unconditional discharge is facially 3 invalid as to everyone, not only people who are unable to or 4 do not pay because it requires everyone to pay their financial 5 obligations to ensure they can vote, making wealth a 6 qualification for voting. Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard when 7 8 interpreting whether 13-1 violates Article I Section 19 of the 9 North Carolina Constitution because the law creates an 10 impermissible wealth-based classification. Most recently, in Jones v. Governor of Florida, the 11 12 Court held that disenfranchisement is a continuing form of 13 punishment and heightened scrutiny is triggered when the state 14 alleviates punishment for some, but mandates that it continues 15 for others based solely on account of wealth. 16 Defendants' brief makes the point that under North Carolina 17 law, judges can waive or remit costs associated with felony 18 cases. 19 revote any order of financial obligation that accompanies a 20 criminal conviction, the unrebutted evidence that we, 21 Plaintiffs, have put into the record, Your Honors, shows that 22 judges across the state are not liberally waiving costs. 23 Both And while it's true that Courts can waive, remit, or Thus, 13-1 denies the right to vote to people who 24 have otherwise completed the terms of their probation, parole, 25 or post-release supervision but cannot afford their court Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 129 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 fines, fees, or restitution. 2 JUDGE GREGORY: 3 MR. ATKINSON: 4 JUDGE GREGORY: Mr. Atkinson. Yes, sir. (Audio distortion) on time. I just 5 want to make sure. 6 and so forth, is it a fair representation that at some point 7 the legislature restricted the judges' ability to waive court 8 costs, and, in fact, in restricting a judges' ability to do 9 that, they place your name on a list depending how many -- the 10 11 In reference to the judges waiving fees number of waivers you've had. And I guess the final thing that I'll say is, isn't 12 this tantamount to about the 1870s until the statute was 13 changed where the three representatives, I think Justice -- 14 not justice, actually, Justice Pride, Mickey Michaux and Joy 15 Johnson, they were saying that we're going to take that 16 discretion from the judge who could actually say, well, I'm 17 going to allow you to have your rights restored. 18 same thing is occurring with the financial basis. 19 says, I'm going to waive all your money, all your fees, 20 depending on that particular judge, he or she may say, I'm not 21 going to waive your fees, you're still going to be on 22 probation, and you still cannot vote. 23 that says, I'm going to waive all your fees, you are 24 unconditionally discharged, and you can vote. 25 that the same thing that they were trying to avoid after the Well, the If a judge As opposed to a judge Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter Well, isn't 130 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 ratification of -- in 1870s where that Judge had all that 2 discretion to say, well, I'm going to take your rights to vote 3 or I'll make sure you can't vote. 4 the same place essentially? 5 MR. ATKINSON: Aren't we still there at Most certainly, Your Honor. And I 6 think that's an excellent point that relying on the individual 7 discretion of judges to waive costs and fees does kind of put 8 us back in the same kind of regime that those African American 9 legislators were trying to undo, where you had to go before 10 judges individually to get your rights restored. 11 are again with 13-1 where you have to go before judges 12 individually to get your costs waived, which ensures that you 13 get your unconditional discharge, which unlocks the 14 restoration of your voting rights. 15 same position. 16 So here we We're very much in that With regards to your first point, Your Honor, I -- 17 look, we don't hold any position of the motives behind the 18 legislature and why they required that costs report and for 19 judges to document why they are waiving fees, but it certainly 20 would seem that it has acted as a disincentive for judges to 21 waive fees because they don't want to be on the list as 22 waiving debt that the General Assembly has almost relied upon 23 to help fund the operations of the court. 24 to Amikai Cato's point where the trend in using these user 25 fees as -- almost as attacks, Your Honors. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And that goes back That trend began 131 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 2 19 CVS 15941 in the 1980s and it is continued to this day. And most recently the court, and as I said in Jones 3 v. Florida, explained that the basic right to participate in 4 political processes as voters and candidates cannot be limited 5 to those who can pay. 6 whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or the payment of 7 the fee an electorial standard. 8 the law divides substantial equal voting power to similarly 9 situated persons based solely on financial means, triggering 10 11 A state denies equal protection Consequently, Your Honors, strict scrutiny. The wealth-based classifications imposed under 12 13-1, as we saw from Dr. Baumgartner's evidence, are 13 significant. 14 median person on post-release supervision owes $521. 15 looked at the expert evidence with regards to FTC data and 16 showing that African Americans are disproportionately unable 17 to pay their financial obligation in connections with felony 18 convictions, thereby making them particularly vulnerable to 19 not satisfying conditions of community supervision which 20 authorizes the state to deny the unconditional discharge, 21 thereby blocking their right to vote. 22 The median person on probation owes $2,441. The And we Moreover, evidence from expert witness Dr. Traci 23 Burch shows that half of the people released from North 24 Carolina prisons are not employed a year after that release. 25 In fact, additional evidence from the Amikai Sentencing Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 132 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Project show that blacks face far way worse than whites in 2 seeking post-incarceration employment opportunities. 3 in a study cited in their brief by Devah Pager, that study 4 found that whites with criminal records and no college degrees 5 were more likely to get job callbacks from employers than 6 black applicants with no criminal record and college degrees. 7 Illustrating the persistent discrimination faced by black job 8 applicants with and without criminal records, and black 9 applicants with criminal records facing the worst outcome. 10 13 In sum, your Honor -- 11 12 In fact, JUDGE BELL: We're at time, so it you could wrap it up, please. MR. ATKINSON: Yes, ma'am. All of this evidence 14 contributes to the conclusion that the vast majorities of 15 North Carolinians on probation, parole, and post-release 16 supervision do not have the ability to pay the daunting LFOs 17 associated with felony convictions in North Carolina. 18 Plaintiffs have submitted significant evidence into the record 19 that 13-1 violates Article 1 Section 19 by creating an 20 unconstitutional wealth-based classification that cannot 21 survive strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. 22 Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter 23 of law as there are no genuine issues of material facts 24 related to this claim. 25 Your Honor, I would like to go into the PI part of Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 133 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the argument, but I notice that you told me about the time, 2 and I'm just wondering how you would like for me to proceed? 3 JUDGE BELL: So we're going to go ahead and call 4 time now, you all have an additional 30 minutes at the -- that 5 we'll hear from the Defendants when we come back from lunch. 6 And you can -- I won't -- I'm going to say we won't limit your 7 last 30 minutes to only rebutting the Defendants' argument, if 8 you'd like add your additional argument on that. 9 MR. ATKINSON: 10 JUDGE BELL: All right. All right. Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. So we're going to 11 go ahead and recess until 2:00 for our lunch break. 12 back then -- and as I stated, we'll be hearing from 13 Defendants' counsel at that time. 14 see you in a little over an hour. So thank you all. 15 (Lunch recess at 1:06 p.m. - 2:06 p.m.) 16 JUDGE BELL: Everybody ready? 17 ahead and proceed with defense arguments. 18 ready. 19 MR. COX: Okay. We'll be We'll We'll go Whenever you are Thank you, Your Honors. This is Paul Cox 20 from the Attorney General's Office representing the State 21 Board of Elections and its members. 22 time just for economical reasons. 23 arguments, and my colleague Brian Rabinovitch, who's 24 representing the Legislative Defendants, will discuss other 25 arguments. We'll be splitting our I'll address certain I'm joined here by my colleague Olga Vysotskaya. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 134 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Olga is also representing the State Board and the State 2 members. 3 JUDGE BELL: 4 MR. COX: Okay. Thank you. So I'll just -- just to frame the 5 discussion, I'd like to go to the actual text of the 6 Legislation and the Constitutional provisions that we're 7 discussing here today. 8 Mr. Steele, if I could get the ability to share my screen, if 9 possible. And for that aspect, I'd ask that, If Your Honors can see that? 10 JUDGE BELL: 11 MR. COX: I can. Okay. So this is Article VI of the North 12 Carolina Constitution. It's the suffrage article. It's the 13 article that discusses the qualifications to vote. And also 14 further down in the later sections, it also discusses the 15 eligibilities to office, which is what Judge Gregory was 16 discussing earlier. 17 particular Section 2 -- well, first we'll look at Section 1. 18 It states that every person born in the U.S. and every person 19 who has been naturalized 18 years or older shall be able to 20 vote. 21 The qualifications to vote section, in Going on further to Section 2, what's relevant here 22 is number 3 -- Subsection 3 in Section 2, disqualification of 23 a felon. 24 against the State of the United States or the United States or 25 adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would The person -- no person adjudged guilty of a felony Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 135 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 be a felony if it was committed in this state shall be 2 permitted to vote unless that person shall be first restored 3 the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law. 4 The language is fairly clear. 5 category shall be permitted to vote unless they are restored 6 their rights in the manner prescribed by law. 7 provision authorizes the legislature to do is to prescribe by 8 law the manner of restoring rights. 9 It says, no person of this What that The provision here that Your Honors are reviewing 10 is the reason that people who are convicted of felony 11 sentences do not have the right to vote. 12 chooses the way to restore those rights through that last 13 provision in the last section of that provision. 14 And the legislature Important to remember is that the Plaintiffs have 15 not challenged the constitutional provision. 16 have challenged the manner prescribed by law for restoring the 17 right to vote to people who were denied the right to vote as a 18 result of this provision in the Constitution. 19 is found in General Statute 13-1. 20 crime whereby the rights of citizenship are forfeited shall 21 have such rights restored upon the occurrence of any one of 22 the following conditions, and then it's got the unconditional 23 discharge of an inmate, of a probationer, of a parolee. 24 is what is under challenge here; it is the Restoration of 25 Rights Statute. The Plaintiffs That provision Any person convicted of a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter That 136 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 It's important to keep that in mind because it's 2 relevant to our arguments both on standing and in a number of 3 our other arguments about discriminatory intent, for example, 4 because the challenge here is not to the constitutional 5 provision that denies the rights. 6 statutory provision that makes an exception to that 7 constitutional law or right. 8 9 It's the challenge to the First, Mr. Jacobson referred to the 1876 amendment to the North Carolina Constitution. That is what we first 10 looked at. 11 what was placed into the Constitution in 1876. 12 referred to the next year, the legislature enacted laws that 13 would carry out the restoration of rights provision of the 14 constitutional ban on voting for people convicted of felonies. 15 And it's that history that is relevant to the court's 16 analysis, obviously, because it is that statutory framework 17 for the restoration of rights that has been under -- 18 challenged here. 19 After a number of iterations, that is essentially He then Now, there is an 1877 original statute, and 20 Mr. Jacobson explained, from the beginning of when that 21 Restoration of Rights Statute was in place all the way up 22 until the 1970s, it placed an incredibly onerous burden on 23 people convicted of felonies to get their rights restored. 24 fact, they had to carry -- take with them numerous witnesses 25 to a Superior Court, hold a hearing, the clerk of court would Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter In 137 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 post a notice the hearing was going to happen well in advance 2 of the hearing, and the person would have to prove to a judge 3 that they were fit to have their rights restored. 4 explored in detail in Senator Michaux's deposition about how 5 that framework for requiring a person to go before a judge and 6 prove that they were fit to have their rights restored was 7 particularly onerous on black North Carolinians. 8 9 And this is There was the potential for bias of the judiciary, which was predominantly, if not entirely, white at the time. 10 There was, you know, the requirement that anybody -- or the 11 permission that anybody in the community was allowed to come 12 and object to the restoration of your rights. 13 scheme that the legislature, led by Representative Johnson in 14 1971, sought to replace wholesale. 15 now I'll turn to -- pardon me, Your Honors, I have a -- 16 It is that And they did. With that, So this is the 1971 drafts initial introduction of 17 that whole replacement of prior restoration of rights regime 18 introduced by Representative Johnson. 19 1 that it entirely replaces the previous version -- my 20 apologies, Your Honors. 21 I'll show you what eventually ended up as the session law 22 entirely replaced the prior version of Chapter 13, but as 23 introduced, it appears that it didn't do that, but eventually 24 did when the legislature enacted it. 25 You can see in section What eventually ended up as the -- I'll draw Your Honors' attention to something which Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 138 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 I think is important to understand the legislative intent 2 here, because there is a bit of dispute between the Plaintiffs 3 and the Defendants about what exactly was the legislature 4 trying to do, and what exactly was Representative Johnson 5 trying to do, and later Representative Michaux trying to do in 6 enacting this restoration of rights law. 7 introduced, the bill as introduced in 1971, any person 8 convicted of an infamous crime whereby the rights of 9 citizenship are forfeited shall have such rights automatically 10 restored to him upon the full completion of his sentence or on 11 receiving an unconditional pardon. 12 suggests full completion. 13 all of your sentence is completed, including a probation or 14 parole or post-release supervision until your rights are 15 restored. 16 The law as Now, the language there It suggests that it's waiting until Plaintiffs read that differently. We asked -- Well, my colleague Mr. Rabinovitz asked 17 Senator Michaux about how that should be read in his 18 deposition. 19 legislature at the time. 20 when he was asked about it, he says, yes, that refers to the 21 full completion of everything that might be associated with 22 your sentence, probation, parole, any other sort of incident 23 of your sentence. 24 25 And admittedly, Senator Michaux was not in the He was elected the next year. But So it's not quite right that the original intent, or at least on the legislative record the original intent here Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 139 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 was to only prohibit, or I should say, restore the rights only 2 after someone finishes their prison sentence and not address 3 probationers as well or parolees. 4 that is important too because, again, this is the Restoration 5 of Rights Statute. 6 forward as to whether what Representative Johnson wanted to do 7 in 1971 was to allow people on probation to automatically get 8 their rights restored doesn't make any sense based upon the 9 text because the North Carolina Constitution denies all people And the way that I phrase The reading that the Plaintiffs put 10 convicted of a felony of the right to vote. 11 anything -- chapter 13 is what restores that right. 12 you are on probation, serving an active prison sentence or on 13 parole, there needs to be some sort of affirmative legislature 14 to give you that right back. 15 that this bill as introduced only addressed people who were in 16 prison and who finished their sentence in prison and got their 17 rights back, where does that leave probationers? 18 reading it correct, then probationers would never get their 19 rights restored. 20 This statute and Whether And if Plaintiffs are correct If they're Of course that's not right. Of course when this was introduced, it wasn't the 21 intent of Representative Johnson to completely ignore the 22 population of people convicted of felonies who were not 23 incarcerated. 24 the right to vote. 25 Because if he had, they would be forever denied Oh, and if I could correct one thing I said earlier Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 140 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 about the replacement of the statute. 2 Section 2 of his original bill that the original Chapter 13 is 3 repealed and replaced. 4 just -- it wasn't in the first section. 5 section where it says that the original sections of the bill 6 are replaced. 7 in 1971. 8 rights regime that existed before that. It's actually in So it is in its original bill. It's It's in the second But the point there is what the legislature did It was completely overhauled, the restoration of 9 So I'll also refer the Court to the News & Observer 10 article that was discussed with respect to Representative 11 Frye, another one of the sponsors of the 1971 bill. 12 context of this article and the context of the debate in the 13 House is really important because, yes, Representative Frye 14 does say that he favored the original -- what was in the 15 original provision of the bill, which was automatic 16 restoration of citizenship when a felon had served his prison 17 sentence. 18 amendment that would have addressed prisoners, and that's why 19 he was referring to prisoners in response to that. 20 The But in context, it's clear he's talking about an The immediate preceding paragraph, it talks about 21 an amendment offered by Representative Odom from Scotland 22 County. 23 citizenship rights restored upon taking an oath of allegiance 24 if the restoration of rights was recommended by the Department 25 of Correction at the time the prisoner was release from The amendment provided that a person could get their Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 141 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 prison, or if two years had passed after release, they could 2 get their rights restored then. In response to that amendment, it's clear what 3 4 Representative Frye is talking about there then. He's talking 5 about, we originally wanted this to apply immediately when you 6 got -- when you had release from prison, not a two-year 7 waiting period. 8 I'm not sure about, you know, what the intent was here. 9 certainly the evidence put forward by the Plaintiffs as to So, you know, there may be a disputed fact. But 10 whether the original intent was to only deny the right to vote 11 to people who are serving an active sentence in prison isn't 12 necessarily supported by that legislative record and it's not 13 supported by the testimony of Senator Michaux in his 14 deposition. 15 Finally, another prefatory note, and I'll stop 16 sharing my screen now. 17 briefs how this is a facial challenge to a law enacted by the 18 General Assembly. 19 challenge to a statute is the most difficult challenge to a 20 statute to mount. 21 overcoming the presumption of constitutionality that Courts 22 afford enactments of the legislature, and also the burden of 23 showing that the law is invalid in all of its applications. 24 That is what a facial challenge requires. 25 The -- we had discussed how -- in our And the Courts have said that a facial You have the double burden of both showing Quoting here from the Hart v. State case that we Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 142 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 cite in our briefs, "no set of circumstances exists under 2 which the act would be valid." 3 relevant to the discussion about fines and fees and whether 4 the imposition of financial obligations with parole and 5 post-release supervision, probation actually lead to the 6 disenfranchisement automatically as a matter of law in all of 7 its applications, and the evidence does not show that it does. And this is relevant -- most 8 First in the legal arguments, we have argued that 9 for the relief that the Plaintiffs seek, they don't have the 10 requisite standing. 11 three-part analysis. 12 injury in fact. 13 conduct of the defendants; we're not disputing those aspects 14 of standing. 15 disposition by the Court has to redress the injury that you 16 are complaining of. 17 what it would require the Court to do and whether it's in the 18 Court's power to do what the Plaintiffs are requesting. 19 Standing, as this Court is familiar, is a First, you have to have a demonstrated The injury has to be fairly traceable to the But the final element is that a favorable And here's where we talk about, you know, As we show in our brief, what the Plaintiffs are 20 requesting would require a re-write of the Restoration of 21 Rights Statute. 22 word or two. 23 statute. 24 severability analysis, it's -- there's at least a question as 25 to whether that would be what the Court would be required to It's not as simple as just striking out a And certainly it's not invalidating an entire Nobody here wants that. But, you know, under a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 143 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 do if it found that it was unconstitutional. 2 the Plaintiffs are asking is that the unconditional order and 3 their unconditional discharge be stricken out of the statute. 4 But that doesn't get there all the way. 5 to talk about, well, when is it then that a probationer gets 6 discharged? 7 read that a discharge of a probationer happens when they get 8 their sentence. 9 forward as a way to read the statute if struck out the word 10 Instead, what Because then you have You know, the plain text of the statute can't be But that's what the Plaintiffs are putting unconditional. 11 What really would have to happen is the Court would 12 have to write in a new provision saying that, Upon the 13 sentencing of a felon to probation, their rights are restored. 14 And it's important, again, to recall that what's 15 being challenged here is a Restoration of Rights Statute. 16 It's not the constitutional provisions that denies the right 17 to vote. 18 statute doesn't currently have to give the Plaintiffs the 19 relief they seek. 20 that the court doesn't have that power. 21 The Court would have to fashion new relief that the And the Marriott case that we cite holds When the Court holds that a law is invalid, the 22 only remedy available, the Court says, is to strike down the 23 law, to invalidate the law, not rewrite the law. 24 for this is a separation of powers concern. 25 is part of the judicial branch and cannot take the role of the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter The reason Obviously, court 144 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 2 19 CVS 15941 legislative branch in drafting legislation. So even if -- you know, just take the argument as 3 the assumption is true, that even if the redrafting were even 4 possible here, the Plaintiffs have not shown that the 5 provision here is severable. 6 brief as to why -- the analysis the Court has to look at as to 7 whether you can sever different provisions of the statute. 8 You know, even if you could get away with making some sort of 9 changes to the statute without writing in new language into 10 the statute, you know, the legislative history demonstrates 11 that it was the legislators intent to have the entire package 12 put forward. 13 know, create subclasses of felons who got their rights back at 14 different times and in different manners. And we talk about this in our It was not the legislature's intent to, you 15 And Senator Michaux's deposition, again, highlights 16 this, that the intent is -- at deposition Page 38, "The intent 17 behind the enactment that it was behind in 1973 and what his 18 colleagues were behind in 1971 was to restore a person's 19 rights once they were rehabilitated." 20 testifies at Page 84 that, "That was the only way we were 21 going to get it." 22 they included all aspects of a felony sentence in testifying 23 that they were only able to -- going to be able to get the 24 automatic restoration of rights if they included all aspects 25 of a felony sentence. And he further He was referring there to the fact that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 145 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 Now, the Plaintiffs in their reply brief refer to a 1 2 series of cases that -- Federal cases, U.S. Supreme Court 3 cases where the court has fashioned a remedy that goes beyond 4 the text of the statute, that provides affirmative relief and 5 affirmative relief to the Plaintiffs that was not under the 6 text of the statute. 7 number of other cases dealing with gender discrimination. 8 it's important to recognize that the Court there was applying 9 a federal law. And they refer to the Califano case, a And It was applying a federal rule of equitable It comes from the Welsh v. 10 power of the Federal Courts. 11 United States case, the U.S. Supreme Court case, and this is 12 cited Page 89 -- Page 89 of the Califano case that the 13 Plaintiffs cite. And this is what the court said, that you 14 apply this rule. Where a statute is defective because of 15 under inclusion, Mr. Justice Harlan noted, there exists two 16 remedial alternatives. 17 nullity in order that its benefit not extend to the class that 18 the legislature intended to benefit. 19 entirely. 20 to include those who are aggrieved by the exclusion. 21 don't have a statute here, even if you could apply this 22 federal rule. 23 aware of has applied the Welsh case. 24 this rule, we're not aware of anything -- if you could apply 25 this case in North Carolina court, what the court would be One, a court may declare the statute a So strike it out Or two, it may extend the coverage of the statute Now, we And no North Carolina authority that we're But if you could apply Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 146 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 doing here would not be extending coverage of the statute to 2 those who are aggrieved by their exclusion. 3 restores the rights to vote to every felon once they complete 4 their sentence. 5 would not be extending that benefit to a class that's excluded 6 from that benefit. 7 heretofore has not been created. 8 9 10 11 The statute And the -- so what the court would be doing It would be creating a new benefit that So that is the reason we highlight the standing issue and the redressability problem of the Plaintiffs' case and the related severability problem. I move now to the Free Elections Clause. So the 12 Plaintiffs claim that the Chapter 13-1 violates the North 13 Carolina Free Elections Clause in the Constitution. 14 misread the history and application to that provision. 15 important for the Court to recognize that the Free Elections 16 Clause under North Carolina law is not something that has a 17 long and well-developed history. 18 the law that Courts rely on typically in that the burdens on 19 the right to vote, for example. 20 Clause, and potentially the First Amendment and the Due 21 Process Clause. 22 recognizes the right to vote, which has been incorporated into 23 North Carolina Equal Protection Clause. 24 Elections Cause, there really are no cases that interpret what 25 it means until the middle of the 20th century. They It's It's not the provision of That's the Equal Protection Under the federal jurisprudence that Instead, the Free Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And then you 147 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 have the Clark v. Malin case, which we discuss in our brief, 2 and then you have the Common Cause case, which Mr. Jacobson 3 and I were part of last year, dealing with a three-judge panel 4 in Wake County Superior Court that used the Free Elections 5 Clause to address partisan gerrymandering -- extreme partisan 6 gerrymandering. What the Court looked back at -- in the Common 7 8 Cause case, looked back at the history there and determined 9 that where this clause comes from is an effort to manipulate 10 the electorate to get a particular electoral outcome, to 11 essentially gerrymander parliamentary districts in Great 12 Britain in the 17th century. 13 Free Elections Clause and the British Constitution and what 14 was carried forward into the Colonial Constitution and North 15 Carolina Constitution and the Constitutions of many other 16 states. 17 electorate. 18 And that was the intent behind a It was designed to avoid manipulation of the Now, in the Malin case, that manipulation took the 19 form of requiring a voter to pledge party loyalty. 20 registered with the Republican Party, they'd have to sign a 21 loyalty oath saying that I'm going to support Republican 22 candidates in the general election. 23 that violates the Free Elections Clause because it shackles 24 the conscience of the voters. 25 something and bends the will -- quite literally bends the will So if they Now, what the Court said, It requires them to do Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 148 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 of the voter. And then in the Common Cause case, while 2 3 Mr. Jacobson's citations to the prefatory comments by the 4 three-judge panel about the Free Elections Clause are correct, 5 where the most rubber meets the road is where the Court 6 actually applied that clause. 7 that clause, the Court looked at the record there and made 8 these conclusions: 9 defendants with the predominant intent to control and And where the Court applied That the evidence demonstrated the 10 predetermine the outcome of legislative elections for the 11 purpose of retaining partisan power in the General Assembly 12 manipulated the current district boundaries. 13 Elections Clause as applied in that Common Cause case was not 14 simply, you know, any regulation on voting, any voting that 15 would -- any voting regulation that might have some impact on 16 elections. 17 predetermine the outcome. So the Free It was predominant intent to control and And the Court in Common Cause also recognized 18 19 another important point for how the clause should be applied 20 in this case. 21 case, which was not -- you know, granted, it was not a Free 22 Elections Clause case, but the Court in Common Cause used this 23 to determine, you know, how it should apply the Free Elections 24 Clause. 25 And that's quoting from the Hill v. Skinner The Hill v. Skinner case from 1915 says that we Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 149 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 think the object of elections is to ascertain fairly and 2 truthfully the will of the people. 3 dash, dash, the qualified voters. 4 it's a mission that the Plaintiffs put forward in their 5 briefs, but it is an important addition in the quote from Hill 6 v. Skinner. 7 have been designed to circumvent other provisions of the same 8 Constitution that set qualifications on voters. 9 The end of that quote is, And that's important. And Because the Free Elections Clause could never Other provisions -- all of Chapter 6 put 10 qualifications on who can vote in elections. 11 age of 18 can't vote in elections, noncitizens can't vote in 12 elections, people who have not properly registered to vote 13 can't vote in elections, people who have not established their 14 residency for a sufficient period of time -- I believe it's 30 15 days -- cannot vote in elections. 16 that the Free Elections Clause -- well, and then going back to 17 what the framers in the Free Elections Clause must have 18 intended, there are all sorts of even more onerous 19 restrictions on who can vote, obviously, in the 18th century 20 in North Carolina. 21 the Free Elections Clause if what the framers intended the 22 Free Elections Clause to be was a way for every person in the 23 community to vote. 24 25 People under the So it can't be the case And those could not have co-existed with There are now other provisions of the North Carolina Constitution that guarantee the right to vote. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And 150 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 that guarantee that not just white male landowners are allowed 2 to vote or male landowners, however it would be in the 3 historical context. 4 Free Elections Clause, of course. 5 apply here. 6 Those other provisions of law are not the JUDGE BELL: So that clause does not Mr. Cox, if I could go back to what 7 you said a moment ago in quoting the Common Cause case where 8 the three-judge panel clearly saw an intent in the legislative 9 drafting of the statute that was at issue there and saw that 10 it was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the electorate along 11 party lines. 12 assessment of the historical roots of 13-1 back to the 1860s 13 when it was clearly stated that the intent was to 14 disenfranchise African Americans? 15 But do you disagree with the Plaintiffs' I mean, if that's how it was originally -- if that 16 intent was clearly there in the beginning and -- and there had 17 been little tweaks here and there, but that was the intent and 18 it's kind of carried through, you know, 163 years later, 73 -- 19 whatever, my math is bad. 20 MR. COX: You know what I'm saying. You're right. You're right, Your Honor. 21 And if we were here under a challenge to North Carolina's 22 Article VI, which denied the right to vote, which is what 23 enacted those sentiments at the time and what gave legal force 24 to the sentiments at the time to deny the right to vote to 25 people convicted of a felony, then that might be a harder case Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 151 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 to make upon the Free Elections Clause. But that's not what 2 is being challenged. 3 1973 law that restores the right to vote to people who have 4 been convicted of a felony. 5 about apples and oranges, I know, but it's important to 6 recognize that the Constitution is what injures the plaintiffs 7 here. 8 people who are convicted of a felony. 9 instead though is a rights restoration statute that was not in What is being challenged here is the And so, you know, we're talking The Constitution is what denies the right to vote to What they've challenged 10 effect -- you know, substantively was not in effect in the 11 19th century or the early 20th century. 12 wholesale in the 1970s. 13 It was replaced So in discussing -- there are not -- as I 14 mentioned, there are a few cases that discuss the Free 15 Elections Clause in North Carolina. 16 other states that have addressed other states' Free Elections 17 Clause, and specifically in the context of disenfranchisement 18 regimes for people convicted of felony. 19 cases that we know of is directly on point is the Mixon case 20 from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which is 21 appellate court in Pennsylvania. 22 for the 19th Circuit in the Harvey case when she interpreted 23 Arizona's Free Elections Clause. 24 Courts concluded that the Free Elections Clause in those state 25 Constitutions do not extend -- they only extend to the There are other cases in And the only two And Justice O'Connor writing In both those cases, the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 152 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 qualified voters, much like the Court in North Carolina said 2 in Hill v. Skinner and how the Common Cause courts quoted that 3 Free Elections Clause guarantees that the will of the 4 qualified voters is carried out. 5 that, you know, it applies to persons, quote, "otherwise 6 qualified to vote." 7 JUDGE GREGORY: And the quote from Harvey is Mr. Cox, this is Keith Gregory. 8 Respectfully, I don't want to dismiss what Judge Bell has just 9 said. I want to kind of go back to make sure I'm 10 understanding. 11 one point where African American men were being whipped based 12 on an infamous crime. 13 the punishment was deemed to be infamous, therefore, that 14 would preclude them from voting. 15 the public opinion, a Judge's discretion, affidavits of 16 essentially people saying, yes, this person is of good 17 character, a wait period. 18 African American legislators, I believe Joy Johnson and 19 Representative Frye, who eventually became Justice Frye, at 20 least Justice Frey said, yes, I want it so that once you 21 finish your prison sentence, you can vote. 22 take the statute with the addition so that we can relieve this 23 area of where the Judge has the discretion, where five or ten 24 people have to come in and say about your character, with the 25 wait period, even where the public gets a chance to come in With this legislative intent, we went from at And if I'm correct from what I read, We went from that to where We went from that to where three Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter But I'm willing to 153 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 and say, well, no, this person should not be allowed to vote. 2 So Justice Frey said, I'm wiling to even go with 3 14-1 (sic) to get away from that. 4 Representative Michaux, or Senator Michaux, at some point 5 conceded that's what he wanted also. 6 I think if I'm correct, My point being is that when Judge Bell was asking, 7 how have we actually changed? 8 said that they should have addressed the constitutional issue. 9 13-1, I still have discretion as a Judge to say, you know There's been tweaks. But you 10 what, your ability to vote will be based on my decision 11 whether or not I relieve you of this monetary burden. 12 if I take your probation fees away, that's what you owe, then 13 your rights can be restored. 14 take those away and you are still not in compliance with 13-1, 15 and that's my discretion as a Judge. 16 than a Judge in the 1800s that said, well, guess what, even 17 though we are not whipping anymore, we're still requiring 18 people to come in and talk about their character, the wait 19 period. 20 Because But if I decide I don't want to What makes me different And now me, as a Judge, I can say, no, I still 21 don't want you to vote. 22 have the discretion. 23 Constitution as opposed to the statute? 24 can't tweak the statute. 25 tweak the statute. What's the difference now? I still So why is their argument the You say, well, you I mean this respectfully, you can't It occurred to me that there's a concern Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 154 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 about activist judges, you know, legislature should -- I broke 2 the law, the Judge should interpret it and the executive 3 should enforce it. 4 segregation law? 5 But didn't activist judges strike down So my question is -- my question is, why are we so 6 stuck on defending? Their argument should be with the 7 Constitution as opposed to 13-1 where it says, an 8 unconditional discharge would still be to my discretion as a 9 Judge? 10 MR. COX: 11 the point about the discretion. 12 make on that, is that that argument, obviously, is limited to 13 the subpopulation of people in community supervision who are 14 on probation. 15 supervision. 16 Mr. Rabinovitz will get into this as to wealth classification. 17 On a facial challenge, you've got to show that the statute is 18 unconstitutional in all of its applications. 19 Jones v. DeSantis case in the Northern District of Florida is 20 actually instructive here. 21 Court judge in as-applied challenge in a class action of 22 actual people who had had their rights revoked because of the 23 financial obligations held that under the intermediate 24 scrutiny standard, it was invalid as applied to those 25 individuals. Because, Your Honor, the -- I understand There are a couple points to It doesn't apply to parolees and post-release Two, on a facial challenge -- and my colleague You know, the In that case, a Federal District And the 11th Circuit held that as well. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter The 155 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Court was not looking at a facial challenge and considering in 2 all of its applications, is this statute unconstitutional? 3 And, you know, with respect to the Free Elections 4 Clause, if the issue that Judge Bell is rasing is the intent 5 behind the law, I think it's particularly relevant to consider 6 what the intent was when the legislature put in this regime. 7 Certainly, the legislature in 1973 could not have been 8 foreseeing what the sort of fines and fees regime would be 9 40 years later or 50 years later, and whether a judge would 10 have unfettered discretion to extend a period of probation. 11 shouldn't say unfettered discretion because it can only be 12 extended so far. 13 the consent of a defendant on restitution extended farther. 14 But for the purposes of considering the contempt I It can only go five years total, unless with 15 legally -- intent legally, you know, you look at what the 16 intent was of the legislature at the time. 17 that, you know, what discretion is allowed for judges now 18 could have entered the minds of the legislators at the time. 19 Any relevance it may have now, you know, would have to be a 20 challenge to the scheme that's been put into place now that 21 grants that discretion and somehow arguing that it is linked 22 to an intent to continue discrimination or to continue 23 disenfranchisement. 24 different sort of eras of lawmaking here, and the intent is 25 relevant only with respect to the legislature that enacted the And I'm not sure You know, we're talking about very Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 156 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 law. 2 JUDGE GREGORY: It appears as though the numbers 3 bear that out as far as the statistics. 4 I'll say, and it's still stuck with me about this difference 5 between a person that is convicted of felony larceny based on 6 $1,000 and a person that's convicted of misdemeanor larceny 7 based on under $1,000. 8 compelling interest between those two people when the person 9 that's convicted of the felony because $1,000 -- stole a But the last thing And that if the intent -- what's the 10 $1,000 TV, and the other person stole a TV that was $999, that 11 person gets a misdemeanor. 12 horrific misdemeanor record can vote, but the same -- that 13 other person with a felony larceny for a TV, $1,000, no 14 record, may be on probation, cannot. 15 interest between those two? 16 MR. COX: Misdemeanor can vote and -- have a What's the compelling That's where I'm at. Understood, Your Honor. Understood, Your 17 Honor. 18 that a compelling interest would have to be shown, that would 19 be under strict scrutiny. 20 applied strict scrutiny to a situation like this. 21 standard that the Court should apply here is rational basis 22 review. 23 The -- Judge Gregory, first of all, we would concede And there's no case that has So what the In a rational basis review, classifications can be 24 made as long as there is some reasonable basis for making 25 those classifications, they are upheld. In here, you're Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 157 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 talking about a classification of crimes and the seriousness 2 of crimes. 3 determination that certain crimes are to be -- need to be a 4 serious crime, like a felony; certain crimes are to be less 5 serious, as a misdemeanor. 6 reasonable judgment that -- well, actually, the people when 7 they enacted the constitutional provision in the 19th century 8 made a judgment that only those crimes that are deemed 9 serious; in other words, felonies, are going to have a 10 And the legislature obviously had made the And the legislature made a disenfranchising effect. 11 And again, you know, the 13-1 does not make a 12 distinction between misdemeanor and felons. 13 provision of law that prevents people convicted of felony from 14 voting is the Constitution, which has not been challenged. 15 What's been challenged is the Restoration of Rights Statute 16 that gives people who have been convicted of a felony the 17 right to vote back. 18 13-1, the So while there may be an argument that not 19 including misdemeanors or, you know, drawing a bright line 20 between felons and misdemeanors is unreasonable for some -- in 21 some applications, you know, that's not what we're under right 22 here. 23 in our brief, in every case throughout the country that has 24 analyzed the issue of laws that disenfranchise people who 25 have -- commit felonies, they do not apply strict scrutiny. We're under a strict scrutiny regime. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And as we show 158 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 They do not require that the -- the distinction drawn in the 2 statute have such a tight relationship to the goals that the 3 legislature was after. 4 JUDGE DUNLOW: Counsel, I got a question in 5 response to that. 6 the relief requested by the Plaintiffs in this action, would 7 that in any way address that distinction that Judge Gregory is 8 bringing up with respect to the misdemeanor versus felon 9 larceny treatment? 10 So if the Court were to grant 100 percent MR. COX: If the court were to grant the relief of 11 the Plaintiffs requesting as 100 percent, it would address 12 only the situation where a person who's convicted of a felony 13 does not get prison time. 14 JUDGE DUNLOW: And then -What provision would the Court have 15 to deal with or strike or change or invalidate in order to 16 effect that -- a remedy to that issue? 17 MR. COX: Yea. To the issue of the disparate 18 treatment between felons and misdemeanants at large, it would 19 have to be to repeal the constitutional provision. 20 that's not challenged here and it's not -- I'm not sure it 21 would be within the Court's power unless we were dealing with, 22 for example, you know, the Supremacy Clause issue where the 23 constitutional provision was challenged under the federal 24 constitution, and then a state constitution or provision could 25 fall. Obviously, But, yes, the distinction that's made between people Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 159 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 convicted of felonies and everyone else is a distinction made 2 in the constitution. So turning to the Free Elections Clause, we talked 3 4 about the two cases that have -- I've actually directly 5 addressed this question and have found that a Free Elections 6 Clause doesn't apply. 7 the Plaintiffs raise about, you know, statutes that allow for 8 only men to vote, and that wouldn't violate the Free Elections 9 Clause. 10 I want to address the red herrings that Well, it's a red herring because there's other constitutional provisions that would come into play there. 11 The Free Elections Clause is designed to -- for a 12 very specific issue. 13 address situations where there's unequal treatment, that's the 14 Equal Protection Clause. 15 something to say about a State Constitution that only allowed 16 men to vote, obviously. 17 have the same thing to say about people convicted of a felony. 18 A brief word about the Stephenson case. Those other provisions are designed to The Federal Constitution would have But the Federal Constitution doesn't The 19 Plaintiffs discussed that case and argue that the suffrage 20 provision that denies the right to vote to people who have 21 been convicted a felony cannot be read literally. 22 out -- it cannot be used literally to deny all felons the 23 right to vote, otherwise it would violate other provisions of 24 the constitution. 25 example. And taken And they use the Stephenson case as an Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 160 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 One thing with the Stephenson case just a little 1 2 bit, just to explain why that doesn't make any sense is in the 3 Stephenson case, the Court was considering the whole county 4 provision. 5 provision -- and this is a redistricting provision requiring 6 the legislature to keep counties whole to the extent that it 7 can in redistricting. 8 provision must be given effect. 9 And what the Court did with the whole county The Court held that the whole county What had happened in the background of the 10 Stephenson case was that there was a federal court case that 11 said that you can't apply the whole county provision because 12 you would have such gerrymandered districts, disproportionate 13 population districts that it wouldn't violate the Voting 14 Rights Act -- it wouldn't -- it would violate the Voting 15 Rights Act. 16 So there was an argument that the whole county provisions just 17 couldn't be applied at all. 18 here in the Stephenson case was no, no, no, you have to give 19 effect to provisions of this federal -- of the North Carolina 20 constitution unless there's a clear showing that under the 21 Supremacy Clause, the Federal Constitution prohibits it. 22 whole county provision was required to be given effect. 23 It would violate other provisions of federal law. But what the court held instead The What the Court then did is analysis of whether the 24 remedy proposed by the Plaintiffs for a whole county violation 25 was valid. And so what the Plaintiffs are trying to take from Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 161 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 that remedial discussion about the whole county provision is 2 that a provision of the Constitution cannot violate another 3 provision of the Constitution. 4 wasn't dealing with the whole county provision violating 5 another provision of the Constitution. 6 with Plaintiffs proposing a remedy where you use the whole 7 county provision to ensure that Mecklenburg County has one 8 district with five representatives. 9 district with one representative. Well, in fact, the Court The Court was dealing Surry County has one And the court said, you 10 can't do that because that gives unequal weight to people in 11 Mecklenburg and Surry Counties. 12 Those weren't the actual counties at issue. 13 holding of the court. 14 read the provisions of the North Carolina Constitution to not 15 give an effect because of some other provisions of the North 16 Carolina Constitution. 17 That's just an example. But that was the It wasn't that, you know, you have to The Plaintiffs discuss Holmes case because they 18 contend that Defendants are relying on the suffrage provisions 19 of the North Carolina Constitution to say that 13-1 is 20 permissible. 21 provision that specifically required the legislature to enact 22 legislation to give it effect. 23 self executing. 24 provision in the same section we were looking at earlier, it 25 specifically requires the legislature to come in and pass The Holmes case dealt with the photo ID The photo ID provision is not And when the Court reads the photo ID Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 162 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 enacting -- enabling legislature. 2 case that when the legislature comes in and enacts an enabling 3 legislation, pure legislation, it can't violate other 4 provisions of the Constitution, such as Equal Protection 5 Clause. 6 And, obviously, it's the In that case, there was an intentional 7 discrimination claim under the Equal Protection Clause. 8 did not hold though that a whole class of constitutional 9 provisions are subject to judicial review. So it It didn't hold 10 that, you know, all of the suffrage provisions in Article VI 11 should be reviewed under other constitutional provisions, for 12 example. 13 So not to confuse, the issue is, you know, as we're 14 arguing, you can't read the Free Elections Clause, for 15 example, to say that all people can vote when the Constitution 16 itself only allows certain people to vote. 17 just ignore provisions of the Constitution, and the cases 18 Plaintiffs cite do not allow for the Court to ignore other 19 provisions of the Constitution. 20 To do so would Now, on the equal protection violation allegation, 21 as we explained in our brief, there are two circumstances in 22 which heightened scrutiny applies under Equal Protection 23 Analysis. 24 a fundamental right and/or when declassified based upon a 25 suspect class. One is when the law interferes with the exercise of We'll take those two one by one. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 163 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 Every court that has examined the issue of whether 2 a state can deny the right to vote to people convicted of 3 felonies has determined that the Court should not apply 4 heightened scrutiny because the fundamental right to vote 5 cases only apply to qualified voters and not to voters who the 6 Constitution otherwise forbids from voting. 7 starts from the United States Supreme Court case in Ramirez 8 from 1974 where the court held that there's a provision of the 9 14th Amendment that's called the reapportionment penalty -- 10 the apportionment penalty that essentially says that if you 11 deny the right to vote to certain classes of people, then you 12 won't get as many congressional representatives. 13 penalty to states that continue to deny the right to vote. 14 carves out people who have been convicted of crimes. 15 court held that because the reapportionment -- the 16 apportionment penalty doesn't apply to the denial of the right 17 to vote to people who have been convicted of crimes. 18 not going to apply a strict scrutiny or heightened scrutiny to 19 a state law that prevents people who have been convicted of a 20 crime from voting. 21 force to the North Carolina Constitution and other 22 Constitutions that explicitly prohibit voting by people who 23 have been convicted of a felony. 24 recall, didn't have that explicit permission. 25 implicit permission that the Court inferred from the The line of cases It's a And the We're That reasoning applies with even greater The U.S. Constitution, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter It It was an 164 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 apportionment penalty. But this reasoning obviously applies 2 with greater force where the Constitution's text allows it, 3 the denial of vote. I discussed briefly, you know, a case we cited in 4 5 our briefs, the Adams v. Clinton case from the DC -- DC 6 District Court. 7 case where Judge Merrick Garland, who then was on the DC 8 Circuit Court, and another judge authored the opinion in a 9 lengthy, reasoned analysis that talks about, you know, federal 10 voting rights claims that are all foreclosed when, quote, "the 11 voting qualification of which plaintiffs complain is one drawn 12 by the Constitution itself." 13 here. 14 It was a three-judge panel, Federal Court That's exactly what is at issue That's the Adams v. Clinton opinion. The Court goes on to explain, quoting here, "The 15 Equal Protection Clause does not protect the right of all 16 citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified 17 citizens to vote." 18 the Reynolds v. Sims case, the seminal one person, one vote 19 case from the U.S. Supreme Court. 20 That's also at Pin/1966. And it's quoting The Adams case was discussing the denial of the 21 vote for congressional representatives for residents of the 22 District of Columbia. 23 how strict scrutiny doesn't apply. 24 absence of a compelling ground for denying District of 25 Columbia citizens the right to vote cannot result in the And the courts, you know, talked about It says that, "Even the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 165 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 judicial grant thereof." 2 of the right to vote for District of Columbia citizens because 3 the Federal Constitution prohibits it. 4 In other words, the judicial grant The Court also explained how that -- you know, 5 there are other provisions of the Federal Constitution that 6 have been upheld under this principle, such as the 7 apportionment of Senate seats. 8 vote doesn't apply to, you know, the weight of your vote for a 9 U.S. senator because a person voting for a senator in Obviously, one person, one 10 California versus a person voting for a senator in Montana has 11 a greatly (audio distortion). 12 electoral college. 13 The same is true for the So the Federal Courts have interpreted this and 14 said that where the Constitution draws the distinction itself, 15 it cannot be that strict scrutiny applies or heightened 16 scrutiny applies, the right to vote is not implicated -- the 17 fundamental right to vote is not implicated. 18 court that has applied this reasoning -- or every state court 19 that has looked at the federal disenfranchisement regime of 20 those states have come to the same conclusion, that it is 21 rational basis review, and we've cited to six -- five state 22 court cases that we found that have addressed this issue. 23 In every state The Plaintiffs try to make an argument that there 24 is a distinction to be drawn between the fundamental right to 25 vote, which these cases hold is not applicable here to this Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 166 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 2 19 CVS 15941 population -JUDGE BELL: Mr. Cox, you said it's not applicable 3 to this population. 4 referring to are unqualified voters or they're people not 5 qualified to vote; is that right? 6 7 8 9 MR. COX: You're -- this population that you are By applying their own text of the Constitution, right, yea. JUDGE BELL: But they are only unqualified because they've been convicted of a felony. But the continuation or 10 the length of time or the conditions of their disqualification 11 are legislatively determined. 12 MR. COX: That's what's done; correct? That is right, Your Honor. And, you 13 know, the Jones v. Florida case from the 11th Circuit talks 14 about how, you know, there wouldn't be a heightened scrutiny 15 if the State just simply disenfranchised felons forever. 16 is within the state's purview. 17 rationale, but that is what the Court said would be within the 18 State's purview and regulation of the right to vote. 19 the way that the State provides the franchise -- 20 JUDGE DUNLOW: That It may not be a good policy I have a question. So, yes, Are there states 21 that deny the right to vote permanently to convicted felons? 22 Does that continue in any state today? 23 MR. COX: I believe there are a couple of states, 24 but it's a little bit confusing because Iowa, for example, has 25 that in its law, but that the governor of Iowa, I believe, has Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 167 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 issued an executive order that essentially does what North 2 Carolina currently does with its law. 3 any states still in practice do this, but, certainly, the way 4 the laws are written in some state, it allows for it, but -- 5 as it's been implemented. 6 currently does that. 7 So I'm not sure that I'm not sure that any state The plurality of states -- the majority of states 8 are in the same bucket as North Carolina in terms of providing 9 the right to vote as soon as the sentence is completed. Some 10 states have gone further and have given the right to vote 11 back, not denied it for probationers, not denied it for people 12 on parole, essentially the relief that the Plaintiffs are 13 seeking here, and, obviously, those are policy choices made by 14 those states. 15 that allow it that is growing. 16 do not deny the right to vote at all. 17 and Vermont, maybe, are the two states. 18 And there are a number -- the number of states There are two states only that I believe it's Maine So the distinction the Plaintiffs are trying to 19 make between a fundamental right to vote and the equal 20 provision of the right to vote is a false distinction. 21 one just looks at the dereliction of the Equal Protection of 22 right to vote cases in North Carolina, you understand that. 23 North Carolina's equal right to jurisprudence originates in 24 the Texas Industries case, which both Plaintiffs and we cite 25 from 1980. There, the court incorporated the federal Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And if 168 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 jurisprudence from Reynolds v. Sims and other cases 2 recognizing a federal fundamental right to vote under the 3 Federal Constitution, incorporated that into North Carolina's 4 Equal Protection Clause. 5 regarding residency requirements. 6 case, coming three years later in 1983, the Court applied the 7 holding of Texas Industries to hold under the Equal Protection 8 Clause analysis. 9 se that is protected, but rather the fundamental right to vote Also, the Dunn v. Blumstein case Then in the White v. Pate "It is not the fundamental right to vote per 10 on equal terms." 11 there is no distinction here. 12 these cases is the right to vote on equal terms. 13 So what the Court is explaining there, is What we're applying in all So the distinction that the Plaintiffs are trying 14 to draw is a false one. 15 cases boil down to the application of what the Warren Court in 16 the 1970s announced was the fundamental right to vote and has 17 been incorporated in the states' Constitutions. 18 Originally -- eventually all these So, you know, it is an effort to sort of get around 19 all of the precedent that establishes that the right to vote 20 cases do not apply to felon disenfranchisement regimes, but 21 it's ultimately unavailing because it ignores that there is no 22 distinction drawn in the statutes -- or in the cases. 23 Because rational basis review applies under the 24 Liebs case that we've cited, which is a -- you know, then 25 Court of Appeals Judge Beasley case, the statute has to bear Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 169 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 some rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate 2 governmental interest, or alternatively, there is a plausible 3 policy reason for the classification. 4 this is a tremendous burden to a challenger because it is 5 inherently differential. 6 And as the Court held, The Court says it's so differential. The bright-line distinction that 13-1 draws is 7 between people who are serving a felony sentence, still 8 serving a felony sentence and those who are not. 9 identified multiple legitimate rationals in our brief for why 10 11 And we've the legislature drew a reasonable line there. First of all, the State Constitution establishes a 12 distinction between felons and nonfelons, obviously, by 13 denying the right to vote for people who have been convicted 14 of a felony. 15 The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this distinction as a, 16 quote, "reasonable ground for the eligibility of voting," the 17 Trop case that we cite. 18 So it's part of our organic law of the state. Second, we do note that the cases -- that the cases 19 hold that "violating society's laws means that you have 20 foregone the opportunity to participate in the selection of 21 the people who are making the laws and applying the laws." 22 Now, you know, one may disagree with that policy rationale, 23 but it is a policy rationale that is legitimate. 24 rational basis review, it can be given effect -- must be 25 considered by the court on a rational basis review. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And under Because 170 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 ultimately, the Plaintiffs have the burden of negativing any 2 rational basis that could support a law under rational basis 3 review. 4 Then third, we talked about the fact that 5 withholding the franchise until showing full rehabilitation is 6 recognized as legitimate in the case law, and we cited a 7 number of cases for that. 8 was the actual motivation by the legislature in 1973. 9 Senator Michaux testified in his deposition, talking about how And it's also confirmed that this And 10 the intent was to provide the right to vote when someone had 11 finished their term and been rehabilitated. 12 Drawing this bright-line distinction, as compared 13 to the former law, in particular, of chapter 13, also promotes 14 voter participation among people who were convicted of 15 felonies. 16 particularly onerous. 17 article that's contemporaneous from there. 18 from 1971, it changed the law that says that "under the prior 19 regime, only about 10 percent -- estimated 10 percent of 20 people who finished their felony sentence were able to get 21 their voting back." 22 automatic, that increased by tenfold the number of people who 23 have had their rights restored. 24 obviously, had a salutary effect on voter participation and -- 25 Because, obviously, the prior regime was And we cite to a News & Observer I believe it's Obviously, by making a rights restoration JUDGE GREGORY: So, obviously, it -- that, Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (audio 171 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 distortion) 2 you that you can't vote, why don't they do the converse and 3 say, when you can vote, we're going to send a letter to you 4 also? 5 tell them, you can't vote. 6 once they are actually eligible, the State Board never sends 7 you a letter saying, hey, you can vote. 8 sure I understand. Then when the State Board sends a letter telling If they want people to participate, they are willing to You are not allowed to vote. But I'm trying to make 9 They want voter participation in that part of the 10 statute, then why don't they also send you a letter when you 11 are eligible to vote? 12 Department of DPS is (audio distortion) -- well, they're not 13 just elected, they can't. 14 they can vote, because you are willing to send them a letter 15 telling them they can't vote. 16 MR. COX: That's like saying, Well, the Send them a letter and tell them Your Honor, that's a legitimate policy 17 disagreement with the State Board of Elections and, you know, 18 that the legislature could take that up and pass a law 19 requiring the State Board of Elections to do that. 20 But ultimately, it's a policy disagreement. The -- 21 what the legislature did instead in 13-2 was require that the 22 entity that has custody of the person to inform that person 23 when they have their rights restored. 24 governs the conduct of the State Board of Elections in turn 25 required the State Board of Elections to inform someone when The Chapter 163 that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 172 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 their rights have been -- when they're taken off the 2 registration roles because of a felony sentence. 3 So, you know, if Your Honor was rewriting the law, 4 then perhaps that would be a reasonable way to do it. 5 legislature, obviously, decided that the entities that would 6 have custody of the person, will have supervision of the 7 person if they are on supervision would announce to that 8 person that their rights are restored and tell them how they 9 can go and exercise those rights. The And that same legislative 10 body has told the Board of Elections that it should be the one 11 to tell voters that they are no longer registered to vote. 12 So, you know, again, this goes to a difference of policy 13 determinations. 14 reasonable differences on policy are -- result in favor of the 15 legislature. 16 It's under rational basis review that the JUDGE GREGORY: Is that still a continuation of a 17 legislative intent particularly that was designed in the 18 beginning to discriminate against certain people as far as 19 voting? 20 That's my question. MR. COX: I'm not so sure there's been any evidence 21 presented that having the entities with custody or supervisory 22 responsibility over a person convicted of a felony to announce 23 their restoration of their rights, you know, placing that 24 responsibility with DPS, or at the time DOC, or the Courts, 25 that -- for some reason that was designed to disenfranchise Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 173 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 people. 2 distinction that the legislature drew was one that was 3 discriminatory intent. 4 that. I don't think there's any evidence that that The Plaintiffs haven't challenged They haven't argued that. 5 JUDGE GREGORY: But if you want to avoid confusion, 6 if a person has been convicted of a felony and that they 7 believe that they can't vote, even if they are still at a 8 point now where they actually can vote, but they are afraid 9 because they've received a letter previously saying, you can't 10 vote. 11 don't know because they haven't received a letter telling them 12 that they can vote. 13 Wasn't that what the statute was designed to avoid? Now they are eligible, but they are afraid because they 14 MR. COX: Isn't that still -- that's confusing. Yes. I do think the statute was designed 15 to avoid it under a rational basis review. 16 to -- doesn't have to be, you know, score 100 in addressing 17 the problems it was trying to address. 18 addressed some aspects of confusion, but I'm going to fully 19 concede that there are ways that you can make it even less 20 confusing. 21 policy determinations for legislature and the legislature is 22 giving the deference to make a reasonable policy 23 determination. 24 strict scrutiny, perhaps it would be relevant to when the 25 legislature is trying to avoid confusion, but the policy The statute has The statute obviously But under a rational basis review, those are And, you know, if we are operating under Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 174 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 doesn't actually avoid the confusion or only avoids some 2 confusion, not all confusion, that would be relevant to a 3 strict scrutiny analysis. 4 scrutiny analysis under any authority that has looked at this 5 regime -- or this type of voting case. 6 But we are not under a strict And also, Your Honor, to address your point, maybe 7 I can point you to a couple of items that would help the 8 Court, I think, in understanding -- Yes, Your Honor. 9 JUDGE DUNLOW: If I can ask one question. In 10 reading 13-1, does that even require that the probation 11 department -- it requires them to file that unconditional 12 discharge with the clerk of court, but does it even require 13 that they notify the probationer or -- that his or her rights 14 have been restored? 15 MR. COX: You know, Your Honor. I don't have the 16 text in front of me, so I'm not exactly sure. 17 going to do and what I propose to do is show the Court what 18 DPS has given to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs have given 19 to us as to what a probation officer gives someone when they 20 are closed out of probation, and this is -- so that the Court 21 can have a full understanding of what we're talking about 22 here. 23 But what I'm And this is -- you know, this was discovery 24 provided pursuant to a subpoena issued by the Plaintiffs. 25 Plaintiffs then, in turn, provided it to the Defendants. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter The It's 175 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 from the Department of Public Safety. 2 e-mail just from Plaintiffs' counsel to us that provided these 3 materials under Rule 45, which they are required to do under 4 Rule 45 when they receive documents from a subpoena. 5 is the original e-mail -- cover e-mail from the DPS, the 6 Department of Public Safety, providing the records. 7 point the Court to Paragraph 3 -- sorry, that highlighting is 8 probably hard to read. I'm sharing here the And this And I'll 9 The response for request for production included -- 10 it includes the community correction policy section pertaining 11 to restoration of rights for probationers and post-release 12 supervisees and parolees, the notice of voting rights provided 13 to offenders upon the end of their supervision terms, the 14 voter registration form provided to offenders upon the end of 15 the supervision term and other items. 16 going to just scroll through some of the items that are 17 provided. 18 And this is -- I'm This is the policy document that DPS provided for 19 the probation officers to closeout. 20 case comes to an end, the probation officers conduct a 21 closeout interview. 22 order of final discharge. 23 Here, in Subsection F for felony (audio distortion) the 24 officer will give the offender a notice concerning restoration 25 and voter rights and a voter registration form. It talks about when a Then they complete a form DCC15 that's an I'll show that form in a second. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And then for 176 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 felony probationers, its period of probation is terminated 2 early, complete a DCC13, a certificate of restoration of 3 rights. 4 well. 5 restoration of rights. 6 the above individual's supervision period has ended." 7 then below it says in bold, "for convicted felons only, the 8 restoration of rights. 9 been forfeited, including the right to vote, are by law 10 And I'll show that certificate here in a second as So that's a policy document. Here's the certificate of Here, "the public safety confirms that And Pursuant to 13-1, all rights that have automatically restored." 11 Next we looked at the final discharge paper. 12 Again, here includes the same language about restoration of 13 rights for those convicted of felonies. 14 registration form that's provided. 15 the notice document, which the probation officers provide that 16 clearly explains that "if you're convicted of a felony, you 17 forfeited your right to vote. 18 sentence, your citizenship rights are automatically restored. 19 You are now eligible to vote" -- and it discusses how you 20 still need to complete your registration form to be eligible 21 to vote. And then a voter And most importantly is Upon completion of your 22 JUDGE DUNLOW: 23 right there and ask you a question. 24 "Upon completion of your sentence, your citizenship rights are 25 automatically restored." Counsel, I want to ask -- stop you Where it indicates there, And I had asked the question Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 177 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 previously, earlier today of Plaintiffs' counsel. 2 can answer this question. 3 perhaps they are brought back to Court for whatever reason, 4 the probation is terminated and the probationer still owes 5 money, be it supervision fees, restitution, or attorney's 6 fees, whatever that may be, and the probation is terminated 7 without the making of those monetary obligations a civil 8 judgment, does this still apply? 9 disenfranchised or are they then going to receive this Maybe you If the probation is terminated, Are they still 10 unconditional discharge regardless of those monies that were 11 not paid? 12 MR. COX: I can only answer based upon my reading 13 actually of this group of documents provided by DPS. 14 certainly suggests that once you are closed out of probation 15 and you are no longer under supervision, then your rights are 16 restored. 17 that happens, you know, you are informed of -- your rights are 18 restored and you can go register to vote. 19 just some research to confirm that. 20 JUDGE DUNLOW: It Because what the policy says is, that as soon as We may have to do Is it their policy -- is it DPS 21 policy that once the case is terminated, this happens and they 22 file the unconditional discharge with the clerk's office? 23 MR. COX: Yes. The unconditional discharge is 24 cited earlier up here, included earlier. 25 which is the DCC -- I can't remember which form it was called. Final discharge, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 178 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 But, yes, that's in the policy. 2 be filed with the clerk's office. 3 JUDGE DUNLOW: It says that that's going to That final discharge is the 4 document -- is the legal document that verifies their 5 re-enfranchisement, their ability to vote; is that correct? 6 7 MR. COX: Yes. That would certainly be uncontroverted evidence that they are entitled to vote now. 8 JUDGE DUNLOW: 9 JUDGE GREGORY: All right. Thank you. With this documentation that you 10 are presenting, why don't they receive from the State Board of 11 Election? 12 legislature telling the State Board they must send this letter 13 to a convicted felon telling that person they've lost the 14 right to vote? 15 Was that mandated or is that mandated from the MR. COX: I think that is correct. 16 provision of Chapter 163 that requires that. 17 it. 18 There is a I need to find Maybe on my rebuttal time I'll cite it for you. JUDGE GREGORY: Is there anything that the 19 legislature dictates to the State Board saying, once they 20 complied with the felony probation, you have to send a letter 21 telling them that they have a right to vote? 22 MR. COX: No. There is a provision there that 23 requires that the State Board work with DPS to make sure that 24 people who have their restoration of rights are informed, and 25 because DPS does that, that provision is complied with. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 179 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 JUDGE GREGORY: Was that document that you provided 2 that you just showed us, that document says, final mandate, 3 does that person -- they have to fill that out; is that 4 correct? 5 6 MR. COX: I believe that the probation officer would fill that out. 7 JUDGE BELL: 8 MR. COX: 9 JUDGE BELL: 10 Fill that out for the person? Right. Can you put that back up briefly? just want to -- I apologize. 11 MR. COX: 12 JUDGE DUNLOW: 13 I Sure. No problem. And, counsel, are these exhibits included in any of your filings? 14 MR. COX: They are not, Your Honor. And, you know, 15 we originally were not going to rely on them until the 16 Plaintiffs made their arguments in the reply brief about the 17 State Board and it does or does not tell people. 18 know, it's in response to new information that they put 19 forward in their reply brief. 20 21 JUDGE DUNLOW: So, you Could you provide that to us, the Court, in electronic format following your presentation? 22 MR. COX: 23 JUDGE GREGORY: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. Now, Mr. Cox, can you 24 go down to the portion where the probation officer fills that 25 out? Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 180 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 MR. COX: 2 JUDGE GREGORY: (No audible answer.) Okay. So this document -- this is 3 the document the probation officer fills out on behalf of the 4 person that's been convicted of a felony, telling them that 5 now they are unconditionally discharged and their rights are 6 restored. 7 8 MR. COX: of rights. 9 So that's the certificate of restoration Then this other form is the final discharge form. JUDGE GREGORY: Without that form being complete, 10 that person still has not been -- their rights are not 11 automatically restored until that form is completed; is that 12 correct? 13 MR. COX: I believe that's correct. But I'd like 14 to -- I have to check with the Department of Public Safety and 15 see if there's perhaps any other indication to a person once 16 they are discharged that -- outside these forms that might 17 indicate that as well. 18 JUDGE GREGORY: Okay. So in conclusion, once the 19 State Board sends you a letter telling you, you can't vote 20 because you have been convicted of a felony, that's automatic; 21 but once you are eligible to vote, if you have complied with 22 all the conditions of probation, it's not necessarily 23 automatic until this form is filled out. 24 you have a right to vote, but there's not -- the only person 25 or group that's going to give you an indication that, hey, you It's telling them Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 181 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 are eligible to vote again would be the Department of 2 Corrections assuming they filled this form out? 3 MR. COX: I suppose that's right, Your Honor. I 4 mean, all of the State Board's forms that Mr. Jacobson 5 referred to earlier, including the voter registration form and 6 the authorization to vote that you sign when you go to vote in 7 person, the absentee ballot envelope that you have to sign, 8 all of them discuss how, you know, if you are still serving a 9 sentence and you haven't completed it, then your right to vote 10 has not been restored. 11 case that, you know, this is the only information that you 12 would have. 13 administered, this is what you would -- I think someone would 14 typically determine how their rights are restored, yes. 15 So, you know, it's not exactly the But under the way that it -- this is JUDGE GREGORY: One conclusion then, I apologize, 16 but don't you find it concerning that the State tells you in a 17 letter, you can't vote. 18 and that's mandated by the legislature telling the State Board 19 to send a convicted felon that letter; but at the same time, 20 when the person is eligible to vote, there's confusion there 21 as to their eligibility, there's confusion in reference to 22 this form that I haven't seen, this final discharge. 23 that cause you concern to say, well, wait a second, the 24 legislative intent from that (audio distortion) for whipping 25 to judicial discretion in public opinion and a wait period to They make sure you get that letter Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter Doesn't 182 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 now, we're saying it's an automatic right as long as you are 2 unconditionally discharged, and there's still some discretion 3 in the Court and apparently the State Board doesn't have to 4 tell you that you are eligible. 5 MR. COX: 6 Does that concern you? From a policy personally, from a policy perspective? 7 From a policy perspective, I -- you know, Attorney 8 Paul Cox might have drafted the law differently. 9 know. I don't The point is that the legislature under rational basis 10 review can make reasonable determinations as to which State 11 entity is going to be the one to announce when your rights are 12 taken away and when your rights are restored. 13 I'm not so sure that -- I understand the reason for going down 14 this discussion, is to discuss, you know, whether the intent 15 to avoid confusion is fully complied with, whether it fully 16 avoids all confusion. 17 provided before, which is that under rational basis review, 18 you don't have to have a perfect fit to the intent that you 19 have there to reduce confusion. 20 reduce confusion. 21 statute did in 1973 was to reduce some confusion, that 22 satisfies that requirement. 23 You know, I -- And my response is the same as I The policy rationale is to That's a legitimate basis. And if what the What Your Honor is talking about is potentially an 24 intentional discrimination argument. 25 argument, no argument whatsoever put forward or a claim put And there's been no Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 183 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 forward that the -- putting the announcement of the rights 2 revocation in the care of one State agency and the 3 announcement of the restoration rights in the care of another 4 State agency indicates some sort of discriminatory intent. 5 It's not been alleged or claimed here. 6 can't be the case because we're talking about present day. 7 And the intent with respect to 1973 legislature is what was 8 going on in 1973. 9 JUDGE BELL: And, obviously, that Honestly -- that's all right. Go 10 ahead. 11 reminder. 12 legislation whenever, Judge Gregory, you are finished with -- 13 I think that was Judge Gregory asking the question there. I'm going to do this because it's in my mind just as a 14 Thank you. But I want to go back to that 1973 JUDGE GREGORY: What I was going to say, Judge 15 Bell, well, how do we change the racial disparity? 16 disparity is still there, wouldn't you agree, Mr. Cox? 17 MR. COX: Yes. The racial Yes, racial disparity is there. 18 You know, the legislators who were trying to address the 19 racial disparity were addressing the racial disparity with 20 respect to those who did -- had their rights denied 21 permanently. 22 rights are restored automatically when you had your sentence 23 completed. 24 discrimination analysis but, you know, there's no question 25 that today there is still a disparity in how, you know, the They addressed that by making sure that your And, you know, I can get now into the intentional Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 184 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 criminal justice system operates, in how sentencing operates, 2 and as -- as a result in how its disenfranchisement regime 3 operates as well. 4 But, you know, to talk about how the criminal 5 justice system operates now and import that back into 1973 and 6 say that must have been what was in the minds of those 7 legislators when they enacted 13-1, I don't think it's the 8 right way to do the analysis. 9 was going through -- what about the disparity evidences a 10 discriminatory intent. 11 You have to think about what And -- JUDGE GREGORY: (Audio distortion) But we know that 12 Representative Frey and Representative Michaux and Johnson at 13 some point said they would prefer to have it in once you 14 served your prison sentence, but they are willing to accept 15 this 13-1. 16 But, Judge Bell, you can go. 17 JUDGE BELL: I'm done. This is actually a perfect segue into 18 that, sir. 19 the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission 20 because, Mr. Cox, you kept referring to, you know, the 21 legislature's intent back in 1973. 22 structured sentencing now. 23 sentencing dating back to 1981. 24 25 I thank you for that. I pulled up an article from We obviously are under Prior to 1994, we had fair So I want to -- in 1981, I was still in high school, so I wasn't quite sure what the -- some of you all Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 185 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 probably weren't born, but anyway, about sentencing at that 2 point. 3 Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission talks about 4 in -- prior to 1981, North Carolina had indeterminate 5 sentencing law. 6 to set sentences, and the parole commission could release an 7 inmate at almost any point during the prison term. 8 9 And so this article from November of 2000, The North Under these laws, judges had wide discretion The paragraph before that, it talks about a shift to determine if sentencing laws and Fair Sentencing Act. The 10 1980s witnessed a shift by states across the country from 11 indeterminate sentencing laws to determinate sentencing laws. 12 Research showing that the criminal justice system was failing 13 to rehabilitate reports that minorities were receiving grossly 14 disparate sentences, and the tough-on-crime attitude which 15 took root, especially with regard to drugs, all led to the 16 growing popularity of determinate sentencing laws and 17 mandatory minimums. 18 apparently, it would have been recognizing with the law you 19 talked about. 20 And so my point in that is that it was -- Back in 1973, there were only three African 21 Americans in the legislature making this decision. 22 research shows that African Americans were receiving gross -- 23 and it even uses the word "grossly disparate sentences." 24 Sentencing was completely in the discretion of judges. 25 would guess, probably accurately, that judges in the '70s or Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter This I 186 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 1971, '2, '3 were white men. 2 "sentence," and I -- and maybe this is a more modern 3 interpretation of that. 4 someone, it is -- if it's a probationary term, I refer to that 5 as a judgment. 6 with, not the terms of their sentence. 7 sentence, I'm expecting them to be incarcerated. 8 of the word "sentence" by, you know, the deponents, 9 Mr. Michaux and (audio distortion) referring to that time. And then the use of the word I -- when you I say, I sentence The terms of the judgment they have to comply If I refer to a So the use I 10 think in light of the history, it doesn't anticipate probation 11 in the way that you're suggesting. 12 the overpopulation in prisons and disproportionately by 13 African Americans. 14 conditions of citizenship restoration, it's with the knowledge 15 that people are going to prison for felonies. 16 being placed on probation for felonies, not like they are 17 under structured sentencing. 18 mean, less discretion because with fair sentencing, you have 19 maximums and minimums, but nonetheless, the prevalence was 20 toward active sentences. 21 being corrected on that, but was that not the state of our 22 state; the mindset of the legislature, the awareness of these 23 individuals in enacting this revision in 1973 with the 24 knowledge that African Americans were going to prison and were 25 going for longer periods of time than people not of -- not It's -- it's recognizing So when they are looking at these People are not And the same would be true -- I So was that -- I mean, I'm open to Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 187 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 2 19 CVS 15941 people of color? MR. COX: I'm not aware that that's in the record, 3 Your Honor, that this was, you know, something that would have 4 been known to the members of the legislature at the time. 5 have to go back to the Plaintiffs' historical expert to see if 6 he's addressed that issue. 7 of all of the changes to the structured sentencing, the 8 changes to the sort of tough-on-crime policies that led to the 9 explosion of the number of people caught in the criminal I know that he addressed the issue 10 justice system. 11 to 1973 or even in 1973. 12 honestly, I don't know the answer to that. 13 I'd I'm not sure that that dates back to -- prior It may be later than that, but I -- But to answer your one -- one aspect of your 14 question about completion of a sentence, I just go back to the 15 argument I made earlier about the original draft that 16 Representative Johnson put into legislature in 1971. 17 was full completion of sentence, how does that restore a 18 probationer's rights if a -- and granted -- I'll take Your 19 Honor's representation that there was not a lot of felony 20 probation going on at the time. 21 how was a person on felony probation going to get their rights 22 back under 13-1 if the way that that legislation was intended 23 was to only automatically restore those rights upon completion 24 of a sentence? 25 interpret sentence, it just doesn't apply to probation. If it But if there was, you know, If it's true that, you know, the way you Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And 188 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 when does the probationer get their rights back? 2 why -- you said it's a logical matter. 3 makes sense that it was the original intent of the drafters to 4 automatically give the right back to a felony probationer as 5 soon as the judgment is announced. 6 history doesn't bear that out. 7 article that Judge Gregory referred to was to discuss the four 8 elements in the specific context of an amendment -- an 9 unfriendly amendment that extended the period after you have That's I don't see how it You know, the legislative And the quotation from the N&O 10 completed your sentence -- imprisonment subject to being able 11 to get the right to vote. 12 the House that was specific in context. So it's a discussion -- a debate in 13 I'll just address a couple other issues. 14 go through further discussion of the interest because we've -- 15 in the interest of time because we've really discussed those 16 in our brief. 17 the Plaintiffs have made an argument without citing any cases, 18 mind you, that we can't rely on certain of these rationales to 19 support a law. 20 I won't But I will just note a couple of things because Under actual basis review, it's their burden to 21 negative every conceivable interest that may be put forward. 22 And, you know, so they are flipping the burden on its head to 23 say that. 24 regime we're operating under -- and, again, they haven't 25 recited any law that forbids us from relying on certain And in any event, the -- even if that were the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 189 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 interest. 2 Interrogatory covers everything that we said here. 3 cover the specific personal language that the Plaintiffs would 4 like, but they do cover them. 5 The interest that we put forward in that It may not In addition, we discussed how the 13-1 was 6 supported by the legislative history, which we provided to the 7 Plaintiffs in document form and by the case law that has 8 interpreted how to apply rational basis review to felony 9 disenfranchisement regimes throughout the country. And I 10 don't think that the plaintiffs can feign surprise when we 11 refer to, you know, cases that have addressed the direct issue 12 on point and say that, oh, we didn't talk about those cases of 13 the things they held in our Interrogatory response. 14 the Plaintiffs are represented by one of the most 15 well-resourced law firms in the country. 16 pejority to think that they were caught off guard by a 17 citation to authority that has addressed the very issue before 18 the Court. 19 I mean, It's strange Also, I'd like to just go through a couple of 20 representations made in the Plaintiffs' brief about the 21 executive director of the State Board, Karen Bell's 22 deposition. 23 establishes that the current regime somehow creates voter 24 confusion, and I think some of their citations to her 25 testimony are misleading, actually. They point out that the deposition somehow Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 190 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 First, contrary to what the Plaintiffs say in their 2 reply and today in argument, she did not disavow the interest 3 asserted by the State Board in its Interrogatory response. 4 Mr. Jacobson in his deposition asked her questions about what 5 interests are served by the disenfranchisement of people on 6 community supervision. 7 Interrogatory response, that is not what the Interrogatory 8 response was discussing. 9 discussing, what are the interests served by the enactment of And if the Court reads the The Interrogatory response was 10 13-1, which after all is the statute under challenge. 11 know, pages and pages of Mr. Jacobson's deposition and 12 Ms. Bell are just irrelevant. 13 So, you Second, does Executive Director Bell disavow any 14 idea that -- you know, Mr. Jacobson is talking about how there 15 was an audit of potential felon voters in 2017, and that 16 somehow that audit is indicative of a false positive rate in 17 the identification of people who should be removed from the 18 voter roles. 19 to the suggestion made by the Plaintiffs. 20 said that, one, she wasn't even with the State Board when that 21 happened, so she doesn't know what data was used to produce 22 that -- those records in that 2017 audit to determine whether 23 people who were still felons were voting and whether it even 24 matches up with the data that's provided regularly by the 25 Department of Public Safety to determine who to remove from And Ms. Bell did not testify to that, contrary Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter She specifically 191 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the registration roles because they're serving an active felon 2 sentence. 3 "You are asking me to speculate about this." 4 later confirmed that she simply doesn't know what data was 5 used to produce that false positive rate in the 2017 audit at 6 76 and 208 of her deposition. 7 At Page 81 of her deposition, she clearly says, And then she Third, the discussion of federal convictions by 8 Mr. Jacobsen also eliminates the context there. 9 explained, the State Board of Elections doesn't get told by 10 the U.S. Attorney's Office -- this is true -- when somebody 11 finishes their federal sentence. 12 specifically testified that would not prevent someone from 13 registering to vote and thereby voting. 14 false that she testified to the contrary. 15 As Ms. Bell But that does not -- she So it's completely And finally, the discussion about out-of-state 16 convictions is also wrong. 17 very next paragraph after they talk about the out-of-state 18 testimony, that there are numerous documents that the State 19 Board produces and that voters they confront whenever they 20 register to vote in an absentee ballot, go to vote either 21 early or in person that tells them that if you are serving an 22 active sentence, you cannot vote. 23 Because, as Plaintiffs note in the So even if the State Board doesn't get ahold of, 24 you know, somebody's convictions from Virginia and informs 25 them that they are unable to vote, it is before them in the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 192 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 forms that they have to sign and fill out in order to 2 participate in elections. One note about whether the rationale that we cite 3 4 from 1973 have to carry forward to today. In other words, the 5 Plaintiffs are arguing that not only can it be that 6 Representative Michaux and his colleagues had a good rationale 7 for the law back in 1973, but that law still has to have the 8 same rationale today. 9 comments. So it gets to some of Judge Gregory's The case they cite to for that is the Shelby County The Shelby County case from the U.S. Supreme Court 10 case. 11 discussed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 12 2006. 13 facts to impose a free clearance regime on states in their -- 14 data facts that were gathered from the 1960s to impose the 15 preclearance regime and the reauthorization of the Voting 16 Rights Act in 2006. 17 different situation where, you know, a congress in today's 18 date was reauthorizing provisions relying on old data. 19 Obviously, that's a very different proposition. 20 I know that I'm running out of time. And the fact that the U.S. Congress relied on data and The court was dealing with a very I don't know 21 that we've -- in answering a lot of questions, I'm afraid I've 22 eaten into my colleague's time. 23 talk about the Arlington Heights standard and rely on the 24 analysis that we did of an Arlington Heights test, which is 25 the Intentional Discrimination Test, in our brief. But I might just very quickly Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter I rely on 193 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 what we said in our brief, but discuss a couple points that 2 were made in the reply. The reply brief treats the Arlington Heights 3 4 Analysis as if it were only a historical analysis, as if the 5 only thing that's relevant is what's the history that came 6 before the enactment in question. 7 Arlington Heights Analysis does. 8 the Court has to go through. 9 v. Moore case, which the Plaintiffs cite repeatedly, the Court And that is not what the There are numerous factors If the Court looks at the Holmes 10 does analyze the -- their sordid history in North Carolina of 11 denying the right to vote to African Americans. 12 that in the historical analysis section. 13 that into every subsequent analysis in the Arlington Heights 14 factors. 15 at all the evidence that could demonstrate what was in the 16 minds of the legislature at the time. 17 But it does It doesn't import The Arlington Heights ultimately is designed to look And this is a point I made earlier in the motion to 18 exclude that, you know, the disparate impact of the law is 19 only relevant for intent if it evidences that the legislators 20 must have had in mind that it was going to have this disparate 21 impact. 22 state of mind of the legislators -- (audio distortion) Senate 23 legislators in carrying forward the regime, granted. 24 concede that. 25 of events and the legislative history here, and the Plaintiffs The history is important because it might go to the We But you also have to think about the sequence Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 194 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 do not grapple with that. The sequence of events and the 2 legislative history here was that the legislature since 1971 3 and again in 1973 wholesale revised the restoration regime; 4 revised it yet again. 5 v. Curry case, that the intent behind that was to 6 substantially relax the requirements to get your rights 7 restored. And as our Supreme Court said in State 8 So in whole -- in the totality of the analysis, we 9 think the Court should view what the 1973 legislature did not 10 as discriminatory intent. 11 to my colleague. 12 JUDGE BELL: 13 MR. RABINOVITZ: And with that, I will turn it over Thank you, Mr. Cox. Good afternoon, Your Honors. My 14 name again is Brian Rabinovitz, and I am counsel for the 15 Legislative Defendants in this case. 16 amount of ground in the short time that I have. 17 extent that I can't get to certain issues, I'll rely on the 18 briefs that we and the State Board Defendants have filed in 19 this case. 20 I'll try to cover a good And to the The first issue that I want to address -- and I'm 21 actually going to package two issues together, because I think 22 they are related, is the wealth classification issue under the 23 Equal Protection Clause and also the property qualification 24 issue under the Property Qualification Clause. 25 on its face creates neither a wealth classification nor any Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter Section 13-1 195 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 property qualification. 2 the Plaintiffs have challenged the statute. 3 facial challenge, not an as-applied challenge. 4 that's crucial to keep in mind throughout this analysis of 5 both of these issues; wealth classification and property 6 qualification. 7 And, of course, this is a case where They've brought a And I think Section 13-1 doesn't impose any fines, fees, or 8 other costs on people convicted of felonies who are on 9 probation, parole, or post-release supervision. There are 10 other statutes that do that. They have not been challenged by 11 the Plaintiffs in this case. On its face, there is no 12 wealth-based classification or property qualification in 13 Section 13-1. 14 outstanding financial obligations necessarily extend the term 15 of community supervision. In addition, Plaintiffs have not shown that 16 And there's been a lot of discussion today about 17 discretion and whether, in fact, there are some cases where 18 terms are extended for those reasons. 19 this is a facial challenge, the Plaintiffs have the burden of 20 showing that there are no circumstances under which this 21 statute can constitutionally operate. 22 A few points on that. But, again, because Only probationers can have 23 their terms extended for failure to pay financial obligations. 24 That doesn't apply in the same way to parolees and those on 25 post-release supervision. In addition -- again, we've Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 196 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 discussed this, but a felony probationer may seek to have the 2 financial obligations waived. 3 the financial obligations of one of the individual Plaintiffs 4 in this case were waived, that the Plaintiff was on 5 post-release supervision, sought the waiver of those fees and 6 that those obligations were waived. 7 the conditions of probation authorizes, but does not require, 8 the Court to extend the term of probation. 9 in which probation will not be extended even when someone has And, in fact, I believe that Failure to comply with So there are cases 10 outstanding financial obligations. 11 this is a facial challenge. 12 Section 13-1 was intentionally designed to prevent low wealth 13 people who had completed their felony sentences from voting. 14 Again, significant because Plaintiffs have not shown that And one thing I'd like to mention here, because the 15 discussion -- I don't think it was discussed expressly in the 16 brief, but this is another case where we can go back to the 17 deposition of Senator Michaux and he testified that a primary 18 problem with the former re-enfranchisement statute, the 19 statute that they were trying to replace was that it required 20 a person convicted of a felony to hire an attorney to petition 21 the court to get their right to vote restored. 22 intention of the statute itself was actually to remove 23 financial burdens. 24 formerly convicted of felonies didn't have the wherewithal to 25 hire a lawyer to get their rights restored. So the Senator Michaux said that many people Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter These are both 197 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 citations from Page 34 of Senator Michaux's deposition. 2 also said that a major aim at the current felony 3 re-enfranchisement legislation was to find a way for people to 4 have their rights restored without having to go through this 5 expense. 6 petitioning the Court, hiring an attorney to get one's rights 7 restored. 8 actually to relieve people of financial burdens. 9 impose financial burdens. 10 11 He He was talking again about the expense of So the intention in the statute as written was It wasn't to Again, because this is a facial challenge, that's significant. Plaintiffs haven't -- Plaintiffs also haven't 12 presented evidence showing that the plaintiffs in this case or 13 others on community supervision have had their period of 14 disenfranchisement extended because of an inability to pay 15 financial obligations. 16 that individual Plaintiff Henry Harrison states in his 17 affidavit, which was supplied in support of their motion for 18 summary judgment, that he had a previous conviction where his 19 term of probation was extended for failure to pay restitution. 20 This is the only example that Plaintiffs bring up in their 21 reply brief. 22 Mr. Harrison doesn't say and that, therefore, are not in 23 evidence here. 24 probation, or felony probation. 25 extension actually prevented him from voting in any election. In their reply brief, Plaintiffs say However, there are several things that He doesn't say whether this was misdemeanor He doesn't say whether this Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 198 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 And, of course, if it was misdemeanor probation, it would not 2 have. 3 obligations waived. 4 other outstanding conditions of probation that were also not 5 satisfied, which means that the plaintiffs cannot show through 6 that testimony in his affidavit that the failure to pay 7 financial obligations was a but-for cause. 8 prevented from voting, they cannot show that his failure to 9 pay those financial obligations was a but-for cause of his 10 11 He doesn't say whether he sought to have his financial He also doesn't say whether he had any Assuming he was ability to vote. In addition, when the Defendants asked in discovery 12 for information about the individual Defendants' prior 13 convictions, Plaintiffs refused to provide this information 14 and they should, therefore, equitably not be able to rely on 15 this information. 16 that only information about the felony on the basis of which 17 the individual Plaintiffs are currently disenfranchised could 18 be relevant to this case. 19 responses to our discovery. 20 for the Plaintiffs to be able to rely on information about a 21 prior conviction about which they refuse to provide any 22 information to Defendants so we could not go and determine if 23 there were other conditions of probation that remained 24 unsatisfied for Mr. Harrison. 25 reply brief fails for those multiple reasons. In fact, Plaintiffs said in their discovery That's what they said in their Therefore, it will be inequitable So that point from Plaintiffs' Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 199 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz Wake County 1 July 14, 2020 19 CVS 15941 Plaintiffs, of course, also discuss at length the 2 Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections case. 3 Honors know, that was a case that found a poll tax under 4 Virginia law unconstitutional under the Equal Protection 5 Clause. 6 the Virginia statute that applied to all qualified voters. 7 And, again, those are the key differences here. 8 statute -- what we have here is a statute that has no wealth 9 classification and no property qualification on the face of As Your Significantly, that poll tax was a facial feature of This 10 the statute. 11 qualified voters. 12 been disqualified under Article VI of the North Carolina 13 Constitution. 14 And second of all, it does not apply to all It applies specifically to voters who have In addition, since that case, since Harper versus 15 Virginia Board of Education, the majority of Courts that have 16 considered this issue about wealth-based classification have 17 concluded that it is not an equal protection violation. 18 there are three cases. 19 case out of Washington state. 20 Plaintiffs claimed that Washington's faithfully neutral 21 disenfranchisement scheme created a wealth-based 22 classification. 23 the requirement to pay legal obligations may disparately 24 impact felons unable to pay their financial obligations. 25 Nevertheless, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs equal So There's Madison v. Singh, which was a And in that case, the The Court in that case even recognized that Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 200 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 protection claim as a facial challenge to the law because the 2 law itself contained no wealth classification. The second case, which we also discuss in our brief 3 4 is Johnson v. Bredesen. 5 this issue of wealth-based classification and found, first of 6 all, that rational basis review applied because wealth-based 7 classifications do not discriminate against the suspect class. The third case to address this issue is the Jones 8 9 This was another case that addressed v. Governor of Florida case. Now, in that case, the Court did 10 find as applied to a particular set of, I believe it was 17 11 Plaintiffs in the case, that the Florida statute was 12 unconstitutional because those individuals had demonstrated 13 through evidence in the case that they were genuinely unable 14 to pay those financial obligations. 15 distinguishing factor there is that was an as-applied 16 challenge. 17 plaintiffs in that case. 18 individual plaintiffs. 19 Again, the important It only applied to those particular individual Again, I believe it was 17 Next, I want to talk briefly -- very briefly about 20 the Free Speech and Assembly Clause claims that the Plaintiffs 21 make in this case. 22 claims fail for the same that their Free Elections and Equal 23 Protection claims fail. 24 the assumption that those convicted of felonies enjoy the same 25 fundamental right to vote as other citizens. Plaintiffs' Free Speech and Assembly Most fundamentally, they depend on Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter Under the North 201 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Carolina Constitution, that is simply not the case. 2 disagree with that, but the Plaintiffs have not challenged the 3 North Carolina constitutional provision in this case that 4 deems those convicted of felonies to be not qualified to vote 5 until those rights are restored by the legislature. 6 Section 13-1 is the statute that does restore those rights. 7 Plaintiffs argue that the re-enfranchisement provisions of 8 Section 13-1 violate free speech. 9 that is by giving other examples of expressive content that One may And And the way that they do 10 are constitutionally protected and that everyone would agree 11 are constitutionally protected, even for individuals on 12 community supervision. 13 individuals on community supervision being able to speak their 14 view from the town square or being able to make political 15 donations. 16 agree that those -- that if there were such restrictions, 17 those would violate the free speech rights of those 18 individuals on community supervision. 19 miss the mark. 20 that is at issue here. 21 again, is specifically withheld from those convicted of 22 felonies under the North Carolina Constitution. 23 So they give the example of And we agree and I think nearly everyone would However, these examples They are easily distinguished from the right And that's the right to vote, which, And the Plaintiffs simply have not challenged the 24 North Carolina Constitution. 25 convert the right to vote into a speech right -- into a speech What they try to do here is Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 202 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 right so that they can essentially sidestep the problems with 2 that direct claim about those individuals' right to vote. Plaintiffs have also failed to show that Section 3 4 13-1 discriminates against any particular content or 5 viewpoint. 6 respect to content or viewpoint. 7 shown that 13-1 has either the intent or the effect of 8 discriminating based on content or viewpoint. 9 distinguishes this case from the primary case that Plaintiffs On its face, 13-1 is completely neutral with And Plaintiffs have not This easily 10 rely on, at least in their initial brief, which is Common 11 Cause v. Lewis. 12 free -- the particular free speech issue and the reason that 13 there was a violation is because qualified voters were 14 specifically being targeted, the Court found, because of their 15 political affiliations. 16 on the Court's analysis there was content or viewpoint 17 discrimination, which we simply don't have in this case. 18 The issue in Common Cause v. Lewis, the And so there was -- the Court found The Plaintiffs also claim that Section 13-1 19 violates the freedom of association. This claim fares no 20 better than the speech claim. 21 statute precludes persons on community supervision from 22 registering to vote and that that is the violation of their 23 free association. 24 from the fact that the qualification to vote is specifically 25 withheld from those convicted of felonies under the North The Plaintiffs claim that the But, again, that consequence flows directly Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 203 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Carolina Constitution. 2 same claim -- the same claim that they've made before, and it 3 fails for the same reason. 4 So, again, this is essentially the Finally, I want to go ahead and address Plaintiffs' 5 alternative remedy of a preliminary injunction in this case. 6 That alternative remedy is not appropriate here. 7 court is well acquainted with the standard for a preliminary 8 injunction, it's likelihood of success on the merits, that 9 plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm and a careful scrutiny And this 10 of the equities. 11 unlikely to succeed on the merits in this case for the reasons 12 that we've been discussing all day. 13 rehash those issues. 14 problem with Plaintiffs' alternative remedy of a preliminary 15 injunction. 16 is to preserve the status quo of the parties during the 17 litigation. 18 been on the books for well over 40 years, that's the current 19 version of the statute, well over 40 years. 20 in their reply brief that in the injunction context, status 21 quo means the last uncontested status between the parties 22 which preceded the controversy. 23 memorial time when felons were not disenfranchised. 24 doesn't help the plaintiffs' case because the controversy here 25 is this present litigation, and that's almost universally how As an initial matter, The plaintiffs are And I won't -- I won't But there's also a more fundamental The primary purpose of a preliminary injunction And here, the status quo is the statute that's Plaintiffs argue And they appeal to some in Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter But this 204 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the status quo requirement for a preliminary injunction is 2 understood. 3 JUDGE BELL: 4 MR. JACOBSON: 5 JUDGE BELL: 6 MR. JACOBSON: Ten minutes more. Thank you. Ten minutes. Thank you. Even if that were the 7 case, plaintiffs don't seek to go back to the status quo that 8 was in effect prior to the enactment of the current version of 9 section 13-1. In fact, all of the parties in this case agree 10 that the statute that was in effect prior to the current 11 version of 13-1 was a worse, more inequitable statute than the 12 current version. 13 the status quo through a mandatory as opposed to a preliminary 14 injunction. 15 Plaintiffs misunderstands that distinction. 16 Plaintiffs also argue that a Court may alter This claim also misunderstands -- this claim by According to our Court of Appeals, a mandatory 17 preliminary injunction, like a prohibitory injunction -- and 18 I'm going to quote now -- "is intended to restore a status 19 quo." 20 prohibitory injunction, quote, "is intended to restore a 21 status quo." 22 between the two is not with respect to the status quo. 23 that a mandatory injunction requires a party to perform a 24 positive act to do something. 25 mandamus or analogous. So, again, a mandatory preliminary injunction, like a The difference -- the relative difference It's in the nature of a Whereas a prohibitory injunction Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter It is 205 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 restrains a party from doing a particular act. 2 citation here is Automobile Dealer Resources, Incorporated, 3 versus Occidental Life Insurance Company. 4 15 N.C. App. 634. 5 gave is on Page 639 of that reporter. 6 And the And that is at And the pinsite for the quotations that I In addition, that case also makes clear that a 7 mandatory preliminary injunction has a higher burden than a 8 prohibitory mandatory injunction. 9 the case is urgent and the right is clear. The party must show that And here I would 10 say, again, we have a statute that's been on the books for 11 over 40 years. 12 passed. 13 issue. 14 and decades. 15 We don't have a statute that has just been This isn't a voter ID law, this isn't a redistricting This is a statute that's been on the books for decades In addition, I think it cannot be simply said that 16 the right is clear here. 17 some detail, the Federal Courts that have considered this 18 issue, the other State Courts that have considered this issue, 19 including up to the United States Supreme Court have held that 20 this type of regime does not violate Plaintiffs' 21 constitutional rights. 22 As my colleague Mr. Cox outlined in I see that I have just about seven minutes left. 23 would like to just talk for a second about the big picture 24 here, because I think it's helpful to bring us back to that. 25 The Plaintiffs here disagree with where the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter I 206 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 legislature has drawn the line for restoring the voting rights 2 of individuals who have lost the right to vote under the North 3 Carolina Constitution because of those individuals commission 4 and conviction of a felony. 5 legislature has drawn this line as a policy matter, the 6 legislature's choice is clearly a reasonable one. 7 that has been made is that all individuals convicted of a 8 felony lose the right to vote until they've served their 9 entire sentences for their crimes. Whether one agrees with where the The choice That is a bright-line 10 rule. 11 would like the bright-line rule to be that when someone has 12 finished their term of incarceration, they have their right 13 restored. 14 legislature. 15 Plaintiffs disapprove of where the legislature has drawn the 16 line does not turn this policy issue into a constitutional 17 issue that should be decided by a court rather than by the 18 legislative branch. 19 federal and state cases, that the legislature is in a better 20 position to take evidence and get into granular issues when it 21 comes to policy decisions. 22 There could be other bright-line rules, but Plaintiffs But that's a policy decision that's up to the And the Plaintiffs -- the fact that the In fact, numerous cases have held, both Finally, I would just like to point out the 23 Plaintiffs have said that we did not ask for a motion for 24 summary -- that we ourselves did not move for summary judgment 25 in our response to their briefs. To the extent that's the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 207 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 case, I would just like to say that there's clear law in North 2 Carolina that summary judgment may also be appropriate against 3 the moving party and that the court here certainly has the 4 latitude, and the Legislative Defendants believe that the 5 Court should grant summary judgment in favor of the 6 Legislative Defendants and they should dismiss Plaintiffs' 7 claim here in its entirety. 8 A couple citations there; Claude Felter versus 9 Bates, that's 44 North Carolina App. 107; and Little versus 10 National Service Industries, Incorporated, another Court of 11 Appeals case at 79 N.C. App. 68. 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Legislative 13 Defendants would move that the Court should deny Plaintiffs' 14 motion for summary judgment in its entirety, to deny 15 Plaintiffs' alternative motion for preliminary injunction, and 16 should grant summary judgment to the Defendants in this case. 17 18 And I think I have four minutes. If there are questions that I can address from the court. 19 JUDGE BELL: Judge Gregory. 20 JUDGE GREGORY: Well, I have -- ad nauseam have 21 said, once again, that I use that distinction with the felony 22 larceny, the misdemeanor larceny. 23 she could vote simply because of a dollar value. 24 concern -- and we're talking the interest as far as this 25 statute -- is I don't understand -- I still don't understand And the misdemeanor he or Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And my 208 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the compelling interest. 2 Mr. Rabinovitz and Mr. Cox did not address Mr. Atkinson's 3 concern that the Court could use against an intermediary 4 interest as opposed to going from strict scrutiny to rational 5 basis. 6 Judge Bell, so I won't say anything else at this point. 7 And I notice that both But that's my question -- I guess that's a statement, MR. RABINOVITZ: I mean, just to briefly address 8 that issue because Your Honor has -- I understand that this 9 misdemeanor, felony distinction is significant to Your Honor, 10 and I certainly understand where you are coming from on that 11 distinction and that it can seem arbitrary if there's a few 12 dollars that are separating a misdemeanor from someone who's 13 been convicted of a felony. 14 Your Honor, respectfully though, I would say that 15 that really has nothing to do with 13-1. 16 the North Carolina Constitution. 17 could have been written to say that anyone convicted of a 18 felony or a misdemeanor would lose their right to vote until 19 it was restored by the legislature. 20 it says in the Constitution, and it is simply that the 21 Plaintiffs here have not challenged that constitutional 22 provision, they've challenged 13-1. 23 legislature, given that distinction in the Constitution, could 24 not be faulted for crafting a statute that specifically deals 25 with those very people who have lost that right to vote under That has to do with In the Constitution, it That simply is not what And I think the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 209 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 the Constitution. 2 JUDGE GREGORY: Well, Mr. Rabinovitz, then how do 3 you respond then when I asked previously the situation where 4 we're still dealing with a Judge's discretion. 5 point blank. 6 have a secret political bent, so I'm going to make sure that 7 all convicted felons, I'm going to keep them on probation as 8 long as I can. 9 probation for potentially eight years even with the consent of I'll just If I decided that I said, well, you know what, I In fact, I believe that I could keep them on 10 the defendant. 11 cycles. 12 from a Judge in the 1800s who said, you know what, I want to 13 make sure that African Americans cannot vote? 14 the discretion to say, no, I don't think you qualify. 15 tell me that -- if you just told me that my misdemeanor-felony 16 situation doesn't apply and that the 13-1 is still correct. 17 Well, tell me then why, as a sitting Judge in the 1800s and a 18 sitting Judge in 2020, what the difference is other than now 19 an African American judge has asked me the question. That's two election cycles -- presidential If I decided I wanted to do that, why am I different 20 MR. RABINOVITZ: 21 JUDGE GREGORY: 22 MR. RABINOVITZ: And now I have If you Well, Your Honor -So that wasn't the case. Well, Your Honor, I think that 23 that point is significant because I think, again, if you look 24 at Senator Michaux's testimony an overriding animating concern 25 with the statute as it was when they decided to replace it Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 210 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 with the current version, and Senator Michaux says this in his 2 testimony, is that you had, almost exclusively, one judge is 3 presiding over cases in which people formerly convicted of 4 felonies were coming in front of them and were asking to have 5 their rights restored. 6 the reason that he was in favor of the statute that they put 7 in place is because he believes that there was, in fact, 8 extreme prejudice under that regime and that that discretion 9 should be taken away from those judges, and that that's 10 11 And that his very strong belief and something that they did through this statute. Now, Your Honor has pointed out another issue that 12 it's possible that the current regime is also not ideal 13 because Your Honor could decide that you wanted -- as you 14 said, that you wanted to keep people on probation as long as 15 possible, and that may be an arbitrary decision, and I think 16 that would be a very poor policy decision and maybe the 17 statute should be changed in the future so that that's 18 something that couldn't happen. 19 we have here in this case. 20 this case is that they have facially challenged a North 21 Carolina statute that is completely neutral, that was intended 22 to remedy problems that previously existed, including this -- 23 a very charged racial situation in which, as Senator Michaux 24 said, white judges were simply presiding over cases where they 25 may have no -- they may be bias and have no receptiveness to But that's not the issue that The issue that we have here in Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 211 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Rabinovitz July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 re-enfranchising African Americans former felons who came in 2 front of them. 3 factors of this current statute that is in place. 4 the statute that is at issue here and that plaintiffs are 5 facially challenging. 6 And that was the one of the primary animating JUDGE GREGORY: And that's But I don't think that we should 7 forget the fact that Representative Frey -- and I do believe I 8 thought that Representative Michaux, but definitely 9 Representative Frey, eventually Justice Frey, did say, I'm 10 going to accept this because this is the best that we can get. 11 He preferred after you finish your prison sentence, you can 12 vote. 13 earlier, this is what was important, right, 1965, the Voting 14 Rights Act. 15 legislative intent to me still -- with where we are now, it 16 still gives me the discretion as a Judge, I believe, under 17 13-1 to still say that I'm going to keep somebody on probation 18 if I intended on violating their rights as far as not allowing 19 them to have that automatic restoration. 20 I mean, it doesn't escape me also that just a few years We're not that far from that time period. So the And, you know, not to pick, but I looked up the 21 definition for automatic. 22 under our definition as far as Webster's is concerned, it 23 indicates here that by itself, with little or no direct human 24 controls, without conscious thought or intention, 25 spontaneously. And the definition for automatic -- Automatic restoration -- that's the definition Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 212 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 of automatic. 2 Judge still has that discretion, why is it different 3 discretion then he had before the enactment of the statute? 4 Now, I'm being rhetorical, so I'll leave it at that. 5 I guess I'm just a little confused that if a JUDGE BELL: (Audio distortion) Anyone, go ahead go 6 back to the Plaintiffs for their 30 minutes. 7 allocated time, Mr. Atkinson, if we're going to go back, will 8 you be arguing again at this point? 9 MR. ATKINSON: Yes. Defendants Yes, Judge Bell. I'm going to 10 try to cover some rebuttal and some PI factors at the same 11 time. 12 JUDGE BELL: All right. We will -- I'll give you 13 your full 30. 14 will take a break then and the three of us will discuss as far 15 as any timing we may need tomorrow. 16 proceed with 30 minutes. 17 MR. ATKINSON: The Defendants will have 25 in response. All right. We So you can go ahead and Thank you, Your Honor. 18 Once again, Daryl Atkinson, Forward Justice, counsel for the 19 plaintiffs. 20 In response to the overwhelming empirical and 21 social science evidence that Plaintiffs' experts and Amikai 22 put into the record which documents how 13-1 creates an 23 impermissible wealth-based classification in violation of 24 Article I Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. 25 Defendants cite to two out-of-jurisdiction cases to rebut our Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 213 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 claims. Those two out of-jurisdiction-cases can only be 2 persuasive authority because we grounded our claims in the 3 North Carolina Constitution, Your Honor, not the Federal 4 Constitution. 5 to apply, just inappropriate here. 6 moment because those are persuasive authorities. 7 words in a dissent are equally as impactful as the majority 8 opinion. 9 the Madison case, which analyzed a wealth-based discrimination And the federal standard that they are trying But I want to take a I think some And I want to read you a line from the dissent in 10 claim under the Equal Protection Clause. 11 restore voting rights to those felons who have completed their 12 sentence, the State may not discriminate against impoverished 13 felons by setting up payment of LFOs in a way -- in the way of 14 regaining voting rights. 15 recognized this precise point, and they cite to a case Ricken 16 v. Illinois, Your Honor, where the court -- it didn't have to, 17 there was no constitutional obligation to give a right to 18 appellate repeal -- appeal. 19 to pay for those transcripts, which put a financial burden in 20 the way of them accessing the court. 21 State of Illinois in Griffin v. Illinois didn't have to 22 exercise their discretion and give a right to appellate 23 review, but when they did, it can't violate dictates of the 24 Constitution. 25 Having chosen to United States Supreme Court has But it made indigent people have And the Court said, the The same is true here, Your Honor. 13-1, the legislative exercises their discretion in Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 214 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 enacting that statute. They could have put all kind of 2 classifications on who could get their voting rights back, but 3 they didn't. 4 exercise that discretion, Your Honor, it has to be -- meet the 5 dictates of the North Carolina Constitution, not the Federal 6 Constitution. 7 Carolina Equal Protection Clause gives greater protection than 8 the Federal Constitutions. It prohibited all felons. And when they And we've cited to numerous law that our North 9 Very quickly, Your Honor, some other issues. 10 Mr. Rabinovitz brought up other statutes that imposed a 11 financial obligation. 12 We're not challenging those statutes. 13 the ability to extend. 14 tethering the right to vote to the payment of financial 15 obligation. He also said that this is a facial challenge not 16 as applied. And the Harper case was a facial challenge as 17 well. 18 everyone, Your Honor. 19 As I said at the outset, Your Honor. We're not challenging What we are challenging is 13-1 It facially invalidated Virginia's $1.50 poll tax to Very quickly, there was a conversation about the 20 civil judgment. 21 this into -- as an exhibit in our reply brief, the 22 administrative office of the court, their waiver report. 23 also documents and calculates the amount of civil judgments, 24 and it was a very small amount as well. 25 And I just want to point out -- and we've put It And then lastly, before I go to the PI, Your Honor, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 215 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Judge Dunlow brought up the question around if someone is -- 2 probation is terminated without completing all of their legal 3 financial obligations, would they in turn get that 4 unconditional discharge? 5 lawyers on this and three judges, we have the lawyer from the 6 State Board of Elections that's in charge of understanding the 7 qualifications of voting, and none of us could answer that 8 question. 9 question, we didn't know the answer to that question, so how Your Honors, we have like six The State Board lawyer couldn't answer that 10 can you expect the citizen, just a regular day, every day 11 citizen of the State of North Carolina to be able to 12 understand whether they have their voting rights back or not 13 if they are in that situation? 14 Going to the PI factors, Your Honor. You all know 15 the factors well, and I'm not going to discuss likelihood of 16 success. 17 which, you know, we discuss in our briefing and I'm going to 18 leave that to y'all. 19 that I'm not going to be silent on is the harm that could 20 potentially happen and that is happening to North Carolina 21 citizens, the 56,000 people who are disenfranchised because of 22 13-1. 23 to sustain irreparable loss. 24 restrictions on fundamental voting rights and irreparable 25 injury. The Plaintiffs talked about status quo doctrine But what everybody has been silent on Absent a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs are likely Courts routinely deem Discriminatory voting procedures in particular are Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 216 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the kind of serious violations of the Constitution for which 2 Courts have granted immediate relief. 3 relief is especially important in the voting context. 4 once the election occurs, there can be no do over. 5 redress. 6 irreparable if nothing has been done to enjoin the law. 7 The need for immediate Because There's no And the injury to voters is real and completely In our brief, we cite to numerous cases where North 8 Carolina courts have applied this principle to preliminarily 9 enjoin laws that restrict access to the franchise or that 10 would otherwise threaten free and fair elections. 11 you all, encourage you all to peruse those at your time. 12 Failing to enjoin 13-1 will cause irreparable harm to our 13 individual and organizational plaintiffs, including a broader 14 group of people that our organizational plaintiffs advocate 15 for on a daily basis. 16 will prevent more than 56,000 individuals living in North 17 Carolina communities from voting in the November 2020 general 18 election, which has contests for the president, the U.S. 19 Senate and the counsel of state, not to mention many local 20 elections like county commissions and school. 21 And I ask If you don't enjoin, Your Honor, it Moreover, not to be hyperbolic, Your Honors, this 22 November election will be one of the most important in our 23 lifetime. 24 every election is the most important election, but when -- 25 because of COVID 19, Your Honor, our state and country are in And I know people say that every year. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter They say 217 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 the middle of a global pandemic the likes of which we have not 2 seen since 1918. 3 conducting this hearing as evidence of the gravity of that 4 pandemic. 5 Take, for example, the way that we are In addition, Your Honor, in the wake of George 6 Floyd's death, we're seeing social upheaval and protests and 7 calls for racial justice that we have not seen since 1968 at 8 the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. 9 Honors, we're in the midst of an economic crisis with huge Moreover, Your 10 contraction. 11 are millions of people out of jobs who may have no jobs to 12 return to. 13 GDP contracted by one-third last quarter. There In sum, Your Honors, our elected officials will be 14 making many weighted public policy decisions regarding tax 15 policy, revenue allocation, public health, the economy, 16 schools, education, criminal justice. 17 time in this state's history where we need to hear from all 18 the voices of our citizens on the proper direction of our 19 state and country, now is that time. 20 of over 56,000 people from casting a ballot and making their 21 voices heard on the very public policy issues that directly 22 impact their lives, and in some cases the outcomes of those 23 public policy issues can literally result in life or death, 24 that's the quintessential definition of irreparable harm, Your 25 Honor. If there was ever a Thus to deny the voices Plaintiffs have shown that individual and Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 218 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 organizational plaintiffs would suffer this harm. 2 For example, our Plaintiff Shakita Norman, a single 3 mother who would like to be able to effect change in her 4 community and particularly improve public schools. 5 cites to this in her affidavit. 6 will mute her voice. 7 County resident. 8 schools, she would likely probably vote in this upcoming Wake 9 County School Board election. And she Unless 13-1 is enjoined, it Now, Ms. Norman, because -- she's a Wake Because of her interest in improving public But unless 13-1 is enjoined, 10 that mother of three children who go to Wake County schools, 11 she won't even be able to weigh in on electing the very school 12 board members who dictate public policy for her children. 13 these school board members are going to be making weighty 14 decisions, like should her kids have to attend school in 15 person or virtual learning. 16 completely silent on this. 17 And But Ms. Norman's voice will be Amikai Institute on innovation and prosecution 18 amplifies the point of the irreparable harm suffered by 19 parents and the entire family when disenfranchisement occurs. 20 And is quoted as follows from their brief, "Disenfranchising 21 the head of household discourages the entire family from civic 22 participation." 23 children. 24 she has seen her parents do. 25 thus, yields irrational consequences. That is effect is especially profound for Because a child's decision to vote depends on what A parent's disenfranchisement, Families with immense Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 219 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 stake, sometimes the most at stake when it comes to 2 governmental public policy, don't have a vote on those very 3 officials who shape that policy, Your Honor. 4 Plaintiff Corey Purdie, executive director from Wash Away 5 Unemployment, attests that individuals he serves feel silent, 6 voiceless, powerless. 7 disenfranchisement sends to the 56,000 people that are 8 disenfranchised is also negative when it comes to their 9 prospects for their future redemption and reintegration into Organizational And this societal message that 10 society at large, which irreparably harms them as well as the 11 greater society. 12 So, for example, Amikai Cato submitted the 13 following evidence. 14 disenfranchisement implicitly informs the offender that total 15 rehabilitation is impossible. 16 deprives an ex-offender of social dignity and demonstrates 17 society's indifference to his interest. 18 increases the likelihood that he or she will reoffend. 19 has no stake in his or her community, then one has little 20 incentive to behave in a pro-social manner. 21 Attorney General's submitted similar evidence on the negative 22 effects of post incarceration disenfranchisement policies, 23 Your Honor. 24 extend to the greater communities as well. 25 On an individual level, The denial of civil rights That in turn If one Amikai from State The harms that will be incurred by individuals Extensive evidence has been put into the record by Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 220 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Dr. Frank Baumgartner on the highly racialized outcomes 2 associated with 13-1. 3 that in 24 counties, roughly 25 percent of our state, Your 4 Honors, the weight of disenfranchisement for blacks is four 5 times higher than it is for whites. 6 include Mecklenburg County, the rate of disenfranchisement is 7 seven times higher for blacks than it is for whites. 8 County, six times higher for blacks than it is for whites. 9 Reverend P. Anthony Spearman of the North Carolina State For example, Dr. Baumgartner showed Some notable examples Wake As 10 Conference of the NAACP explained, while voting is a personal 11 individual right, it's collective impact is far greater. 12 Harsh and unfair probation, post release, disenfranchisement 13 laws are responsible for the racial disparities in democratic 14 participation and representation in North Carolina. 15 Disenfranchisement affects the entire African American 16 community, and Reverend Spearman said, a preliminary or 17 permanent injunction is necessary to prevent the harms that 18 North Carolina African American communities have suffered for 19 far too long from felony disenfranchisement. 20 Obviously, we have the third prong, the balance of 21 equities, and I just want to quickly highlight some very 22 important law there, Your Honor. 23 of the equities weighs decidedly in favor preliminary 24 injunction. 25 qualified voters to vote as possible. Finally, a careful balancing The public interest favors permitting as many Favoring Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 221 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Atkinson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 enfranchisement is always in the public interest, Your Honor. 2 And that excerpt follows from the bedrock principle that fair 3 and honest elections ought to prevail in this state. 4 Enjoining 13-1 is in the public interest because it favors 5 re-enfranchisement and it favors permitting as many voters -- 6 qualified voters as possible to be able to participate in this 7 election. 8 enforcing an unconstitutional law. 9 right to vote is sacrosanct in this state and administrative 10 North Carolina has no legitimate interest in Whereas the exercise, the convenience cannot justify that discrimination. 11 Once again, Corey Purdie from Wash Away 12 Unemployment put it best. 13 to contribute, give people give a voice and they will speak 14 give people their rights and they will exercise them, Your 15 Honor. 16 Give people hope and they will want In conclusion, we believe that all of the elements 17 are met for our preliminary injunction, Your Honor. 18 General Assembly has stripped the right to vote from 56,000 19 members of North Carolina communities. 20 disenfranchisement has to stop and we would respectfully 21 submit that you should grant us summary judgment on all of our 22 claims, and in the alternative grant our preliminary 23 injunction. 24 25 The This mass I'm going to hand it over to Mr. Jacobson to address some rebuttal issues. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 222 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 2 JUDGE BELL: All right. You've got 15 minutes, Mr. Jacobson. 3 MR. JACOBSON: Thank you, Your Honor. I hope -- I 4 don't think I'll take that full time, but that's always a 5 dangerous promise to make. 6 So the State -- both sets of defendants, they 7 argued that 13-1 is not a disenfranchisement statute, it's a 8 restoration statute. 9 side, that's simply semantics, your Honors. Respectfully, my friends on the other If a statute says 10 you are not allowed to vote until the following conditions are 11 met, the statute is disenfranchising you until certain 12 conditions are met. 13 restoration, disenfranchisement, the statute does, in 14 practice, it deprives people the opportunity to vote until 15 they receive a, quote, "unconditional discharge from community 16 supervision." 17 So no matter how you want to frame it, With respect to the 1970's enactment, Judge 18 Gregory, you mentioned that there is the statement from Henry 19 Frey in the article about his intent would be that when people 20 get off of their prison sentence, they would get their rights 21 back. 22 cite, that Michaux also said the exact same thing in his 23 affidavit. 24 showed on the screen in my earlier presentation. 25 just read into the record. And you also mentioned, and I'll just give you the It's in paragraph 15 of his affidavit, which I And I'll Senator Michaux said, "I remember Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 223 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 we wanted automatic restoration applicable across the board, 2 at the least a restoration of your citizenship rights after 3 you completed imprisonment." 4 that in his deposition testimony. 5 unrebutted that that's what their intent was. 6 evidence in the record from anyone else, you know, involved in 7 the legislature in 1970s or anyone else in the matter saying, 8 no, that is not what the African American legislators 9 intended. And Senator Michaux reaffirms And I should note, it's There is no Whereas on the other side of the balance, we have 10 both the contemporaneous statement from Representative Frey 11 and Senator Michaux sworn testimony to that effect. 12 an undisputed fact with respect to what's in the record before 13 you. 14 So it's Mr. Cox said a handful of times that the 1970s 15 amendments were, quote, "They replaced wholesale the statutory 16 scheme that existed before that." 17 case, Your Honor. 18 framed it, he makes it seem as if the legislature took it as a 19 sketch and shook it up and just said, okay, we are going to 20 start from scratch. 21 And that's simply not the You know, under Mr. Cox's -- the way he That's obviously not what happened here. There was a policy starting in 1877 enacted by the 22 General Assembly that we are going to disenfranchise people 23 who are not incarcerated for some period. 24 carried through with the 1970s amendments over the objections 25 of the African American people. And that policy And, in fact, Your Honors, as Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 224 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 I mentioned, before 1971, the required waiting period was two 2 years. 3 supervision in North Carolina from felony convictions is two 4 years. 5 using different words that accomplish the exact same effect, 6 which is that people who are not incarcerated have to wait for 7 several years in most cases before they can get their rights 8 back. 9 Well, today the average length of community So in effect, it's the exact same thing, it's just In terms of our legal claims, Your Honor, there was 10 obviously a lot said about all the claims, and I can't go 11 through them all. 12 if the court is looking for sort of what is the cleanest and 13 simplest resolution in favor of plaintiffs in terms of from a 14 legal perspective, it would be the race discrimination Equal 15 Protection Claim. 16 that we don't think we have an equally strong case on the 17 other claims. 18 dispute any of the relevant legal framework as it applies to 19 the race discrimination Equal Protection Claim. 20 dispute between the parties about the level of scrutiny, about 21 fundamental rights, any of that. 22 Holmes v. Moore/Arlington Heights factors governed inquiry. 23 In fact, defendants do not dispute that if Plaintiffs have 24 successfully shown that race was a motivation in the enactment 25 of this policy, that we win. What I would submit to Your Honors is that And the reason I say that is not to say But the reason I say that is the parties do not There's no The parties agree that the That is undisputed. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 225 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 When you cut through all the other legal disputes, 2 all the other issues, that is not disputed between the 3 parties. 4 still affects the law. 5 that question. 6 We obviously disagree whether racial motivation And that's all that comes down to is And, again, on this point, Your Honors, I would 7 commend Your Honors' attention to Hunter v. Underwood case in 8 the Supreme Court, which was a felony disenfranchisement case 9 specifically that struck down the law using this Arlington 10 Heights equal protection framework. 11 analogous in that there was a law that went back to 1901. 12 the defendants in that case said, well, there's been all these 13 changes in the law in the intervening years. 14 (audio distortion) of its racially discriminatory intent. 15 the United States Supreme Court rejected that and said that 16 the original motivation continued to infect the law. 17 is exactly the cause here, Your Honors. 18 And it was very much And It actually has And And that In that same respect, with respect to our Equal 19 Protection Claim, there was some suggestion by Mr. Cox, I 20 believe it was, I can't remember, one of the defense counsel, 21 that in the 1970s maybe the legislators didn't know the racial 22 disparities that existed in the criminal justice system or 23 that somehow it was better than it is today. 24 greatest respect, any suggestion that there weren't racial 25 disparities in the criminal justice system in the 1970s and Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter With the 226 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 that's somehow a new development is simply farcical. 2 this respect, we do have evidence in the record. 3 bur don't, our historian, actually documented -- what was 4 known as the law and order campaign going on exactly at this 5 time in the early 1970s which was focusing on -- you know, had 6 obvious racial undertones and sometimes overtones in terms of 7 convicting and imprisoning more African Americans. And on Dr. Vernon 8 With respect, Your Honors, to the State interest in 9 avoiding confusion, I want to focus on or emphasize the people 10 who have federal felony convictions. 11 living in North Carolina on community supervision from a 12 federal conviction. 13 Judge Dunlow was asking about the he will supplement in the 14 record, those are not forms that are given to people with 15 federal convictions on community supervision. 16 that DPS gives to people with North Carolina state court 17 convictions or they are supposed to give to them that, you 18 know, discharges them of their rights. 19 record from Ms. Bell's deposition is that as far as we know, 20 nobody tells people on federal community supervision when 21 their community supervision is done that they have the right 22 to vote again. 23 notified by federal prosecutors or the Bureau of Prisons that 24 these individuals have been discharged from their community 25 supervision. That's 5,000 individuals The forms that Mr. Cox showed you that Those are forms The evidence in the And, in fact, the State Board isn't even They just sort of fall into this black hole. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 227 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 And if Your Honor reads the transcript, I certainly was not 2 able to understand how it is that those folks will be allowed 3 to vote given that the State Board's most recent data is that 4 they've been convicted of a felony and they don't have any 5 data coming after that that the conviction or the sentence has 6 been finished. 7 With respect to the state interest, Your Honor, 8 and -- there was some dispute with Mr. Cox about the 9 Interrogatory and whether, you know, it weighed things in the 10 Interrogatory. 11 that the Interrogatory asked: 12 purported government interest in denying disenfranchised 13 people -- disenfranchised persons the right to vote. 14 the question. 15 the ones that we obviously had the prior hearing about that we 16 asked about at the deposition. 17 said, We are not asserting that law actually serves those 18 interest in present day. 19 I would just note, Your Honor, Mr. Cox said State with specificity the That was And -- but interests that were listed then are And Ms. Bell very clearly In terms of the two government interests that the 20 State Board has added to its brief that weren't listed in its 21 Interrogatory. 22 rely on interests that they didn't disclose in their 23 Interrogatories that we weren't allowed to ask about at our 24 deposition. 25 firm does not somehow make it that -- as a party in that case It simply cannot be the case that they can The fact that, you know, the identity of our law Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 228 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 doesn't have to give a full and complete Interrogatory answer. Just two more items, Your Honor. 2 Judge Gregory 3 asked about intermediate scrutiny, which I had raised in my 4 opening presentation as if there's not going to be strict 5 scrutiny, then certainly intermediate scrutiny should apply. 6 Very notably, you did not hear a single word from either 7 defense counsel about intermediate scrutiny. 8 Judge Gregory raised that point, you still did not hear a 9 single word about it. In fact, when And the fact of the matter is that 10 Defendants have made no argument to this Court that they could 11 satisfy intermediate scrutiny if it applies. 12 no argument that they have presented anything to suggest that 13 the disenfranchisement of people on community supervision 14 today serves important government interest, which is their -- 15 which is what would be required if intermediate scrutiny were 16 to apply. 17 They have made The final thing I'll note, Your Honors, is there 18 was various references to the fact that we're bringing a 19 facial challenge and that the standard for a facial challenge 20 is that the law must be unconstitutional in all its 21 applications. 22 State v. Grady case, which is the opinion authored by Justice 23 Earls for the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2019. 24 that case, Justice Earls and the courts gave some guidance on 25 what it actually means to bring a facial challenge and what it I would very much recommend to Your Honors the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And in 229 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 means to challenge the law in and all of its applications. 2 And this case is directly analogous to that case. 3 case, the issue was you were automatically required to be put 4 on certain monitoring if you were deemed a recidivist. 5 what the court said is that it was a facial challenge in the 6 sense that the fact that it was automatic, that all you have 7 to meet was this one criteria and the conditions were imposed. 8 That was unconstitutional in all of its applications. 9 to make that be sort of sole sufficient criteria. In that And Because The court 10 said it might be that these same people can be put on 11 monitoring for other reasons. 12 might be able to drawn more narrowly. 13 its face the statute makes meeting this one criteria 14 automatically imposes the adverse effect that makes it 15 facially unconstitutional. 16 Your Honor. 17 automatic that you do not get your rights back if you are on 18 probation or parole or post-release supervision. 19 other criteria that matters if it's from a felony conviction. 20 It is -- that is made the sole criteria and it's 21 unconstitutional on its face. 22 based on that sole reason. There might be a subset. It But the fact that on And we have the same thing here, The statute that we're looking at makes it 23 JUDGE BELL: 24 MR. JACOBSON: 25 JUDGE BELL: There's no It disenfranchised everybody And I would also -- The name of that case -Go ahead. I did not catch the name of the case Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 230 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Jacobson July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 you were talking -- 2 MR. JACOBSON: 3 Grady case, G-r-a-d-y. 4 JUDGE BELL: 5 MR. JACOBSON: 6 Okay. I mentioned -- it's the Thank you. It's actually cited in one of the Defendants' opening briefs. 7 JUDGE BELL: 8 MR. JACOBSON: 9 I'm sorry. Thank you. That's the case that was about satellite-based monitoring. The imposition if you were deemed 10 a recidivist and other conditions apply, then you were 11 automatically put on satellite-based monitoring. 12 Court there said -- and in effect to pose a remedy that did 13 not involve sort of doing this penciling, strike-through 14 exercise that Defendants suggest, they then said, we can 15 enjoin the statute to the effect -- to the extent that it 16 affects these -- this category of people for a certain period 17 of time. 18 you know, we realize that the line between facial and 19 as-applied can be a little bit murky but, you know, that 20 should never get in the way of providing effective relief from 21 an unconstitutional statute. 22 Honors, that our case is very much analogous to that case. 23 24 25 And the And so that's exactly -- and the Court even said, And so we would submit, Your Unless Your Honors have anything further questions, we thank you very much for your time today. JUDGE BELL: No. You've got three minutes left. Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 231 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 Judge Dunlow, Judge Gregory, questions? 2 JUDGE DUNLOW: 3 JUDGE GREGORY: 4 JUDGE BELL: 5 6 Defendants then. None from me. No. Okay. All right. We'll go back to You've got 24 minutes. MR. COX: Thank you, Your Honors. Hopefully we 7 won't take up that much time. 8 very briefly. 9 questions about the statutory requirements to notify people I'll just make a couple points In answer to, I believe it was Judge Gregory's 10 when their rights are taken away and then restored, just for 11 the court's information, those are at 163-82.14 subsection C3. 12 That's a voter registration list maintenance statute that 13 requires a state board to take information from the Department 14 of Public Safety about people who are serving a felony 15 conviction and then provide that information to all 100 county 16 boards of elections. 17 county Boards of Elections to send a letter notifying a person 18 that they have been taken off the roles. 19 And that subsection C3 requires the The second statute is 163-82.20A, and that A is not 20 a subsection, it's a capital A, 82.20A. 21 the State Board to work with the Department of Public Safety 22 and the courts to make sure that people when they finish their 23 sentence are informed that they are -- have their rights 24 restored and have an opportunity to reregister. 25 carried out through the Department of Public Safety under that That statute requires Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And that's 232 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 cooperative agreement. 2 Just a note about federal sentences that 3 Plaintiffs' counsel has made. 4 statute that provides for the states to notify someone who is 5 under the supervision or custody of a federal agency as a 6 felon serving their sentence, when they finish that sentence 7 that their rights are restored. 8 be a legitimate policy disagreement with whether the 9 legislature should require the state board and/or require some It is true that there is no That is true. And there may 10 other agency to -- probably the state board to announce that 11 to someone and to get that information from the federal 12 government. 13 require the federal government to provide that information, 14 but certainly we could ask that. 15 You know, obviously, the legislature can't But the ultimate point though is that 13-1 doesn't 16 depend upon someone telling you that your rights are restored. 17 13-1 makes your right restoration automatic upon the 18 completion of your sentence. 19 a sentence as a -- under felony -- federal felony, then your 20 rights are restored. 21 the plain text is what has been challenged here. 22 So if you are no longer serving That is the plain text at 13-1. Again, And third, I make the brief comments about 23 Plaintiffs' counsel representations about what the State 24 Boards' Interrogatory responses are. 25 Interrogatory responses for the Court. And I just post those Mostly I think this is Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 233 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 a side show, but I -- just to clear the record, I can share my 2 screen so that the court is aware of exactly what was posted. 3 So Mr. Jacobson is incorrect in the way that the 4 Plaintiffs bring their Interrogatory requests, which is one of 5 the interests served by disenfranchising this population of 6 felons. 7 paragraph, the State Board objects to the interrogatory as 8 vague and argumentative wording. 9 made apparent this interrogatories specifically simply seeks In our response, starting here in the second And after conferring, it was 10 governmental interest served by 13-1, the law under challenge. 11 The state board objects to this interrogatory's 12 characterization as to law that way. 13 Board will address the governmental interest that may be 14 served by 13-1, not the Plaintiffs' characterization of North 15 Carolina law, which does not accurately and contextually 16 represent the law. 17 because what denies this population of felons' right to vote 18 is Article VI of the North Carolina Constitution. 19 providing the interest here, the State Board reasonably 20 looking at the case law and in particular the 2nd Circuit's 21 case, analyzing a similar scheme from New York State looked at 22 what the actual motivations were of the legislature when it 23 enacted this restoration scheme in the 1970s. 24 followed. 25 Accordingly, the State Obviously, their objection was made And in And that's what And, again, you know, under rational basis review, Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 234 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 it's ultimately a legal question as to whether there is any 2 legitimate grounds to support a law. 3 to actually provide any evidence to support whether there's a 4 legitimate rationale under rational basis review. 5 well established in North Carolina and federal law, that under 6 rational basis review, there's no affirmative obligation to 7 provide evidence. 8 any rational basis for the law. 9 It's not a requirement And that's It's the Plaintiffs' obligation to negative And then finally, intermediate scrutiny. It is 10 true that the defendants maintain that the law does not 11 provide for intermediate scrutiny here and they would require 12 some -- you know, carving new territory in the law to impose 13 intermediate scrutiny. 14 requirement and that the defendants are required to put 15 forward evidence of the rationals, that is there. 16 legislative history that we have cited and provided in 17 exhibits from the 1970s enactments, and the deposition 18 testimony of Senator Michaux demonstrate that the -- what the 19 interests were that were served by this legislation when it 20 was enacted. 21 on these points contrary to the arguments made by plaintiffs' 22 counsel. 23 But to the extent that it is a I mean, the So there has been affirmative evidence provided And ultimately -- I'll just turn it over to my 24 colleague after just noting that, you know, a lot of what the 25 discussion today revolved around was, you know, is there a Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 235 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 better way to do this? 2 good rationals for why there's a better way to do this, to 3 restore rights to people who have been convicted of felonies. 4 Not even the plaintiffs believe that everyone convicted who 5 has been convicted of a felony should get the right to vote 6 back. 7 have their rights denied, and then everybody else should have 8 their rights restored. 9 colleague said, is ultimately a legislative function and, you And, you know, there may be really They think that only people who are incarcerated should You know, drawing that line, as my 10 know, even if the court or I or Mr. Jacobsen or Mr. Rabinovitz 11 would draw that line somewhere different, it's up to the 12 legislature to make that call. 13 JUDGE BELL: 14 MR. RABINOVITZ: Thank you. Thank you. Your Honors, I'll be very brief. 15 And Mr. Cox has addressed most of the issues that I would have 16 addressed in rebuttal anyways. 17 address the State v. Grady case, which we did cite in our 18 opening brief in which Mr. Jacobson mentioned just a few 19 minutes ago. 20 criminal case that deals with lifetime satellite based 21 monitoring imposed on individuals based solely on their status 22 as a recidivist. 23 distinction between a facial challenge and an as-applied 24 challenge, and says that its analysis there has some features 25 of both, but that it's essentially treating it as a facial I just wanted to briefly The State v. Grady case did deal with -- it's a And the court in that case does discuss the Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 236 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 challenge and that the -- it's a discussion about the scope of 2 their holding there in that case. 3 though, Grady doesn't stand for the proposition. 4 the North Carolina Supreme Court. 5 the proposition that a three-judge panel hearing a case that 6 all the parties agree is a facial challenge can consider that 7 case as an as-applied challenge. 8 and -- well, State v. Grady cites the other authority that 9 both we and the State Board have cited in our briefs I think significantly Grady was It simply doesn't stand for In fact, State v. Grady 10 discussing the nature of a facial challenge where in order for 11 plaintiffs to prevail on a facial challenge, they have to show 12 that the challenged law is unconstitutional in all of its 13 applications. 14 standard for Plaintiffs to prevail on a facial challenge, 15 which all the parties agree is what's at issue in this case 16 and, of course, is the very reason that all the parties are in 17 front of this three-judge panel here today that's been 18 convened to hear the facial challenge. 19 So that case importantly does not change the And I'm sure Your Honors will study that case and 20 will come to your own conclusions there. 21 point out that distinction since Mr. Jacobson had brought that 22 case up in this context. 23 But I just wanted to And, Your Honors, again, we would just ask in 24 summary, unless there are other questions, that the court deny 25 plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, but it also deny Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 237 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 their alternative request for a preliminary injunction. 2 that for the same reasons discussed in the defendants' brief, 3 the court grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants 4 and dismiss the case. 5 Thank you, Your Honors. 6 JUDGE BELL: 7 And Any questions by Judge Dunlow or Judge Gregory? 8 JUDGE DUNLOW: 9 JUDGE GREGORY: Not from me. Mr. Rabinovitz, can you give me 10 that statute number for the -- they indicated where the county 11 boards actually send notice? 12 number -- or that statute number. 13 show is that an automatic that they send a letter to the felon 14 telling that felon that their rights have been restored? 15 want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. 16 MR. COX: If you can give me that You also have statistics to I So the statute that -- we provided the 17 first statute -- I think you asked for the citation -- 18 163-82.14. 19 notify someone when they are taken off the registration roles 20 because of a felony conviction. 21 notify a person whose rights are restored comes from 22 163-82.20A. 23 with the Department of Public Safety to make sure that the 24 person who is ending their supervision time is aware that they 25 need to register to vote when their rights are restored. It's subsection C3. That's the requirement to The subsequent requirement to And that one requires the State Board to work Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 238 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 19 CVS 15941 JUDGE GREGORY: Well, Mr. Cox, just to be pretty 2 clear that -- maybe I was misunderstanding you. 3 general statute you gave me, you said works with the DPS. 4 There's not a requirement that the state board sends a letter, 5 am I correct? 6 7 MR. COX: That's right, your Honor. Sorry, I was misunderstanding your question. 8 9 Oh, yes. So that last JUDGE GREGORY: make sure I was clear. Okay. Because I just wanted to The State Board sends a letter telling 10 you that your rights have been taken away, but they don't send 11 you a letter telling you that your rights have been restored. 12 Am I still correct about that? 13 MR. COX: Yes, you're right. The notification of 14 the -- the end of the sentence and the completion of the 15 sentence is done at DPS. 16 JUDGE GREGORY: 17 MR. COX: 18 JUDGE BELL: Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, Your Honor. Any more questions from my colleagues? 19 I'm going to ask if we could just take a quick recess? 20 do a conference call, Judges? 21 put that together last time. 22 WebEx wants to take about a five-minute break, we're going to 23 just conference this real quick and we'll be right back with 24 you. 25 Can we And I think, Judge Dunlow, you So if everyone else on this Okay? (Judges confer.) Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 239 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 19 CVS 15941 1 JUDGE BELL: First of all, I want to say to all of 2 you that I'm -- I hope I can speak for Judge Gregory and Judge 3 Dunlow to say that I am -- we have been incredibly impressed 4 with your preparation, your knowledge, your professionalism 5 and your presentation of your respective positions. 6 a long day, but I know I appreciate you sticking to the time 7 frames that we've given. 8 I don't know -- I think it was Mr. Cox, you had pulled up some 9 of the DPS forms during your presentation. It's been And the one thing we ask is that -- If those could be 10 e-mailed to Adam and Kellie, if we could get copies of those, 11 that's the only thing that we're going to ask for at this 12 time. We do not need to reconvene tomorrow. 13 14 So Judge Gregory, is that your understanding of where we stand? 15 JUDGE GREGORY: I can concur with everything you 16 said and I also want to reiterate, I thank the attorneys for 17 professionalism. 18 JUDGE BELL: 19 JUDGE DUNLOW: Judge Dunlow. Absolutely, I -- I absolutely agree 20 and will echo the sentiments of the other two judges of the 21 excellent presentations by all counsel. 22 JUDGE BELL: All right. So Mr. Cox or 23 Mr. Rabinovitz, I'm sorry, I don't remember which of you 24 pulled those forms up in response to Judge Gregory's 25 questions. But can those be provided by e-mail in the next Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 240 CSI v Moore, et al By Mr. Cox July 14, 2020 Wake County 1 day or two? 2 3 MR. COX: I've actually already sent them by e-mail, so Adam Steele has them already. 4 5 19 CVS 15941 JUDGE BELL: Very good. Adam, I'm sure you'll get them to us, so. 6 Thank you all. As I said, we will have -- we're 7 putting a self-imposed deadline of no later than 8 September 4th. 9 come back to you with any questions or for clarification, If during our deliberations we have a need to 10 we'll communicate that through Adam and see if we can't work 11 out a time where we can do a conference with WebEx with 12 everyone. 13 otherwise, thank you all and I just ask for your patience. 14 So we will be in touch if we need any of that. (Proceedings concluded 4:56 p.m.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter And 241 CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT This is to certify that the foregoing transcript of proceedings taken on August 19, 2020, Special Session of Wake County Superior Court is a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings taken by me and transcribed by me. I further certify that I am not related to any party or attorney, nor do I have any interest whatsoever in the outcome of this action. This 2nd day of September month ________________________________ DENISE ST. CLAIR, CRR, CRC, RPR Certified Realtime Reporter Certified Realtime Captioner Registered Professional Reporter Official Court Reporter (570) 236-9679 denise.stclair@nccourts.org , 2020. {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} JUDGE BELL: [94] 4/2 4/6 4/8 4/13 4/17 4/22 5/1 5/6 5/14 7/25 8/3 8/15 8/19 10/9 10/18 10/21 11/7 23/21 28/1 28/16 29/8 29/12 29/14 36/22 37/11 41/3 42/23 44/1 44/8 46/20 46/25 47/2 47/12 47/15 47/18 47/24 48/16 48/18 49/7 50/16 53/11 62/18 62/23 63/5 63/8 104/15 104/21 106/3 106/16 106/23 107/6 109/13 117/2 118/4 118/19 119/6 119/9 120/15 125/11 125/13 126/10 132/11 133/3 133/10 133/16 134/3 134/10 150/6 166/2 166/8 179/7 179/9 183/9 184/17 194/12 204/3 204/5 207/19 212/5 212/12 222/1 229/23 229/25 230/4 230/7 230/25 231/4 235/13 237/6 238/18 239/1 239/18 239/22 240/4 JUDGE DUNLOW: [17] 4/7 53/14 119/11 119/14 158/4 158/14 166/20 174/9 176/22 177/20 178/3 178/8 179/12 179/20 231/2 237/8 239/19 JUDGE GREGORY: [33] 4/5 7/23 10/16 43/21 48/15 53/13 129/2 129/4 152/7 156/2 170/25 172/16 173/5 178/9 178/18 179/1 179/23 180/2 180/9 180/18 181/15 183/14 184/11 207/20 209/2 209/21 211/6 231/3 237/9 238/1 238/8 238/16 239/15 MR. ATKINSON: [18] 49/9 109/15 117/16 118/14 118/23 119/8 119/13 120/1 120/21 125/12 125/22 126/11 129/3 130/5 132/13 133/9 212/9 212/17 MR. COX: [38] 133/19 134/4 134/11 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 150/20 154/10 156/16 158/10 158/17 166/6 166/12 166/23 171/16 172/20 173/14 174/15 177/12 177/23 178/6 178/15 178/22 179/5 179/8 179/11 179/14 179/22 180/1 180/7 180/13 181/3 182/5 183/17 187/2 231/6 237/16 238/6 238/13 238/17 240/2 MR. JACOBSON: [27] 50/12 50/17 50/19 53/15 63/1 63/6 63/9 104/17 104/22 106/10 106/18 106/25 107/13 107/22 108/8 108/25 109/2 109/5 109/7 119/7 204/4 204/6 222/3 229/24 230/2 230/5 230/8 MR. JONES: [1] 4/21 MR. RABINOVITZ: [14] 4/10 4/16 5/11 29/17 37/17 41/13 43/8 43/24 44/3 194/13 208/7 209/20 209/22 235/14 MR. STEELE: [5] 47/10 47/14 47/20 53/5 53/8 MS. CARPENTER: [10] 8/13 8/18 8/25 10/19 10/22 11/9 23/23 28/9 28/17 50/11 MS. ROBLEZ: [2] 53/1 62/21 $573 [1] 112/6 $839 [1] 112/23 $999 [1] 156/10 ' '2 [1] 186/1 '3 [1] 186/1 '70s [1] 185/25 's [1] 17/18 -- I [1] 181/13 . .5 [1] 62/15 .5 percent [1] 62/15 0 06459 [1] 2/10 1 1 percent [1] 62/13 1's [3] 114/15 120/24 128/1 1,400 [1] 113/2 1,500 [1] 113/3 1.03 [1] 63/19 1.24 [1] 73/19 1.24 percent [1] 64/12 1.7 [1] 20/11 10 [4] 71/11 101/6 170/19 170/19 100 [10] 36/18 36/19 37/21 37/22 41/10 109/8 158/5 158/11 173/16 231/15 100 percent [2] 36/13 36/20 107 [1] 207/9 109 [1] 3/6 10:10 [1] 8/21 $ 10:30 [1] 6/13 $1,000 [9] 107/17 107/17 107/18 108/3 10:39 [1] 47/3 11 [10] 6/12 6/13 156/6 156/7 156/9 6/13 47/4 47/5 109/22 156/10 156/13 114/20 114/24 117/1 $1,400 [1] 112/9 122/3 $1,500 [1] 112/25 11's [2] 121/22 124/2 $1.50 [2] 123/22 11th [2] 154/25 214/17 166/13 $15 [1] 111/3 12 [4] 52/23 102/13 $154 [1] 111/2 102/14 102/19 $2 [1] 111/4 125 [1] 75/6 $2,441 [2] 112/12 12th [1] 53/16 131/13 13 [4] 137/22 139/11 111/3 $30 [1] 140/2 170/13 $340 [1] 112/7 13-1 [88] 45/12 45/21 $40 [4] 110/19 112/14 49/20 49/24 51/6 112/24 126/1 65/20 76/9 78/18 $521 [1] 131/14 87/10 89/14 89/16 1866 [1] 52/17 92/1 93/1 96/1 105/5 1867 [2] 52/24 53/16 105/19 107/12 109/18 1868 [1] 115/6 109/21 109/23 110/4 1870s [6] 54/8 56/6 110/21 114/22 116/14 81/10 82/23 129/12 130/1 116/24 120/3 121/5 121/21 122/8 122/22 1875 [1] 54/15 124/1 124/9 124/12 1876 [5] 54/19 69/5 80/22 136/8 136/11 124/21 125/7 128/8 128/23 130/11 131/12 1877 [19] 54/20 54/24 132/19 135/19 146/12 55/5 55/11 55/12 150/12 153/9 153/14 55/19 56/8 56/25 154/7 157/11 157/12 60/24 61/3 61/13 69/4 161/19 169/6 174/10 80/24 81/5 82/17 82/18 82/24 136/19 176/8 184/7 184/15 187/22 189/5 190/10 223/21 194/24 195/7 195/13 1899 [2] 56/19 56/20 196/12 201/6 201/8 18th [1] 149/19 202/4 202/5 202/7 19 [13] 1/4 1/13 202/18 204/9 204/11 52/15 64/14 64/22 208/15 208/22 209/16 73/22 109/23 124/12 211/17 212/22 213/25 128/8 132/19 212/24 214/13 215/22 216/12 216/25 241/3 218/5 218/9 220/2 1901 [1] 225/11 221/4 222/7 232/15 1915 [1] 148/25 232/17 232/20 233/10 1918 [1] 217/2 233/14 1933 [2] 56/12 56/25 194 [1] 3/8 13-1's [3] 114/15 120/24 128/1 1960s [1] 192/14 1965 [1] 211/13 13-2 [1] 171/21 13-year-old [1] 21/24 1966 [1] 164/17 1968 [1] 217/7 134 [1] 3/7 1970's [1] 222/17 14-1 [1] 153/3 1970s [14] 81/8 81/9 14th [1] 163/9 92/21 136/22 151/12 15 [5] 49/15 59/25 168/16 223/7 223/14 205/4 222/1 222/23 223/24 225/21 225/25 15941 [1] 1/4 226/5 233/23 234/17 15th [1] 54/10 16 [12] 21/14 21/21 1971 [21] 57/2 57/8 22/4 22/10 24/15 36/4 57/16 58/4 58/16 58/20 58/22 59/4 36/21 64/8 74/13 59/17 137/14 137/16 74/18 75/5 75/16 163 [3] 150/18 171/23 138/7 139/7 140/7 140/11 144/18 170/18 178/16 163-82.14 [2] 231/11 186/1 187/16 194/2 224/1 237/18 1973 [20] 59/7 59/9 163-82.20A [2] 144/17 151/3 155/7 231/19 237/22 170/8 182/21 183/7 1689 [2] 12/6 71/13 183/8 183/11 184/5 17 [3] 76/18 200/10 184/21 185/20 186/23 200/17 187/11 187/11 192/4 1755 [1] 12/6 192/7 194/3 194/9 17th [1] 147/12 1974 [1] 163/8 18 [4] 64/22 118/9 134/19 149/11 1980 [2] 72/16 167/25 1980s [2] 131/1 1800s [3] 153/16 185/10 209/12 209/17 1981 [3] 184/23 1801 [1] 81/24 184/24 185/4 1860s [1] 150/12 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (1) JUDGE BELL: - 1981 {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} 1 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 28,000 [1] 114/1 28,036 [1] 114/1 29 [2] 3/3 92/19 2:00 [2] 7/8 133/11 2:06 [1] 133/15 2nd [2] 233/20 241/9 1983 [1] 168/6 1985 [1] 81/21 1986 [1] 111/15 1990 [1] 86/1 1994 [1] 184/22 19th [5] 13/13 75/25 3 151/11 151/22 157/7 30 [13] 6/21 6/22 1:00 [1] 6/19 7/17 36/12 92/19 1:06 [1] 133/15 94/18 118/25 133/4 133/7 149/14 212/6 2 212/13 212/16 2 percent [1] 64/16 30 years [1] 111/19 2,000 [1] 55/25 30-minute [1] 6/12 2.7 [1] 62/5 92/16 31 [1] 2.76 [1] 83/9 32 [1] 112/25 20 [6] 21/14 21/22 34 [1] 197/1 22/4 22/10 36/14 36 [1] 118/9 111/13 3743 [1] 2/7 78/8 78/13 20,000 [2] 38 [1] 144/16 2000 [2] 21/12 185/2 392 [1] 114/2 20001-3743 [1] 2/7 2004 [1] 21/12 4 2006 [2] 192/12 40 [5] 111/4 111/10 192/16 203/18 203/19 205/11 2007 [1] 21/10 40 percent [1] 36/12 2010 [1] 24/14 40 years [1] 155/9 2013 [2] 81/15 81/17 40,000 [2] 112/10 2016 [3] 102/15 112/16 111/18 113/24 400 [2] 2/3 111/6 2017 [4] 113/25 400 percent [1] 190/15 190/22 191/5 111/13 2018 [6] 74/13 74/18 42 [1] 83/6 75/11 76/1 113/25 42 percent [1] 18/5 114/1 42.4 [1] 62/1 2019 [2] 104/11 439.563 [1] 121/13 228/23 44 [6] 3/4 63/20 2020 [7] 1/13 50/9 64/17 113/9 113/12 68/21 209/18 216/17 207/9 241/3 241/9 44,000 [1] 113/10 203 [1] 2/3 45 [2] 175/3 175/4 208 [1] 191/6 45,000 [1] 113/25 20th [2] 146/25 457 [1] 75/9 151/11 49 [1] 113/12 21 [1] 83/5 4:56 [1] 240/14 21.5 percent [1] 4th [5] 7/15 7/20 61/25 15/12 92/18 240/8 212 [1] 3/9 22 [2] 18/7 52/16 5 222 [1] 3/10 5,000 [1] 226/10 23 [2] 78/7 92/10 5,075 [1] 65/9 231 [1] 3/11 5.82 [1] 64/4 236-9679 [2] 1/23 50 [3] 3/5 86/20 241/14 155/9 24 [2] 220/3 231/5 500 [1] 53/20 25 [2] 212/13 220/3 51,441 [2] 65/6 27602 [2] 2/14 2/18 112/25 27701 [1] 2/3 56,000 [5] 215/21 28 [2] 92/16 93/17 216/16 217/20 219/7 221/18 56,516 [1] 65/11 570 [2] 1/23 241/14 5:00 [1] 6/23 6 6.21 [1] 64/5 6.93 [1] 64/5 60,000 [2] 50/23 73/3 601 [1] 2/6 629 [2] 2/13 2/18 63 [1] 75/8 634 [1] 205/4 639 [1] 205/5 68 [2] 75/3 207/11 7 7.26 [1] 64/6 7.82 [1] 64/7 702 [10] 9/7 10/11 11/10 17/8 17/18 22/1 22/3 23/17 26/19 27/24 73 [1] 150/18 76 [1] 191/6 77 [1] 2/9 79 [1] 207/11 7O2 [1] 27/15 7th [1] 92/18 8 80 [2] 82/1 114/12 81 [1] 191/2 82.14 [2] 231/11 237/18 82.20A [3] 231/19 231/20 237/22 84 [1] 144/20 848,375 [1] 114/3 87,000 [1] 113/24 89 [2] 145/12 145/12 9 90 [1] 112/16 9679 [2] 1/23 241/14 9:30 [1] 4/1 9:40 [1] 8/20 A a.m [1] 4/1 ability [13] 109/20 113/17 115/12 118/3 122/18 129/7 129/8 132/16 134/8 153/10 178/5 198/10 214/13 abridges [1] 73/6 absence [2] 66/7 164/24 absent [2] 67/11 215/22 absentee [2] 181/7 activist [2] 154/1 154/3 191/20 actual [10] 25/7 25/8 absolute [4] 7/15 127/20 127/22 134/5 67/22 86/10 121/18 154/22 161/12 170/8 absolutely [8] 6/8 188/20 233/22 34/21 41/13 41/13 76/6 82/25 239/19 ad [1] 207/20 239/19 Adam [9] 4/8 6/1 8/3 47/7 47/9 239/10 absorption [1] 7/2 240/3 240/4 240/10 absurd [1] 15/12 academic [3] 12/16 Adams [3] 164/5 164/13 164/20 20/23 69/13 added [2] 58/1 accept [3] 34/20 227/20 184/14 211/10 acceptance [2] 11/20 addition [11] 85/12 149/5 152/22 189/5 22/20 195/13 195/25 198/11 accepted [3] 17/24 199/14 205/6 205/15 20/21 22/6 217/5 access [3] 86/16 90/18 216/9 Additionally [3] accessing [1] 213/20 11/24 13/22 22/6 addressed [16] accident [1] 51/13 125/16 139/15 140/18 accompanies [1] 151/16 153/8 159/5 128/19 accomplish [2] 54/13 165/22 173/18 183/21 187/6 187/6 189/11 224/5 189/17 200/4 235/15 according [6] 54/2 235/16 55/22 111/8 113/20 114/11 204/16 addressing [3] 50/20 173/16 183/19 Accordingly [1] 233/12 adequately [2] 90/16 91/7 account [6] 23/10 23/11 25/19 41/11 adjudged [2] 134/23 134/25 117/17 128/15 accounts [1] 52/15 adjust [1] 111/9 administered [1] accrue [1] 126/9 181/13 accumulating [1] 15/13 administration [4] 95/15 96/9 96/13 accurate [5] 21/15 103/8 21/22 24/7 36/10 241/4 administrative [5] accurately [2] 185/25 1/23 100/3 113/21 214/22 221/9 233/15 admissibility [3] 10/2 achieved [1] 11/19 15/20 48/13 acknowledged [2] 90/13 111/15 admission [5] 9/25 acquainted [1] 203/7 24/6 25/11 26/2 26/20 admits [2] 38/9 98/23 acreage [1] 70/24 act [11] 45/13 100/13 admitted [14] 2/7 142/2 160/14 160/15 2/10 13/10 23/25 25/5 185/9 192/11 192/16 26/3 26/6 26/8 26/13 204/24 205/1 211/14 35/16 41/3 41/7 41/22 98/3 acted [1] 130/20 admittedly [5] 9/18 action [3] 154/21 13/19 16/18 21/19 158/6 241/8 138/18 actions [1] 87/8 adopted [3] 61/3 active [5] 139/12 141/11 186/20 191/1 71/21 81/24 191/22 advance [2] 54/4 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (2) 1983 - advance {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} A advance... [1] 137/1 advancements [1] 92/21 advances [4] 91/9 91/14 91/18 95/2 adverse [1] 229/14 Advisers [1] 111/19 Advisory [2] 184/19 185/3 advocate [1] 216/14 affect [5] 27/7 75/14 76/7 87/8 115/1 affected [9] 24/3 38/2 39/3 63/12 73/1 74/5 74/11 75/22 88/2 affects [4] 18/18 220/15 225/4 230/16 affidavit [11] 59/14 59/23 60/5 102/18 102/24 123/8 197/17 198/6 218/5 222/23 222/23 affidavits [1] 152/15 affiliations [1] 202/15 affirmative [7] 78/22 88/11 139/13 145/4 145/5 234/6 234/20 affirmatively [1] 94/21 affluence [2] 127/13 131/6 afford [6] 114/13 125/3 126/8 127/24 128/25 141/22 afforded [2] 90/22 91/2 affords [1] 86/24 afraid [3] 173/8 173/10 192/21 African [65] 18/4 18/8 19/17 19/24 20/4 40/13 40/15 40/25 41/5 41/6 41/12 46/3 46/5 51/7 51/12 51/18 52/10 52/11 54/7 54/12 55/21 55/23 56/12 57/2 59/15 60/22 61/8 61/14 61/17 61/24 62/17 63/21 64/12 64/14 67/17 73/16 73/18 80/12 80/16 80/19 80/20 81/1 82/22 83/4 83/19 113/11 113/14 130/8 131/16 150/14 152/11 152/18 185/20 185/22 186/13 186/24 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 193/11 209/13 209/19 211/1 220/15 220/18 223/8 223/25 226/7 after [33] 6/22 11/6 16/17 51/16 52/9 55/16 60/3 69/4 71/21 72/1 78/22 80/18 97/3 97/21 100/1 101/4 103/4 105/17 119/24 129/25 131/24 136/10 139/2 141/1 158/3 188/9 190/10 191/17 211/11 223/2 227/5 233/8 234/24 afternoon [2] 7/7 194/13 against [12] 61/7 76/15 77/1 90/10 126/9 134/24 172/18 200/7 202/4 207/2 208/3 213/12 age [11] 18/7 40/13 61/25 62/10 62/13 73/9 73/20 73/23 83/5 107/2 149/11 agency [5] 121/3 183/2 183/4 232/5 232/10 aggregate [1] 64/11 aggrieved [2] 145/20 146/2 ago [11] 5/19 21/14 21/22 22/4 22/10 31/16 58/17 101/9 111/11 150/7 235/19 agree [22] 10/16 10/17 10/20 36/10 37/10 37/23 40/18 50/3 70/22 79/2 79/18 79/19 79/25 183/16 201/10 201/15 201/16 204/9 224/21 236/6 236/15 239/19 agreed [3] 59/20 60/18 83/21 agreement [1] 232/1 agrees [1] 206/4 ahead [11] 4/2 8/9 10/21 133/3 133/11 133/17 183/10 203/4 212/5 212/15 229/24 ahold [1] 191/23 Aid [1] 114/12 aim [2] 60/8 197/2 al [1] 1/9 Alabama's [1] 81/22 Alamance [4] 102/13 102/14 102/14 102/19 Alderman [1] 116/4 allegation [1] 162/20 alleged [2] 115/5 183/5 Alleghany [1] 75/1 allegiance [1] 140/23 alleviates [1] 128/14 allocated [3] 6/3 7/5 212/7 allocation [1] 217/15 allotted [2] 6/8 31/23 allow [7] 34/19 86/5 129/17 139/7 159/7 162/18 167/15 allowed [19] 53/2 65/20 75/20 76/16 83/15 83/16 83/18 99/6 99/9 102/20 137/11 150/1 153/1 155/17 159/15 171/5 222/10 227/2 227/23 allowing [1] 211/18 allows [4] 31/4 162/16 164/2 167/4 almost [5] 130/22 130/25 185/7 203/25 210/2 alone [6] 74/13 75/12 77/15 85/15 94/1 115/19 along [5] 17/14 58/11 59/8 60/16 150/10 already [6] 35/9 44/13 44/20 89/23 240/2 240/3 also [90] 5/5 5/12 10/23 12/16 13/12 22/16 23/25 24/22 25/14 26/5 26/19 27/6 29/3 31/15 32/21 33/2 33/5 33/14 33/23 34/2 41/3 41/24 47/20 49/4 59/15 63/2 64/21 69/2 69/17 70/16 70/22 75/21 78/18 78/25 79/18 79/25 83/25 88/18 89/16 104/9 104/11 110/14 110/18 111/5 123/2 134/1 134/13 134/14 134/25 140/9 141/22 148/18 153/5 164/17 165/4 168/4 170/7 170/13 171/4 171/10 174/6 189/19 191/8 191/16 193/24 194/23 197/2 197/11 198/3 198/4 199/1 200/3 202/3 202/18 203/13 204/12 204/14 205/6 207/2 210/12 211/12 214/15 214/23 219/8 222/21 222/22 229/22 236/25 237/12 239/16 alter [1] 204/12 alternative [10] 6/15 86/13 86/14 90/14 203/5 203/6 203/14 207/15 221/22 237/1 alternatively [3] 48/24 50/4 169/2 alternatives [1] 145/16 although [3] 38/11 93/24 104/10 altogether [2] 31/9 94/5 always [4] 105/20 118/11 221/1 222/4 am [6] 194/14 209/11 238/5 238/12 239/3 241/6 amend [2] 57/4 59/8 amended [3] 57/1 81/9 93/11 amendment [15] 54/10 54/17 54/19 58/12 68/14 80/22 136/8 140/18 140/21 140/22 141/3 146/20 163/9 188/8 188/9 amendments [3] 92/23 223/15 223/24 American [20] 32/18 33/3 40/13 46/3 51/7 51/12 57/2 59/15 60/22 64/12 64/15 82/22 130/8 152/11 152/18 209/19 220/15 220/18 223/8 223/25 Americans [48] 18/4 18/9 19/18 19/25 20/4 40/15 41/1 41/6 41/6 41/7 41/12 46/5 51/18 52/10 52/11 54/7 54/12 55/21 55/23 56/12 61/8 61/14 61/17 61/24 62/17 63/21 67/17 73/16 73/18 80/13 80/16 80/19 80/21 81/2 83/5 83/19 113/11 113/14 131/16 150/14 185/21 185/22 186/13 186/24 193/11 209/13 211/1 226/7 amicus [1] 102/16 Amikai [8] 111/13 111/18 130/24 131/25 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 212/21 218/17 219/12 219/20 among [7] 21/16 40/14 42/1 72/14 95/17 124/19 170/14 amongst [2] 88/1 113/20 amount [20] 108/2 112/6 112/7 112/8 112/9 112/11 112/22 112/23 112/24 113/2 113/2 116/21 116/22 119/18 121/17 125/3 125/15 194/16 214/23 214/24 amounts [2] 112/21 125/14 amplifies [1] 218/18 analogous [4] 204/25 225/11 229/2 230/22 analogy [2] 34/24 75/24 analyses [10] 9/23 10/6 11/3 16/21 17/1 17/9 17/12 17/20 17/22 27/21 analysis [88] 9/20 11/12 11/13 11/15 11/20 12/11 14/1 14/2 14/4 14/6 14/7 14/9 18/2 20/25 21/4 21/20 21/25 22/18 22/24 23/5 23/25 24/6 24/7 24/10 24/16 25/3 26/1 26/17 26/19 27/1 27/6 27/14 27/20 27/20 28/12 30/14 30/21 31/19 31/20 32/15 33/7 33/21 33/24 35/9 35/10 35/11 35/16 36/2 36/11 36/12 36/14 38/21 38/22 38/24 39/8 39/16 39/20 42/10 43/4 43/17 45/4 45/9 46/14 74/7 78/21 108/10 136/16 142/11 142/24 144/6 160/23 162/23 164/9 168/8 174/3 174/4 183/24 184/8 192/24 193/4 193/4 193/7 193/12 193/13 194/8 195/4 202/16 235/24 analyze [2] 21/3 193/10 analyzed [8] 70/5 83/21 83/24 111/24 (3) advance... - analyzed {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} A analyzed... [4] 112/11 113/10 157/24 213/9 analyzes [2] 31/5 80/6 analyzing [5] 20/17 30/7 31/13 79/10 233/21 animating [2] 209/24 211/2 announce [4] 172/7 172/22 182/11 232/10 announced [2] 168/16 188/5 announcement [2] 183/1 183/3 another [37] 14/7 18/24 22/23 23/11 25/21 27/12 28/12 36/10 41/24 42/21 65/14 65/18 66/21 85/5 87/12 99/23 107/15 107/17 108/9 112/17 118/5 121/2 121/15 124/21 126/5 134/25 140/11 141/15 148/19 161/2 161/5 164/8 183/3 196/16 200/4 207/10 210/11 answer [23] 7/11 7/16 7/19 99/7 101/24 102/3 106/20 107/5 117/13 119/12 120/12 120/15 120/22 177/2 177/12 180/1 187/12 187/13 215/7 215/8 215/9 228/1 231/8 answered [2] 60/11 116/2 answering [1] 192/21 answers [2] 58/23 95/11 Anthony [2] 102/18 220/9 anticipate [1] 186/10 antipolitical [1] 67/14 anybody [6] 5/17 47/25 106/15 107/1 137/10 137/11 anymore [1] 153/17 anyone [10] 20/10 42/14 47/25 98/21 99/5 99/19 208/17 212/5 223/6 223/7 anything [14] 7/21 8/1 13/11 13/13 13/18 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 48/7 48/14 106/1 139/11 145/24 178/18 208/6 228/12 230/23 anything -- if [1] 145/24 anyway [1] 185/1 anyways [1] 235/16 anywhere [1] 57/20 apologies [2] 44/18 137/20 apologize [4] 56/20 63/24 179/10 181/15 App [3] 205/4 207/9 207/11 apparent [1] 233/9 apparently [3] 14/11 182/3 185/18 appeal [2] 203/22 213/18 Appeals [11] 24/5 68/4 68/10 68/14 81/14 93/23 104/9 104/19 168/25 204/16 207/11 appear [3] 11/18 58/18 64/21 APPEARANCES [1] 1/25 appears [4] 63/2 99/10 137/23 156/2 appellate [7] 67/2 67/18 104/4 110/16 151/21 213/18 213/22 apples [1] 151/5 applicable [4] 60/1 165/25 166/2 223/1 applicants [3] 132/6 132/8 132/9 application [4] 101/10 106/6 146/14 168/15 applications [9] 141/23 142/7 154/18 155/2 157/21 228/21 229/1 229/8 236/13 applied [39] 15/19 16/12 20/3 20/10 21/15 24/14 24/21 43/11 66/25 70/7 70/10 85/20 90/21 119/4 124/17 127/3 127/7 145/23 148/6 148/6 148/13 148/19 154/21 154/24 156/20 160/17 165/18 168/6 195/3 199/6 200/6 200/10 200/15 200/16 214/16 216/8 230/19 235/23 236/7 applies [14] 78/21 85/12 86/14 89/22 152/5 162/22 163/20 164/1 165/15 165/16 168/23 199/11 224/18 228/11 apply [42] 21/22 23/19 55/14 69/22 79/17 86/23 89/24 90/3 90/19 90/25 91/1 91/8 96/1 141/5 145/14 145/21 145/23 145/24 148/23 150/5 154/14 156/21 157/25 159/6 160/11 163/3 163/5 163/16 163/18 164/23 165/8 168/20 177/8 187/25 189/8 195/24 199/10 209/16 213/5 228/5 228/16 230/10 applying [8] 17/14 90/8 91/6 145/8 145/9 166/6 168/11 169/21 appointing [1] 110/15 apportionment [4] 163/10 163/16 164/1 165/7 appreciate [2] 117/15 239/6 approach [3] 18/25 20/14 77/18 appropriate [3] 128/7 203/6 207/2 approximate [1] 113/24 approximately [1] 113/10 arbitrary [2] 208/11 210/15 architect [1] 15/25 areas [6] 27/10 32/11 32/17 32/20 33/2 33/17 argue [16] 29/21 29/23 49/24 50/2 77/18 79/15 87/1 109/18 109/21 109/23 109/25 123/2 159/19 201/7 203/19 204/12 argued [7] 29/24 42/14 81/25 103/12 142/8 173/4 222/7 argues [1] 76/14 arguing [5] 49/19 155/21 162/14 192/5 212/8 argument [32] 10/12 11/5 11/5 28/8 28/9 28/23 42/8 43/5 48/24 49/14 79/16 82/3 93/21 124/9 133/1 133/7 133/8 144/2 153/22 154/6 154/12 157/18 160/16 165/23 182/24 182/25 182/25 187/15 188/17 190/2 228/10 228/12 argumentative [1] 233/8 arguments [16] 7/13 28/3 29/25 40/5 44/25 48/11 68/10 104/24 133/17 133/23 133/25 136/2 136/3 142/8 179/16 234/21 Arizona's [1] 151/23 Arlington [14] 45/9 46/14 80/6 81/11 83/1 84/4 192/23 192/24 193/3 193/7 193/13 193/14 224/22 225/9 ARNOLD [3] 2/5 49/12 50/13 around [5] 116/2 120/7 168/18 215/1 234/25 array [1] 110/25 article [41] 13/25 52/23 53/15 53/17 53/18 53/24 58/3 65/23 66/13 67/9 69/2 69/9 69/12 69/18 71/10 109/21 109/23 114/19 114/24 117/1 121/22 122/3 124/2 124/12 128/8 132/19 134/11 134/12 134/13 140/10 140/12 150/22 162/10 170/17 184/18 185/2 188/7 199/12 212/24 222/19 233/18 articles [3] 12/15 27/2 33/16 as [334] as-applied [9] 43/11 127/3 127/7 154/21 195/3 200/15 230/19 235/23 236/7 ascertain [8] 72/4 72/12 73/7 73/12 73/25 78/15 78/20 149/1 ascertained [1] 72/6 Ashe [2] 75/4 75/6 Ashley [1] 52/25 aside [2] 64/10 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 125/14 ask [24] 8/6 8/9 9/3 9/21 14/24 27/22 47/7 94/17 95/14 95/23 117/2 134/7 174/9 176/22 176/23 206/23 216/10 227/23 232/14 236/23 238/19 239/7 239/11 240/13 asked [18] 7/6 14/7 14/22 31/16 48/18 102/2 138/16 138/16 138/20 176/25 190/4 198/11 209/3 209/19 227/11 227/16 228/3 237/17 asking [9] 31/3 94/14 118/15 143/2 153/6 183/13 191/3 210/4 226/13 aspect [7] 60/24 82/23 93/1 109/8 119/14 134/7 187/13 aspects [11] 16/25 26/4 45/5 46/7 75/15 82/10 92/25 142/13 144/22 144/24 173/18 assassination [1] 217/8 assembly [51] 46/12 54/21 54/25 55/5 55/14 56/14 56/21 57/3 57/16 58/20 59/3 59/8 59/18 60/14 61/3 66/1 66/3 66/11 66/14 68/9 68/17 69/3 69/6 69/13 69/15 69/19 69/25 70/2 70/3 71/6 81/9 85/3 85/6 85/21 86/19 88/23 90/1 90/22 91/2 91/5 93/11 93/24 94/1 110/24 130/22 141/18 148/11 200/20 200/21 221/18 223/22 assert [4] 12/14 12/17 15/5 122/11 asserted [1] 190/3 asserting [3] 94/24 95/6 227/17 assertion [1] 123/14 assertions [1] 22/1 assess [3] 21/11 21/22 21/25 assessing [3] 11/22 16/6 21/13 assessment [1] 150/12 assets [1] 115/21 (4) analyzed... - assets {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} A assistant [2] 5/9 5/12 associated [9] 19/17 21/6 112/5 125/15 125/21 128/17 132/17 138/21 220/2 associating [1] 88/20 association [10] 33/9 88/12 88/14 89/2 89/10 89/17 89/20 114/12 202/19 202/23 assume [2] 5/24 35/23 assumed [2] 24/13 24/16 assumes [1] 36/18 assuming [2] 181/2 198/7 assumption [5] 25/13 36/7 38/20 144/3 200/24 assumptions [6] 16/23 35/22 35/25 38/4 38/5 38/15 astronomical [1] 64/7 Atkinson [15] 2/2 3/6 3/9 4/18 49/10 50/13 50/19 52/1 106/2 109/13 109/16 117/3 129/2 212/7 212/18 Atkinson's [1] 208/2 attached [1] 100/17 attack [1] 68/11 attacked [1] 32/4 attacks [2] 30/23 130/25 attempt [1] 150/10 attempted [2] 23/7 84/12 attempting [2] 22/11 34/18 attempts [3] 21/3 25/23 26/25 attend [1] 218/14 attended [1] 112/7 attention [2] 137/25 225/7 attest [3] 57/10 93/3 100/20 attests [1] 219/5 attitude [1] 185/14 attorney [18] 2/11 2/14 2/15 2/16 5/5 5/9 5/12 29/18 49/10 49/12 53/3 109/16 133/20 182/7 196/20 197/6 219/21 241/7 attorney's [2] 177/5 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 191/10 attorneys [5] 2/4 2/8 49/18 98/15 239/16 audible [1] 180/1 audio [18] 44/15 44/17 47/11 75/18 107/16 108/16 123/20 129/4 165/11 170/25 171/12 175/23 181/24 184/11 186/9 193/22 212/5 225/14 audit [4] 190/15 190/16 190/22 191/5 August [2] 1/13 241/3 authored [3] 12/17 164/8 228/22 authoritative [1] 71/23 authorities [1] 213/6 authority [12] 66/1 68/8 69/25 70/2 70/4 91/1 98/25 145/22 174/4 189/17 213/2 236/8 authorization [1] 181/6 authorized [1] 68/13 authorizes [6] 69/19 110/20 126/12 131/20 135/7 196/7 automatic [20] 58/10 60/1 92/22 93/1 140/15 144/24 170/22 180/20 180/23 182/1 211/19 211/21 211/21 211/25 212/1 223/1 229/6 229/17 232/17 237/13 automatically [15] 60/9 77/9 138/9 139/7 142/6 176/10 176/18 176/25 180/11 183/22 187/23 188/4 229/3 229/14 230/11 Automobile [1] 205/2 available [3] 7/6 22/4 143/22 Ave [1] 2/6 average [4] 22/12 111/9 118/24 224/2 averages [1] 119/6 avid [1] 80/25 avoid [8] 129/25 147/16 173/5 173/13 173/15 173/25 174/1 182/15 avoiding [3] 95/4 96/9 226/9 avoids [6] 95/8 95/10 103/7 103/8 174/1 182/16 awareness [1] 186/22 away [10] 144/8 153/3 153/12 153/14 182/12 210/9 219/4 221/11 231/10 238/10 B back [58] 6/12 6/13 6/19 7/13 47/5 47/25 57/12 81/10 81/14 106/11 117/14 119/14 119/16 130/8 130/23 133/5 133/12 139/14 139/17 144/13 147/7 147/8 149/16 150/6 150/12 152/9 157/17 167/11 170/21 177/3 179/9 183/11 184/5 184/21 184/23 185/20 187/5 187/10 187/14 187/22 188/1 188/4 192/7 196/16 204/7 205/24 212/6 212/7 214/2 215/12 222/21 224/8 225/11 229/17 231/4 235/6 238/23 240/9 background [8] 9/18 28/24 44/19 80/8 80/10 81/2 84/5 160/9 backing [1] 92/11 bad [1] 150/19 balance [4] 90/21 91/1 220/20 223/9 balanced [1] 90/10 balancing [1] 220/22 ballot [4] 89/16 181/7 191/20 217/20 ban [17] 71/2 89/14 109/22 110/5 114/20 114/23 115/3 115/15 115/24 116/12 116/15 120/24 121/22 122/3 122/8 124/2 136/14 banding [1] 89/12 banning [1] 89/13 barred [1] 64/17 Barringer [1] 16/7 Bartlett [7] 66/22 67/18 69/17 84/19 84/20 85/11 85/18 base [1] 109/25 based [50] 11/4 11/15 17/21 22/2 24/13 26/20 27/12 28/24 33/24 34/15 35/2 35/24 38/13 40/19 45/11 74/24 76/12 114/21 116/16 123/11 124/14 124/15 125/6 126/24 127/5 128/10 128/15 131/9 131/11 132/20 139/8 152/11 153/10 156/5 156/7 162/24 177/12 195/12 199/16 199/21 200/5 200/6 202/8 212/23 213/9 229/22 230/9 230/11 235/20 235/21 basic [3] 90/18 110/7 131/3 basically [1] 35/23 basis [38] 9/22 62/6 62/13 64/15 68/20 70/8 73/24 77/15 83/8 90/5 90/16 91/6 129/18 156/21 156/23 156/24 165/21 168/23 169/24 169/25 170/2 170/2 172/13 173/15 173/20 182/9 182/17 182/20 188/20 189/8 198/16 200/6 208/5 216/15 233/25 234/4 234/6 234/8 Bates [2] 102/18 207/9 Baumgartner [18] 28/7 36/4 37/19 38/23 39/4 39/6 39/18 40/12 40/19 61/15 61/23 74/16 111/23 112/11 112/15 118/25 220/1 220/2 Baumgartner's [13] 18/4 36/2 36/17 39/13 39/15 63/3 64/8 64/22 74/18 113/9 113/13 125/21 131/12 bear [4] 47/17 156/3 168/25 188/6 bears [1] 61/20 Beasley [1] 168/25 Beaufort [2] 75/7 86/10 became [3] 52/9 96/12 152/19 become [2] 15/13 100/2 bedrock [2] 35/4 221/2 been -- their [1] 180/10 before [34] 1/17 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 26/17 51/25 52/4 55/6 55/9 55/13 55/25 56/19 56/23 59/12 60/21 82/16 86/22 94/9 95/24 110/6 124/23 130/9 130/11 137/5 140/8 182/17 185/8 189/17 191/25 193/6 203/2 212/3 214/25 223/12 223/16 224/1 224/7 began [3] 52/11 52/18 130/25 begin [2] 8/9 51/22 beginning [4] 115/14 136/20 150/16 172/18 begrudgingly [2] 59/20 60/18 behalf [2] 127/3 180/3 behave [1] 219/20 behavior [3] 12/11 25/7 38/8 behind [10] 8/21 81/17 108/14 130/17 144/17 144/17 144/18 147/12 155/5 194/5 belied [1] 103/9 belief [1] 210/5 believes [2] 30/22 210/7 Bell [34] 1/17 5/19 7/23 31/16 47/10 47/16 94/20 94/23 95/6 95/9 95/11 95/20 95/25 98/3 98/23 99/7 99/14 99/24 100/6 101/5 101/13 108/16 152/8 153/6 155/4 183/15 184/16 190/12 190/13 190/18 191/8 208/6 212/9 227/16 Bell's [3] 99/18 189/21 226/19 below [1] 176/7 bends [2] 147/25 147/25 benefit [5] 145/17 145/18 146/5 146/6 146/6 bent [2] 45/20 209/6 best [5] 47/14 65/25 115/11 211/10 221/12 between [38] 25/16 27/3 33/6 34/24 40/13 67/6 76/5 78/6 79/11 81/16 85/13 85/22 86/9 87/14 87/20 107/25 108/2 108/5 (5) assistant - between {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} B between... [20] 108/6 108/11 138/2 156/5 156/8 156/15 157/12 157/20 158/18 158/25 165/24 167/19 169/7 169/12 203/21 204/22 224/20 225/2 230/18 235/23 bias [3] 27/4 137/8 210/25 bill [21] 57/15 57/20 57/24 57/25 58/1 58/4 58/12 58/16 58/22 58/24 59/4 59/5 71/13 76/20 138/7 139/15 140/2 140/3 140/5 140/11 140/15 bill's [2] 58/9 58/19 binding [2] 43/1 43/4 black [22] 19/5 19/9 19/9 20/11 56/7 62/3 62/9 62/13 63/10 63/15 64/2 64/17 65/1 73/20 73/23 83/8 103/5 132/6 132/7 132/8 137/7 226/25 blacks [5] 63/16 132/1 220/4 220/7 220/8 blank [1] 209/5 Blankenship [7] 69/17 70/3 70/10 84/20 85/18 90/20 91/12 block [1] 120/5 blocking [1] 131/21 blood [1] 55/25 blood-thirty [1] 55/25 blow [1] 62/18 blown [2] 53/17 58/7 Blumstein [1] 168/4 board [104] 2/19 9/13 10/25 33/8 34/8 44/6 44/11 44/14 60/2 75/2 75/4 75/7 76/14 76/17 77/2 78/6 86/10 91/24 92/15 92/19 93/17 94/3 94/7 94/12 94/19 94/21 94/24 95/1 95/6 95/10 96/1 96/17 96/17 96/18 96/23 96/24 97/4 97/5 97/9 97/14 97/15 97/25 98/4 98/14 98/17 98/20 99/15 99/25 101/6 101/17 101/22 106/19 122/4 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 122/7 122/10 125/10 127/2 127/19 133/21 134/1 171/1 171/6 171/17 171/19 171/24 171/25 172/10 178/10 178/12 178/19 178/23 179/17 180/19 181/18 182/3 189/21 190/3 190/20 191/9 191/19 191/23 194/18 199/2 199/15 215/6 215/8 218/9 218/12 218/13 223/1 226/22 227/20 231/13 231/21 232/9 232/10 233/7 233/11 233/13 233/19 236/9 237/22 238/4 238/9 Board's [9] 76/22 77/6 77/16 94/18 96/13 99/4 100/7 181/4 227/3 boards [7] 90/14 97/18 97/19 98/17 231/16 231/17 237/11 Boards' [1] 232/24 body [2] 72/17 172/10 boil [1] 168/15 boiling [1] 49/16 bold [1] 176/7 bond [3] 125/18 125/20 126/8 book [3] 12/17 32/9 32/23 books [4] 12/15 203/18 205/10 205/13 born [2] 134/18 185/1 both [34] 9/12 24/23 26/13 26/15 29/25 32/14 33/11 33/17 33/25 37/12 50/20 67/19 69/1 73/17 79/7 87/24 88/2 93/10 104/4 122/7 123/5 128/15 136/2 141/20 151/23 167/24 195/5 196/25 206/18 208/1 222/6 223/10 235/25 236/9 bottom [11] 53/24 57/17 58/5 63/23 64/1 64/7 65/1 65/4 71/3 100/25 101/7 boundaries [1] 148/12 boundary [1] 33/6 bounds [1] 14/12 box [3] 2/13 2/18 89/16 brains [1] 7/1 branch [4] 12/13 143/25 144/1 206/18 break [8] 6/10 6/12 6/19 49/3 94/4 133/11 212/14 238/22 Bredesen [1] 200/4 Brennan [4] 2/12 5/2 5/4 5/4 Brian [6] 2/12 3/3 3/8 29/18 133/23 194/14 brief [69] 22/22 24/11 32/23 36/2 39/5 39/8 39/13 41/23 44/12 44/14 44/15 44/16 46/21 56/18 58/14 76/14 76/18 76/22 78/7 85/24 90/6 92/7 92/10 92/11 92/13 92/16 92/19 93/17 94/11 100/18 104/10 104/18 111/14 111/18 115/5 116/1 122/1 128/16 132/3 142/19 144/6 145/1 147/1 157/23 159/18 162/21 169/9 179/16 179/19 188/16 189/20 192/25 193/1 193/3 196/16 197/15 197/21 198/25 200/3 202/10 203/20 214/21 216/7 218/20 227/20 232/22 235/14 235/18 237/2 briefing [1] 215/17 briefly [10] 6/9 44/7 110/7 164/4 179/9 200/19 200/19 208/7 231/8 235/16 briefs [12] 74/4 74/8 81/6 102/16 141/17 142/1 149/5 164/5 194/18 206/25 230/6 236/9 bright [6] 157/19 169/6 170/12 206/9 206/10 206/11 bright-line [5] 169/6 170/12 206/9 206/10 206/11 bring [7] 57/9 125/22 127/7 197/20 205/24 228/25 233/4 bringing [4] 42/12 93/3 158/8 228/18 brings [1] 65/11 Britain [1] 147/12 British [1] 147/13 Brito [1] 2/17 broad [5] 12/20 14/10 15/2 82/14 103/17 broader [4] 36/24 84/17 88/15 216/13 broadest [1] 55/3 broadly [1] 32/17 broke [1] 154/1 brought [7] 113/16 127/3 177/3 195/2 214/10 215/1 236/21 bucket [1] 167/8 bullet [2] 92/8 92/11 Buncombe [1] 64/5 bur [1] 226/3 Burch [5] 21/9 21/12 28/7 36/10 131/23 Burch's [2] 21/11 21/21 burden [16] 80/3 84/9 84/12 111/21 112/13 136/22 141/20 141/22 153/11 169/4 170/1 188/20 188/22 195/19 205/7 213/19 burdens [7] 89/17 95/18 114/5 146/18 196/23 197/8 197/9 burdensome [1] 112/2 Bureau [1] 226/23 Burton [4] 52/14 55/17 56/3 56/7 C C.C [1] 115/5 C3 [3] 231/11 231/16 237/18 calculates [1] 214/23 calculation [3] 16/23 40/10 125/21 calculations [1] 26/14 Califano [2] 145/6 145/12 California [1] 165/10 call [6] 4/3 47/9 47/11 133/3 235/12 238/20 call-in [1] 4/3 Callahan [1] 8/16 Callanan [57] 8/12 8/14 8/15 8/17 9/5 9/10 9/15 10/3 12/1 12/3 12/14 12/17 12/25 13/24 14/10 14/25 15/5 16/5 16/13 17/3 18/3 18/8 18/15 18/22 21/2 21/19 22/9 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 22/19 23/17 23/24 24/12 25/5 25/7 25/14 25/23 26/16 26/24 27/2 27/17 28/4 28/21 28/24 29/22 31/17 31/20 35/2 37/20 38/22 39/23 40/6 40/11 40/17 41/18 42/6 42/8 42/12 74/6 Callanan's [41] 9/21 10/6 10/24 11/9 11/17 12/22 13/7 13/22 15/9 17/7 17/12 17/16 17/17 17/19 18/1 19/5 19/23 20/17 22/1 24/24 26/1 26/18 27/9 27/23 30/6 30/9 30/14 30/19 31/1 31/4 31/9 32/3 35/11 35/15 36/13 37/24 40/11 44/14 45/5 48/11 83/11 callbacks [1] 132/5 called [5] 35/22 58/10 102/13 163/9 177/25 calling [1] 8/15 calls [1] 217/7 campaign [3] 52/11 52/15 226/4 canceled [2] 96/20 97/2 candidate [8] 24/19 24/20 36/20 88/20 89/5 89/7 89/8 89/9 candidates [6] 24/23 25/17 33/12 76/5 131/4 147/22 cannot [38] 66/25 70/17 70/23 73/13 73/25 74/2 77/3 77/6 79/23 83/6 85/3 91/13 92/14 100/8 107/11 114/13 115/13 115/19 121/6 128/25 129/22 131/4 132/20 143/25 149/15 156/14 159/21 159/22 161/2 164/25 165/15 191/22 198/5 198/8 205/15 209/13 221/10 227/21 capable [4] 30/5 30/20 35/8 42/16 CAPACITY [1] 1/8 capital [1] 231/20 Captioner [1] 241/12 care [2] 183/2 183/3 career [1] 12/4 careful [2] 203/9 (6) between... - careful {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} C careful... [1] 220/22 CAROLINA [193] 1/1 1/5 1/9 9/7 9/25 13/19 15/6 15/11 15/19 16/12 17/8 18/8 18/10 18/14 22/12 22/17 23/14 24/5 25/11 26/22 27/24 29/3 29/7 29/18 34/3 34/3 34/8 34/8 34/10 41/17 44/10 46/6 49/19 49/21 49/22 50/22 50/23 51/6 51/8 51/23 52/5 52/12 53/25 54/8 54/12 54/18 61/9 63/14 65/8 65/12 65/24 66/5 66/17 66/19 67/2 67/13 67/20 71/22 72/12 72/14 72/15 73/4 73/8 74/6 74/22 75/25 76/10 78/8 78/9 79/1 79/4 80/11 83/6 84/8 84/16 84/18 84/22 84/24 85/2 85/16 86/1 86/2 86/11 87/7 87/14 87/16 88/3 88/8 88/13 88/17 88/18 88/22 90/7 90/13 96/15 97/12 98/10 98/16 98/19 99/12 99/24 101/18 102/17 102/21 104/4 104/8 104/11 104/19 107/1 108/17 110/9 110/10 110/14 112/3 112/14 113/20 114/8 115/2 115/15 115/18 115/19 115/20 116/14 117/24 121/1 121/4 121/14 124/9 124/10 124/23 126/12 126/16 128/9 128/16 131/24 132/17 134/12 136/9 139/9 145/22 145/25 146/13 146/16 146/23 147/15 149/20 149/25 151/15 152/1 160/19 161/14 161/16 161/19 163/21 167/2 167/8 167/22 184/19 185/3 185/4 193/10 199/12 201/1 201/3 201/22 201/24 203/1 206/3 207/2 207/9 208/16 210/21 212/24 213/3 214/5 214/7 215/11 215/20 216/8 216/17 220/9 220/14 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 220/18 221/7 221/19 224/3 226/11 226/16 228/23 233/15 233/18 234/5 236/4 Carolina's [20] 26/4 34/6 51/12 56/2 56/6 63/22 63/25 71/24 72/8 73/5 76/18 88/14 110/5 114/23 115/24 124/11 124/18 150/21 167/23 168/3 Carolinians [11] 18/5 50/7 67/16 87/11 89/19 91/3 95/18 95/19 114/5 132/15 137/7 Carpenter [13] 2/2 3/2 4/18 9/1 10/9 10/21 23/22 28/1 28/4 29/8 29/15 31/16 37/12 carried [7] 52/19 81/18 147/14 150/18 152/4 223/24 231/25 carries [4] 54/21 60/23 60/24 82/10 carry [6] 82/25 84/12 104/25 136/13 136/24 192/4 carrying [1] 193/23 carves [1] 163/14 carving [1] 234/12 case [234] 5/15 9/9 12/2 13/21 15/10 15/11 15/14 15/22 16/3 16/4 16/7 16/7 27/18 28/10 28/13 28/18 28/19 28/23 28/25 29/4 29/5 29/20 29/24 30/4 30/7 31/5 31/9 31/14 31/21 33/1 33/22 34/4 34/5 34/5 34/6 34/9 34/18 34/19 34/24 34/25 35/1 35/7 36/1 36/7 36/10 37/25 40/25 42/13 43/13 44/22 44/23 47/21 48/6 49/16 55/4 59/24 72/1 72/16 78/17 81/8 81/13 81/19 81/21 81/25 82/18 84/1 84/21 85/11 86/1 86/3 86/9 86/11 90/5 90/12 90/21 91/6 91/11 91/23 92/25 93/20 102/17 104/5 104/8 104/10 104/17 104/23 104/25 105/14 105/18 106/19 116/2 123/18 141/25 143/19 145/6 145/11 145/11 145/12 145/23 145/25 146/9 147/1 147/2 147/8 147/18 148/2 148/13 148/20 148/21 148/22 148/25 149/15 150/7 150/25 151/19 151/22 154/19 154/20 156/19 157/23 159/18 159/19 159/24 160/1 160/3 160/10 160/10 160/18 161/17 161/20 162/2 162/6 163/7 164/4 164/5 164/7 164/18 164/19 164/20 166/13 167/24 168/4 168/6 168/24 168/25 169/17 170/6 174/5 175/20 177/21 181/11 183/6 189/7 192/9 192/10 192/10 193/9 194/5 194/15 194/19 195/1 195/11 196/4 196/16 197/12 198/18 199/2 199/3 199/14 199/19 199/19 199/22 200/3 200/4 200/8 200/9 200/9 200/11 200/13 200/17 200/21 201/1 201/3 202/9 202/9 202/17 203/5 203/11 203/24 204/7 204/9 205/6 205/9 207/1 207/11 207/16 209/21 210/19 210/20 213/9 213/15 214/16 223/17 224/16 225/7 225/8 225/12 227/21 227/25 228/22 228/24 229/2 229/2 229/3 229/23 229/25 230/3 230/8 230/22 230/22 233/20 233/21 235/17 235/19 235/20 235/22 236/2 236/5 236/7 236/13 236/15 236/19 236/22 237/4 cases [56] 15/6 15/8 34/3 70/5 70/8 70/12 84/21 85/17 87/1 91/12 110/16 111/15 113/1 114/2 114/2 114/3 128/18 145/2 145/2 145/3 145/7 146/24 151/14 151/15 151/19 151/23 159/4 162/17 163/5 163/6 165/22 165/25 167/22 168/1 168/12 168/15 168/20 168/22 169/18 169/18 170/7 188/17 189/11 189/12 195/17 196/8 199/18 206/18 206/19 210/3 210/24 212/25 213/1 216/7 217/22 224/7 casting [1] 217/20 catch [1] 229/25 categorized [1] 125/25 category [3] 99/22 135/5 230/16 Cato [2] 111/13 219/12 Cato's [1] 130/24 caught [2] 187/9 189/16 cause [26] 29/4 29/4 29/4 43/15 44/23 71/25 78/17 84/21 88/16 88/19 146/24 147/2 147/8 148/2 148/13 148/18 148/22 150/7 152/2 181/23 198/7 198/9 202/11 202/11 216/12 225/17 caused [2] 23/14 100/4 caveat [1] 70/9 cellphone [2] 47/8 47/17 Center [2] 102/17 111/8 centered [1] 12/23 central [3] 32/25 60/23 76/25 century [7] 13/13 146/25 147/12 149/19 151/11 151/11 157/7 certain [27] 18/20 19/4 20/11 35/21 45/5 45/22 57/9 58/23 59/10 70/24 75/21 76/6 82/1 89/5 89/5 133/22 157/3 157/4 162/16 163/11 172/18 188/18 188/25 194/17 222/11 229/4 230/16 certainly [32] 14/17 14/19 23/16 30/18 32/19 34/16 36/13 36/15 37/19 38/24 38/25 39/7 41/15 74/6 106/11 106/21 116/10 120/13 120/21 130/5 130/19 141/9 142/22 155/7 167/3 177/14 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 178/6 207/3 208/10 227/1 228/5 232/14 certificate [4] 176/2 176/3 176/4 180/7 CERTIFICATION [1] 240/15 Certified [2] 241/12 241/12 certify [2] 241/2 241/6 chaired [1] 55/18 challenge [50] 43/11 43/12 43/18 69/20 70/8 77/3 122/15 122/18 122/20 122/22 127/3 127/7 135/24 136/4 136/5 141/17 141/19 141/19 141/24 150/21 154/15 154/17 154/21 155/1 155/20 190/10 195/3 195/3 195/19 196/11 197/10 200/1 200/16 214/15 214/16 228/19 228/19 228/25 229/1 229/5 233/10 235/23 235/24 236/1 236/6 236/7 236/10 236/11 236/14 236/18 challenged [23] 110/21 124/18 135/15 135/16 136/18 143/15 151/2 151/2 151/8 157/14 157/15 158/20 158/23 173/3 195/2 195/10 201/2 201/23 208/21 208/22 210/20 232/21 236/12 challenger [1] 169/4 challenging [9] 14/5 36/6 92/24 92/25 93/4 211/5 214/12 214/12 214/13 championing [1] 57/22 chance [1] 152/25 change [7] 28/3 28/8 28/10 158/15 183/15 218/3 236/13 changed [5] 101/6 129/13 153/7 170/18 210/17 changes [6] 21/25 82/1 144/9 187/7 187/8 225/13 chapter [8] 137/22 139/11 140/2 146/12 149/9 170/13 171/23 178/16 (7) careful... - chapter {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} C character [5] 57/10 93/4 152/17 152/24 153/18 characteristic [1] 114/10 characterization [2] 233/12 233/14 charge [1] 215/6 charged [1] 210/23 Charlotte [2] 5/20 116/4 chart [13] 62/1 62/7 62/8 62/9 62/16 63/2 63/6 63/9 63/18 63/24 64/1 64/8 65/4 check [1] 180/14 checked [1] 101/8 CHG [1] 5/9 child's [1] 218/23 children [3] 218/10 218/12 218/23 choice [5] 88/20 88/21 111/16 206/6 206/6 choices [2] 94/1 167/13 chooses [1] 135/12 choosing [1] 73/4 choppy [1] 109/3 chose [3] 54/25 55/3 55/15 chosen [1] 213/10 chronicled [1] 80/17 Circuit [5] 15/12 151/22 154/25 164/8 166/13 Circuit's [1] 233/20 circular [1] 77/11 circulating [1] 52/18 circumstances [4] 90/8 142/1 162/21 195/20 circumvent [1] 149/7 citation [4] 121/13 189/17 205/2 237/17 citations [4] 148/3 189/24 197/1 207/8 cite [21] 20/22 28/13 39/15 87/1 104/15 142/1 143/19 145/13 162/18 167/24 169/17 170/16 178/17 192/3 192/9 193/9 212/25 213/15 216/7 222/22 235/17 cited [14] 25/1 30/10 96/6 132/3 145/12 164/4 165/21 168/24 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 170/6 177/24 214/6 230/5 234/16 236/9 cites [3] 42/14 218/5 236/8 citing [1] 188/17 citizen [3] 123/22 215/10 215/11 citizens [17] 49/22 56/1 72/7 86/25 87/9 89/12 90/24 123/21 124/19 124/20 164/16 164/17 164/25 165/2 200/25 215/21 217/18 citizenship [11] 58/10 60/2 135/3 135/20 138/9 140/16 140/23 176/18 176/24 186/14 223/2 city [2] 19/3 116/4 civic [1] 218/21 civil [18] 1/16 51/16 52/4 52/9 54/1 59/17 80/18 117/8 117/11 117/18 117/21 117/24 119/14 119/21 177/7 214/20 214/23 219/15 claim [39] 38/5 39/4 39/7 45/10 45/12 45/13 46/10 46/13 46/14 77/19 77/20 79/9 79/10 79/17 79/21 80/2 84/14 88/11 88/12 124/7 132/24 146/12 162/7 182/25 200/1 202/2 202/18 202/19 202/20 202/20 203/2 203/2 204/14 204/14 207/7 213/10 224/15 224/19 225/19 claimed [2] 183/5 199/20 claims [19] 7/10 49/18 50/4 50/20 51/25 65/23 78/23 89/22 89/24 164/10 200/20 200/22 200/23 213/1 213/2 221/22 224/9 224/10 224/17 Clair [2] 1/22 241/11 clarification [1] 240/9 clarify [2] 37/19 43/22 Clark [1] 147/1 class [8] 82/13 85/9 145/17 146/5 154/21 162/8 162/25 200/7 classes [2] 116/11 163/11 classification [24] 79/5 85/6 86/24 87/13 87/19 108/11 109/25 124/15 125/7 128/10 132/20 154/16 157/1 169/3 194/22 194/25 195/5 195/12 199/9 199/16 199/22 200/2 200/5 212/23 classifications [9] 84/14 85/3 87/10 88/8 131/11 156/23 156/25 200/7 214/2 Claude [1] 207/8 clause [105] 67/9 67/14 67/15 68/1 68/3 68/16 68/18 68/20 70/9 70/21 70/21 71/10 71/12 71/19 71/24 72/2 72/3 72/11 73/15 76/13 76/15 76/19 76/25 77/4 77/5 77/10 77/10 77/12 77/14 77/18 78/1 78/1 78/3 78/24 79/2 79/4 84/16 84/18 84/23 88/13 89/25 89/25 90/25 91/4 91/4 91/5 109/24 115/7 115/25 116/3 116/5 116/7 124/11 124/13 124/18 146/11 146/13 146/16 146/20 146/21 146/23 147/5 147/9 147/13 147/23 148/4 148/6 148/7 148/13 148/19 148/22 148/24 149/6 149/16 149/17 149/21 149/22 150/4 150/4 151/1 151/15 151/17 151/23 151/24 152/3 155/4 158/22 159/3 159/6 159/9 159/11 159/14 160/21 162/5 162/7 162/14 164/15 168/4 168/8 194/23 194/24 199/5 200/20 213/10 214/7 Clause -- well [1] 149/16 clauses [4] 71/21 88/14 88/24 90/1 clean [1] 48/22 cleanest [1] 224/12 clear [25] 18/15 19/19 22/4 35/19 52/9 57/23 69/18 79/9 81/23 94/19 96/4 96/7 96/12 104/5 135/4 140/17 141/3 160/20 205/6 205/9 205/16 207/1 233/1 238/2 238/9 clearance [1] 192/13 clearly [11] 16/24 24/10 81/3 105/18 150/8 150/13 150/16 176/16 191/2 206/6 227/16 clerk [2] 136/25 174/12 clerk's [2] 177/22 178/2 Clinton [2] 164/5 164/13 clock [1] 47/2 closed [4] 19/3 19/7 174/20 177/14 closeout [2] 175/19 175/21 closer [2] 23/1 36/14 co [2] 50/14 149/20 co-counsel [1] 50/14 co-existed [1] 149/20 Coleman [1] 54/16 colleague [10] 44/5 49/11 133/23 133/25 138/16 154/15 194/11 205/16 234/24 235/9 colleague's [1] 192/22 colleagues [4] 107/4 144/18 192/6 238/18 collect [1] 21/19 collective [2] 78/3 220/11 college [3] 132/4 132/6 165/12 Colonel [1] 54/16 Colonial [1] 147/14 color [1] 187/1 colored [2] 53/22 54/3 colors [2] 65/2 65/4 Columbia [3] 164/22 164/25 165/2 column [3] 58/5 58/7 74/20 combat [1] 71/15 combined [2] 16/20 103/3 comes [11] 91/11 119/16 145/10 147/9 162/2 175/20 206/21 219/1 219/8 225/4 237/21 coming [4] 168/6 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 208/10 210/4 227/5 commend [1] 225/7 comment [1] 46/21 comments [5] 6/9 8/21 148/3 192/9 232/22 commission [4] 184/19 185/3 185/6 206/3 Commissioner [1] 75/2 Commissioners [1] 75/7 commissions [1] 216/20 commit [2] 108/21 157/25 committed [2] 20/11 135/1 committee [1] 55/18 committees [1] 33/9 common [23] 29/4 29/4 29/4 43/15 44/23 70/16 71/25 78/17 84/21 88/16 88/19 114/10 117/5 147/2 147/7 148/2 148/13 148/18 148/22 150/7 152/2 202/10 202/11 Commonwealth [1] 151/20 communicate [1] 240/10 communication [1] 97/22 communities [17] 50/24 51/7 51/12 61/9 72/14 73/4 76/11 78/5 78/14 87/14 87/16 88/1 124/11 216/17 219/24 220/18 221/19 community [104] 1/4 17/25 18/6 20/21 22/7 23/8 24/2 50/24 51/3 51/5 51/11 51/20 60/21 61/16 62/2 62/4 62/11 63/11 64/3 64/13 64/25 65/7 65/10 72/20 72/20 72/23 73/1 73/3 73/6 73/10 73/13 73/14 73/21 74/5 74/10 74/22 75/4 75/9 75/17 77/20 77/23 78/10 78/12 78/25 83/7 83/13 87/15 87/21 87/22 88/4 88/6 89/13 89/18 91/14 92/1 95/7 96/5 96/7 97/13 97/16 (8) character - community {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} C community... [44] 98/22 99/12 100/4 101/3 103/5 103/14 103/22 105/10 105/21 105/23 112/25 114/17 117/19 120/4 120/7 122/16 122/24 124/22 124/24 125/8 128/1 131/19 137/11 149/23 154/13 175/10 190/6 195/15 197/13 201/12 201/13 201/18 202/21 218/4 219/19 220/16 222/15 224/2 226/11 226/15 226/20 226/21 226/24 228/13 community supervision [1] 114/17 Company [1] 205/3 compare [4] 18/20 19/14 20/15 41/21 compared [4] 18/21 41/7 83/19 170/12 compares [1] 18/23 comparing [1] 65/3 comparisons [1] 63/16 compelled [1] 8/23 compelling [7] 72/8 91/15 156/8 156/14 156/18 164/24 208/1 competing [2] 67/3 90/20 complain [1] 164/11 complaining [1] 142/16 complaint [1] 42/6 complete [10] 27/9 97/15 99/12 101/2 146/3 175/21 176/2 176/20 180/9 228/1 completed [15] 60/3 87/22 97/16 99/1 100/22 128/24 138/13 167/9 180/11 181/9 183/23 188/10 196/13 213/11 223/3 completely [13] 11/14 22/23 23/4 32/15 125/23 139/21 140/7 185/24 191/13 202/5 210/21 216/5 218/16 completes [2] 97/13 98/21 completing [1] 215/2 completion [15] {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 57/18 59/6 99/17 100/9 106/8 138/10 138/12 138/21 176/17 176/24 187/14 187/17 187/23 232/18 238/14 compliance [2] 95/19 153/14 complications [1] 100/3 complied [5] 107/12 178/20 178/25 180/21 182/15 comply [3] 68/18 186/5 196/6 components [1] 32/19 comport [3] 66/4 67/1 69/15 composition [8] 18/14 19/11 20/1 71/17 76/16 76/23 77/2 77/3 comprise [2] 18/4 83/5 comprised [2] 61/24 62/1 comprising [1] 18/6 concede [3] 156/17 173/19 193/24 conceded [1] 153/5 conceivable [2] 169/1 188/21 concept [1] 18/16 concern [7] 143/24 153/25 181/23 182/4 207/24 208/3 209/24 concerned [2] 40/25 211/22 concerning [2] 175/24 181/16 concerns [4] 65/24 72/19 72/22 72/25 conclude [3] 15/12 17/6 35/24 concluded [5] 56/7 72/2 151/24 199/17 240/14 concludes [1] 18/12 conclusion [15] 23/2 27/8 27/11 36/7 36/16 36/17 50/2 56/10 62/24 109/25 132/14 165/20 180/18 181/15 221/16 conclusions [8] 16/6 22/8 22/17 30/14 31/6 35/12 148/8 236/20 concrete [1] 86/18 concur [1] 239/15 condition [3] 60/16 consequences [2] 77/7 218/25 122/6 127/17 Consequently [3] conditions [18] 110/11 114/17 117/19 124/4 131/7 132/22 117/20 122/12 122/16 conservative [1] 131/19 135/22 166/10 54/16 180/22 186/14 196/7 consider [8] 7/12 198/4 198/23 222/10 12/12 40/21 40/22 222/12 229/7 230/10 45/6 46/7 155/5 236/6 consideration [1] conduct [5] 12/10 17/15 14/6 142/13 171/24 175/20 considerations [1] conducted [2] 15/16 45/11 72/4 considered [10] 10/1 conducting [3] 21/24 19/2 23/1 24/7 28/5 117/9 169/25 199/16 26/17 217/3 205/17 205/18 confer [3] 106/11 107/3 238/25 considering [4] 27/9 155/1 155/14 160/3 conference [7] 1/5 47/8 47/11 220/10 consistent [5] 20/13 238/20 238/23 240/11 60/5 66/15 69/2 conferring [1] 233/8 115/25 confess [2] 108/25 consistently [1] 115/20 109/7 consists [1] 5/22 confined [1] 116/7 constitutes [1] 89/8 confirm [1] 177/19 confirmed [3] 169/15 constitution [86] 49/21 65/24 66/5 170/7 191/4 66/18 66/20 67/1 67/4 confirms [1] 176/5 confront [1] 191/19 67/13 67/21 68/6 69/16 70/1 70/3 70/20 confuse [1] 162/13 71/8 71/11 87/7 88/16 confused [1] 212/1 confusing [4] 102/5 115/3 115/8 115/15 166/24 173/12 173/20 128/9 134/12 135/18 confusion [24] 56/20 136/9 136/11 139/9 95/4 95/8 95/10 96/9 146/13 147/13 147/14 147/15 149/8 149/25 100/3 102/8 103/2 151/6 151/7 153/23 103/7 173/5 173/18 154/7 157/14 158/24 173/25 174/1 174/2 174/2 181/20 181/21 158/24 159/2 159/14 182/15 182/16 182/19 159/15 159/16 159/24 182/20 182/21 189/24 160/20 160/21 161/2 161/3 161/5 161/14 226/9 congress [2] 192/12 161/16 161/19 162/4 162/15 162/17 162/19 192/17 163/6 163/21 163/23 congressional [3] 75/25 163/12 164/21 164/12 165/3 165/5 165/14 166/7 168/3 connected [1] 9/19 connection [2] 26/25 169/11 199/13 201/1 201/22 201/24 203/1 113/15 206/3 208/16 208/16 connections [2] 208/20 208/23 209/1 81/16 131/17 conscience [2] 73/25 212/24 213/3 213/4 213/24 214/5 214/6 147/24 conscious [1] 211/24 216/1 233/18 consent [2] 155/13 Constitution's [3] 71/1 88/23 164/2 209/9 constitutional [60] consequence [1] 43/12 43/18 54/15 202/23 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 54/17 54/19 66/23 66/24 68/5 68/12 68/14 68/15 68/22 68/25 69/5 69/6 69/18 69/21 69/23 69/24 70/7 70/13 70/15 71/4 79/19 79/24 80/22 82/7 86/16 90/10 90/17 93/18 93/21 103/11 103/18 110/5 114/23 115/6 115/10 115/22 116/15 121/22 124/2 134/6 135/15 136/4 136/7 136/14 143/16 153/8 157/7 158/19 158/23 159/10 162/8 162/11 201/3 205/21 206/16 208/21 213/17 constitutionality [1] 141/21 constitutionally [5] 90/22 127/23 195/21 201/10 201/11 Constitutions [5] 147/15 151/25 163/22 168/17 214/8 constraints [2] 71/5 71/7 contact [1] 97/17 contained [2] 13/1 200/2 containing [1] 12/21 contains [2] 13/7 123/16 contemporaneous [5] 55/22 56/4 59/2 170/17 223/10 contemporary [2] 9/16 33/3 contempt [1] 155/14 contend [4] 66/5 126/22 127/2 161/18 contending [1] 42/25 content [6] 53/2 201/9 202/4 202/6 202/8 202/16 contested [2] 56/9 123/10 contests [1] 216/18 context [17] 20/7 35/18 83/11 86/19 114/14 114/18 140/12 140/12 140/17 150/3 151/17 188/8 188/12 191/8 203/20 216/3 236/22 contextually [1] 233/15 (9) community... - contextually {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} C continuation [2] 166/9 172/16 continue [12] 93/5 103/19 105/16 105/20 119/10 119/23 119/24 120/20 155/22 155/22 163/13 166/22 continued [4] 56/24 117/12 131/1 225/16 continues [5] 61/12 82/13 82/25 91/21 128/14 continuing [3] 93/12 93/14 128/12 contours [1] 66/2 contract [1] 12/5 contracted [1] 217/10 contraction [1] 217/10 contrary [4] 190/1 190/18 191/14 234/21 contrast [1] 59/2 contribute [1] 221/13 contributes [1] 132/14 control [2] 148/9 148/16 controls [1] 211/24 controversy [3] 75/24 203/22 203/24 convened [1] 236/18 convenes [1] 4/1 convenience [1] 221/10 convenient [2] 70/4 90/23 convention [3] 54/15 115/7 115/10 conversation [1] 214/19 converse [1] 171/2 conversion [1] 117/23 convert [2] 119/21 201/25 converted [2] 117/17 117/21 convicted [92] 18/11 41/7 49/22 52/5 52/6 53/22 54/5 54/25 82/20 87/2 87/4 87/24 95/18 95/19 96/14 97/12 98/10 98/12 98/15 99/1 99/23 100/21 100/21 101/1 106/14 107/1 107/9 107/16 107/18 107/20 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 108/18 108/19 108/20 108/22 110/25 121/2 121/15 122/6 135/10 135/19 136/14 136/23 138/8 139/10 139/22 150/25 151/4 151/8 151/18 156/5 156/6 156/9 157/13 157/16 158/12 159/1 159/17 159/21 163/2 163/14 163/17 163/19 163/23 166/9 166/21 169/13 170/14 172/22 173/6 176/7 176/13 176/16 178/13 180/4 180/20 181/19 195/8 196/20 196/24 200/24 201/4 201/21 202/25 206/7 208/13 208/17 209/7 210/3 227/4 235/3 235/4 235/5 convicting [1] 226/7 conviction [38] 16/17 21/6 21/7 23/11 23/12 23/14 25/20 25/20 41/5 49/24 55/13 65/8 65/10 65/14 65/18 74/23 78/4 78/11 86/22 87/20 87/21 96/16 96/18 97/4 97/11 98/21 99/5 102/1 112/5 128/20 197/18 198/21 206/4 226/12 227/5 229/19 231/15 237/20 convictions [41] 13/16 20/8 21/17 22/15 41/11 51/15 52/13 55/6 55/9 56/15 61/1 61/10 65/21 66/8 72/13 72/19 74/24 74/25 79/15 80/14 80/18 86/20 86/21 98/20 99/10 101/18 110/11 110/11 113/15 121/1 121/6 131/18 132/17 191/7 191/16 191/24 198/13 224/3 226/10 226/15 226/17 Cooper [3] 15/10 34/5 34/13 cooperative [1] 232/1 copied [2] 63/3 92/8 copies [1] 239/10 core [4] 88/21 88/25 89/1 89/14 Corey [2] 219/4 221/11 cornerstone [1] 72/9 corrected [1] 186/21 correction [2] 140/25 175/10 Corrections [1] 181/2 correctly [5] 4/24 7/24 96/2 118/15 237/15 correspondence [1] 98/25 Corum [1] 88/18 cost [2] 110/13 111/11 costs [27] 110/15 110/18 110/25 111/6 111/15 112/5 112/17 112/23 113/11 113/17 113/19 114/1 114/2 114/2 114/22 116/17 116/22 122/11 125/21 127/5 128/17 128/22 129/8 130/7 130/12 130/18 195/8 Council [1] 111/19 counsel [26] 2/19 4/10 4/14 30/24 49/10 50/14 58/16 59/1 109/16 110/15 115/13 133/13 158/4 175/2 176/22 177/1 179/12 194/14 212/18 216/19 225/20 228/7 232/3 232/23 234/22 239/21 counteract [1] 71/20 counterfactual [1] 38/6 counterparts [1] 88/15 counterpoint [1] 39/9 counties [14] 24/15 62/8 63/20 63/23 64/1 64/14 64/17 73/8 73/22 97/9 160/6 161/11 161/12 220/3 country [6] 157/23 185/10 189/9 189/15 216/25 217/19 county-level [2] 24/4 74/14 couple [15] 5/19 8/7 33/4 47/24 117/4 117/5 154/11 166/23 174/7 188/13 188/16 189/19 193/1 207/8 231/7 course [11] 14/2 66/11 75/18 100/10 139/19 139/20 150/4 195/1 198/1 199/1 236/16 courses [1] 33/4 court [301] courthouse [1] 53/21 courts [38] 1/23 15/2 15/19 16/13 25/11 65/15 67/2 70/5 81/20 83/21 84/2 88/13 90/18 96/15 104/4 114/10 114/14 115/18 115/20 122/12 128/18 141/18 141/21 145/10 146/18 151/24 152/2 164/22 165/13 172/24 199/15 205/17 205/18 215/23 216/2 216/8 228/24 231/22 cover [7] 54/9 80/23 175/5 189/3 189/4 194/15 212/10 coverage [2] 145/19 146/1 covered [1] 58/17 covers [2] 82/13 189/2 COVID [1] 216/25 Cox [30] 2/16 3/4 3/7 3/11 4/11 44/5 44/9 44/9 133/19 150/6 152/7 166/2 170/25 170/25 179/23 182/8 183/16 184/20 194/12 205/16 208/2 223/14 225/19 226/12 227/8 227/10 235/15 238/1 239/8 239/22 Cox's [1] 223/17 crafting [1] 208/24 CRC [2] 1/22 241/11 create [9] 45/18 46/10 69/25 70/4 85/3 85/6 86/23 90/23 144/13 created [3] 85/21 146/7 199/21 creates [14] 79/5 84/14 85/13 87/10 87/13 87/19 102/8 108/10 109/24 124/15 128/9 189/23 194/25 212/22 creating [2] 132/19 146/6 creation [1] 56/1 crime [12] 55/6 82/15 102/5 106/14 121/15 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 135/20 138/8 152/12 157/4 163/20 185/14 187/8 crimes [16] 52/7 52/12 54/5 54/8 54/10 55/1 80/24 99/1 157/1 157/2 157/3 157/4 157/8 163/14 163/17 206/9 criminal [41] 12/12 13/5 13/15 13/16 16/17 16/25 20/7 21/5 21/16 22/15 26/4 26/23 32/21 32/22 32/24 41/16 45/19 46/4 51/15 52/13 80/14 80/18 101/18 111/15 111/21 114/8 114/11 114/13 128/20 132/4 132/6 132/8 132/9 184/1 184/4 185/12 187/9 217/16 225/22 225/25 235/20 crisis [1] 217/9 criteria [6] 12/2 229/7 229/9 229/13 229/19 229/20 criticism [2] 38/23 39/21 criticisms [3] 30/19 30/20 35/10 critique [2] 27/13 27/20 critiques [1] 27/2 crossed [1] 33/6 Crow [6] 51/21 55/20 61/6 61/10 61/11 81/1 crowd [1] 53/20 CRR [2] 1/22 241/11 crucial [1] 195/4 CT [1] 2/10 culminated [1] 80/24 current [16] 13/17 21/15 51/24 82/19 103/2 103/6 148/12 189/23 197/2 203/18 204/8 204/10 204/12 210/1 210/12 211/3 currently [8] 23/8 25/9 50/22 101/25 143/18 167/2 167/6 198/17 Curry [1] 194/5 custody [4] 171/22 172/6 172/21 232/5 cut [1] 225/1 cutting [1] 8/22 CV [2] 13/7 13/22 CVS [1] 1/4 (10) continuation - CVS {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} C cycles [2] 209/10 209/11 D daily [1] 216/15 danger [1] 31/1 dangerous [1] 222/5 Daniel [5] 2/6 3/5 3/10 49/11 50/13 Darker [1] 65/2 Daryl [6] 2/2 3/6 3/9 49/10 109/16 212/18 dash [2] 149/3 149/3 data [50] 11/15 17/21 21/20 21/23 22/3 22/3 22/5 22/7 22/10 22/11 22/14 22/16 22/19 22/23 22/25 23/1 23/3 23/18 24/13 24/14 26/6 26/10 26/21 31/13 31/24 31/25 39/1 39/11 40/8 40/9 40/20 41/21 41/25 42/11 42/14 42/21 51/10 111/8 113/13 113/23 114/4 131/15 190/21 190/24 191/4 192/12 192/14 192/18 227/3 227/5 date [3] 55/13 111/5 192/18 dates [1] 187/10 dating [1] 184/23 Daubert [1] 28/20 Daubert's [1] 17/20 daunting [2] 112/20 132/16 David [1] 54/16 days [4] 7/17 101/8 111/4 149/15 DC [4] 2/7 164/5 164/5 164/7 DCC [1] 177/25 DCC13 [1] 176/2 DCC15 [1] 175/21 de [1] 2/17 deadline [3] 7/15 7/18 240/7 deal [3] 31/17 158/15 235/19 Dealer [1] 205/2 dealing [8] 81/19 145/7 147/3 158/21 161/4 161/5 192/16 209/4 deals [2] 208/24 235/20 dealt [1] 161/20 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} death [2] 217/6 217/23 debate [3] 69/12 140/12 188/11 debt [3] 112/19 126/7 130/22 decades [3] 110/24 205/13 205/14 decide [3] 48/12 153/13 210/13 decided [9] 6/25 7/12 48/10 104/19 172/5 206/17 209/5 209/11 209/25 decidedly [1] 220/23 deciding [1] 35/10 decision [16] 15/24 43/1 43/2 43/3 48/5 81/21 82/5 83/24 83/25 88/18 153/10 185/21 206/13 210/15 210/16 218/23 decision -- would [1] 43/2 decisions [4] 67/18 206/21 217/14 218/14 Declaration [1] 72/8 declare [1] 145/16 declassified [1] 162/24 declined [1] 67/24 decreases [2] 21/3 21/7 deem [1] 215/23 deemed [7] 21/1 87/25 115/3 152/13 157/8 229/4 230/9 deems [1] 201/4 deeper [1] 39/11 deeply [1] 32/25 default [4] 112/13 117/25 124/23 126/15 defective [1] 145/14 defend [1] 93/12 defendant [5] 108/2 119/16 119/24 155/13 209/10 defendant's [3] 68/10 119/20 119/22 defendants [101] 1/10 2/14 2/19 4/11 4/14 4/15 6/3 6/5 6/20 6/22 9/9 9/12 11/4 12/14 14/24 15/5 16/3 29/16 29/20 34/18 44/6 46/21 52/2 56/9 58/14 66/5 66/9 74/3 74/9 74/12 76/11 77/17 77/22 78/17 78/18 79/14 79/14 79/21 84/10 84/11 86/25 88/24 90/3 91/9 91/13 91/17 91/24 91/24 92/2 92/5 92/7 93/7 93/20 96/6 103/12 103/25 104/13 104/24 105/3 105/13 108/3 111/22 114/8 114/13 122/1 122/4 122/8 122/10 123/2 123/10 126/11 126/22 127/2 127/19 133/5 133/24 138/3 142/13 148/9 161/18 174/25 194/15 194/18 198/11 198/22 207/4 207/6 207/13 207/16 212/6 212/13 212/25 222/6 224/23 225/12 228/10 230/14 231/5 234/10 234/14 237/3 defendants' [13] 9/13 10/25 34/21 70/12 81/6 123/14 127/23 128/16 133/7 133/13 198/12 230/6 237/2 defender [4] 110/15 110/16 114/12 126/3 defending [1] 154/6 defense [6] 58/16 59/1 104/25 133/17 225/20 228/7 defenses [1] 76/12 defer [1] 106/5 deference [2] 90/13 173/22 defined [2] 115/21 115/23 definitely [1] 211/8 definition [6] 25/21 211/21 211/21 211/22 211/25 217/24 definitively [1] 93/19 degrees [2] 132/4 132/6 delegates [1] 68/8 delegation [3] 66/1 66/4 66/14 deliberate [2] 111/16 150/10 deliberations [1] 240/8 delivered [1] 115/6 demanded [1] 59/18 democracy [2] 34/8 89/4 Democrat [3] 24/18 54/16 55/17 democratic [5] 24/18 32/18 72/9 115/4 220/13 demographic [2] 18/20 18/21 demographics [2] 20/15 24/15 demonstrate [4] 46/11 92/4 193/15 234/18 demonstrated [5] 27/19 74/16 142/11 148/8 200/12 demonstrates [3] 81/3 144/10 219/16 denial [5] 51/14 163/16 164/3 164/20 219/15 denied [10] 41/23 73/23 88/4 135/17 139/23 150/22 167/11 167/11 183/20 235/7 denies [12] 50/22 85/7 87/16 124/16 128/23 131/5 136/5 139/9 143/16 151/7 159/20 233/17 Denise [2] 1/22 241/11 denise.stclair [2] 1/24 241/14 deny [18] 41/22 48/10 103/20 122/2 131/20 141/10 150/24 159/22 163/2 163/11 163/13 166/21 167/16 207/13 207/14 217/19 236/24 236/25 denying [6] 54/11 73/3 164/24 169/13 193/11 227/12 department [26] 2/13 2/17 5/5 5/13 26/7 29/19 32/1 33/10 33/13 44/10 97/13 99/13 120/11 125/24 140/24 171/12 174/11 175/1 175/6 180/14 181/1 190/25 231/13 231/21 231/25 237/23 depend [2] 200/23 232/16 dependent [3] 105/23 114/25 116/25 depending [3] 107/19 129/9 129/20 depends [1] 218/23 deponents [1] 186/8 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter deposition [46] 10/8 13/10 22/25 24/1 25/6 26/3 30/9 31/11 35/18 58/15 58/21 58/25 59/15 60/6 94/18 94/22 95/3 95/14 95/25 96/13 98/3 98/23 99/7 99/14 99/18 100/6 101/5 137/4 138/18 141/14 144/15 144/16 170/9 189/22 189/22 190/4 190/11 191/2 191/6 196/17 197/1 223/4 226/19 227/16 227/24 234/17 deprive [1] 85/4 deprives [4] 78/12 124/20 219/16 222/14 depriving [1] 124/13 Deputy [1] 2/16 Derek [1] 6/1 dereliction [1] 167/21 DeSantis [1] 154/19 describe [1] 51/23 described [7] 14/12 24/11 81/6 90/6 98/9 102/6 104/18 describes [5] 52/14 52/17 55/17 92/15 92/20 design [1] 16/2 designed [10] 147/16 149/7 159/11 159/12 172/17 172/25 173/13 173/14 193/14 196/12 despite [5] 14/13 18/6 19/8 20/2 23/2 detail [3] 104/18 137/4 205/17 detailed [3] 22/22 73/17 118/16 detailing [1] 61/16 details [3] 26/6 61/22 104/7 determinate [2] 185/11 185/16 determination [4] 43/23 119/19 157/3 173/23 determinations [3] 172/13 173/21 182/10 determinative [3] 39/6 39/15 39/19 determine [9] 18/19 21/20 30/13 148/23 181/14 185/9 190/22 190/25 198/22 (11) cycles - determine {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} D determined [3] 147/8 163/3 166/11 determining [6] 15/20 20/24 30/5 30/22 42/17 45/9 Devah [1] 132/3 develop [1] 14/21 developed [2] 97/8 146/17 developing [1] 15/17 development [2] 12/24 226/1 develops [1] 96/23 devoid [1] 115/11 Diana [1] 102/23 dictate [1] 218/12 dictates [3] 178/19 213/23 214/5 died [1] 115/12 difference [9] 28/20 86/9 108/5 153/21 156/4 172/12 204/21 204/21 209/18 differences [6] 65/3 65/4 118/18 119/1 172/14 199/7 different [38] 22/5 24/15 27/2 33/5 37/3 38/4 38/14 38/20 39/2 39/22 40/9 46/18 63/20 64/14 64/17 69/21 69/23 73/22 75/20 77/18 78/7 79/3 86/7 86/17 100/12 118/16 119/15 144/7 144/14 144/14 153/15 155/24 192/17 192/19 209/11 212/2 224/5 235/11 differential [3] 86/24 169/5 169/5 differently [5] 36/5 37/14 38/13 138/15 182/8 difficult [2] 81/2 141/19 difficulties [1] 8/6 dig [1] 39/10 digits [1] 23/13 dignity [1] 219/16 direct [7] 51/19 89/3 89/11 89/14 189/11 202/2 211/23 direction [1] 217/18 directly [11] 15/16 51/16 54/14 89/15 97/24 118/12 151/19 159/4 202/23 217/21 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 229/2 director [4] 94/21 189/21 190/13 219/4 disagree [8] 10/14 40/18 87/3 150/11 169/22 201/2 205/25 225/3 disagreement [3] 171/17 171/20 232/8 disagrees [1] 90/2 disapprove [1] 206/15 disavow [2] 190/2 190/13 discharge [47] 65/14 93/7 98/8 102/22 102/25 103/25 105/7 105/8 106/14 107/14 114/6 114/16 116/20 117/10 118/2 120/4 120/6 120/9 121/3 121/6 121/18 121/25 122/23 123/1 124/22 125/1 125/4 125/6 128/2 130/13 131/20 135/23 143/3 143/7 154/8 174/12 175/22 176/11 177/10 177/22 177/23 177/24 178/3 180/8 181/22 215/4 222/15 discharged [8] 60/21 107/3 129/24 143/6 180/5 180/16 182/2 226/24 discharges [1] 226/18 discipline [1] 12/20 disclaimed [1] 94/21 disclaims [1] 95/20 disclose [1] 227/22 discourages [1] 218/21 discovery [12] 26/7 26/10 96/4 100/6 100/19 106/19 106/21 120/11 174/23 198/11 198/15 198/19 discrete [2] 83/13 83/14 discretion [33] 90/9 90/22 91/2 103/17 129/16 130/2 130/7 152/15 152/23 153/9 153/15 153/22 154/8 154/11 155/10 155/11 155/17 155/21 181/25 182/2 185/5 185/24 186/18 195/17 209/4 209/14 210/8 211/16 212/2 212/3 213/22 213/25 214/4 discriminate [4] 45/11 172/18 200/7 213/12 discriminates [1] 202/4 discriminating [1] 202/8 discrimination [19] 45/10 46/14 79/9 79/17 79/21 79/23 80/2 132/7 145/7 155/22 162/7 182/24 183/24 192/25 202/17 213/9 221/10 224/14 224/19 discriminatory [18] 20/9 45/12 45/14 79/7 79/12 81/3 81/17 81/25 82/12 84/4 84/11 136/3 173/3 183/4 184/10 194/10 215/25 225/14 discuss [18] 6/11 13/2 17/12 85/24 133/24 147/1 151/14 161/17 181/8 182/14 188/7 193/1 199/1 200/3 212/14 215/15 215/17 235/22 discussed [16] 14/9 44/13 82/22 91/20 103/11 106/1 140/10 141/16 159/19 164/4 188/15 189/5 192/11 196/1 196/15 237/2 discusses [5] 15/15 29/2 134/13 134/14 176/19 discussing [10] 27/2 88/12 134/7 134/16 151/13 164/20 190/8 190/9 203/12 236/10 discussion [15] 53/7 83/10 92/12 134/5 142/3 161/1 182/14 188/11 188/14 191/7 191/15 195/16 196/15 234/25 236/1 discussions [1] 48/3 disenfranchise [10] 52/5 52/20 54/25 55/4 66/8 67/15 150/14 157/24 172/25 223/22 disenfranchised [60] 18/5 18/9 18/23 18/24 20/4 20/12 23/10 207/6 237/4 23/12 23/13 25/20 37/2 37/6 38/6 40/16 disparate [39] 13/2 40/24 41/10 42/2 50/8 18/16 19/2 19/6 19/15 20/14 20/18 20/24 51/5 54/9 62/2 62/4 40/5 40/7 41/1 41/22 62/6 62/10 62/12 42/3 42/7 42/10 45/3 62/14 62/15 63/11 45/7 45/8 45/25 46/8 64/3 64/13 64/15 64/24 65/2 65/7 65/9 46/10 46/11 46/18 61/14 73/16 80/8 83/2 65/13 73/10 73/18 83/2 83/12 83/22 73/21 74/15 74/21 74/24 75/3 75/6 75/9 83/24 84/3 84/6 118/7 158/17 185/14 185/23 75/17 83/8 98/11 193/18 193/20 99/22 107/2 119/24 166/15 177/9 198/17 disparately [1] 203/23 215/21 219/8 199/23 227/12 227/13 229/21 disparities [7] 18/12 disenfranchisement 51/9 64/20 73/17 220/13 225/22 225/25 [94] 9/19 13/3 13/4 13/12 16/16 18/11 disparity [11] 15/7 18/13 20/7 21/3 21/6 40/13 46/5 85/22 24/2 25/24 27/1 27/3 183/15 183/16 183/17 36/6 36/24 37/15 39/5 183/19 183/19 183/25 184/9 39/14 51/10 51/17 51/20 51/23 52/4 disposition [1] 54/13 54/17 56/2 56/6 142/15 57/5 63/16 63/20 dispositive [3] 48/8 64/19 65/3 65/25 66/2 70/12 76/6 67/11 68/24 70/14 disproportionate [14] 71/5 73/5 73/14 74/4 13/2 18/2 18/16 18/19 19/2 19/6 20/18 74/10 78/11 78/25 20/24 41/5 41/11 79/20 79/22 80/13 61/18 67/16 74/1 80/23 80/24 81/19 81/22 82/10 84/2 91/3 160/12 92/1 93/19 93/25 95/7 disproportionately 102/7 103/6 110/22 [10] 18/18 19/10 113/7 117/12 119/23 19/24 20/4 41/6 46/3 120/20 123/4 124/10 83/19 113/14 131/16 128/12 142/6 151/17 186/12 155/23 165/19 168/20 dispute [19] 12/19 18/3 61/21 74/12 76/9 184/2 189/9 190/5 197/14 199/21 218/19 78/17 78/18 79/11 218/24 219/7 219/14 79/21 84/7 88/24 101/24 122/4 122/14 219/22 220/4 220/6 220/12 220/15 220/19 138/2 224/18 224/20 221/20 222/7 222/13 224/23 227/8 225/8 228/13 disputed [6] 24/10 69/17 74/3 74/9 141/7 disenfranchises [3] 225/2 61/17 83/12 84/8 disenfranchising [22] disputes [1] 225/1 54/5 55/15 61/1 61/8 disputing [1] 142/13 61/16 80/17 82/14 disqualification [3] 82/20 91/14 93/5 96/5 54/1 134/22 166/10 96/7 100/4 103/13 disqualified [2] 54/3 105/22 105/23 114/21 199/12 116/16 157/10 218/20 dissent [3] 104/23 213/7 213/8 222/11 233/5 dissertation [4] 21/8 disincentive [1] 21/11 21/13 21/24 130/20 distinction [28] 78/6 dismiss [3] 152/8 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (12) determined - distinction {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} documents [6] 5/25 37/19 37/20 37/24 175/4 177/13 191/18 38/22 38/23 39/4 39/6 distinction... [27] 39/13 39/15 39/18 212/22 214/23 106/6 106/12 124/19 22/18 36/1 39/23 40/6 40/11 doing [10] 157/12 158/1 158/7 49/1 53/4 67/25 102/5 40/11 40/12 40/17 158/25 159/1 165/14 40/19 41/18 42/6 42/8 146/1 146/4 205/1 165/24 167/18 167/20 42/12 44/14 48/11 230/13 168/11 168/13 168/22 52/14 52/17 55/17 207/23 dollar [1] 169/6 169/12 169/15 56/3 56/7 61/15 61/23 208/12 dollars [1] 170/12 173/2 204/15 63/3 64/8 64/22 74/6 dominion [1] 116/9 207/21 208/9 208/11 74/16 74/18 83/11 donating [1] 89/6 208/23 235/23 236/21 donations [1] 201/15 111/23 112/11 112/15 distinguish [1] 28/19 113/8 113/13 125/21 double [2] 62/17 distinguished [1] 131/12 131/22 217/8 141/20 201/19 doubt [4] 39/12 56/5 220/1 220/2 226/2 distinguishes [1] 92/23 109/10 Dr. Baumgartner [14] 202/9 28/7 36/4 37/19 down [21] 48/21 distinguishing [1] 38/23 39/4 39/6 39/18 49/16 55/23 58/1 200/15 40/12 40/19 61/15 58/13 63/23 113/22 distortion [17] 44/15 113/25 113/25 120/14 61/23 74/16 112/15 44/17 75/19 107/16 123/20 126/6 127/21 220/2 108/16 123/20 129/4 134/14 143/22 154/3 Dr. Baumgartner's 165/11 171/1 171/12 168/15 179/24 182/13 [12] 18/4 36/2 36/17 175/23 181/24 184/11 39/13 39/15 63/3 64/8 225/4 225/9 186/9 193/22 212/5 26/10 97/25 64/22 74/18 113/13 DPS [18] 225/14 125/21 131/12 98/7 105/9 106/17 distributes [1] 171/12 172/24 174/18 Dr. Burch [3] 21/12 101/17 175/5 175/18 177/13 28/7 36/10 district [15] 75/25 177/20 178/23 178/25 Dr. Burch's [2] 21/11 86/1 86/4 86/6 86/8 226/16 238/3 238/15 21/21 114/9 148/12 154/19 239/9 Dr. Burton [3] 55/17 154/20 161/8 161/9 56/3 56/7 117/10 DPS's [1] 164/6 164/22 164/24 8/16 11/9 Dr. Callanan [48] Dr [7] 165/2 10/3 12/1 12/3 12/14 11/17 23/24 36/21 districts [8] 67/23 12/17 12/25 13/24 45/5 118/25 70/1 70/5 85/21 90/23 14/10 14/25 15/5 16/5 8/13 9/5 Dr. [135] 147/11 160/12 160/13 16/13 17/3 18/3 18/8 9/10 9/15 9/21 10/3 Dittmer [1] 6/1 10/6 10/24 12/1 12/3 18/15 18/22 21/2 diversion [1] 123/11 21/19 22/9 22/19 12/14 12/17 12/22 divided [2] 62/11 23/17 24/12 25/5 25/7 12/25 13/7 13/22 67/23 25/14 25/23 26/16 13/24 14/10 14/25 divides [1] 131/8 15/5 15/9 16/5 16/13 26/24 27/2 28/4 28/21 DIVISION [2] 1/1 1/16 17/3 17/7 17/12 17/16 28/24 29/22 31/17 DNA [2] 111/4 126/3 17/17 17/19 18/1 18/3 31/20 35/2 37/20 DOC [1] 172/24 18/4 18/8 18/15 18/22 38/22 39/23 40/6 doctor [2] 14/19 16/8 19/5 19/23 20/17 21/2 40/11 40/17 41/18 doctor certainly [1] 42/6 42/8 42/12 74/6 21/9 21/11 21/12 14/19 21/19 21/21 22/1 22/9 Dr. Callanan's [37] doctor's [1] 8/11 9/21 10/6 10/24 12/22 22/19 23/17 24/12 doctrine [1] 215/16 24/24 25/5 25/7 25/14 13/7 13/22 15/9 17/7 document [14] 21/9 17/12 17/16 17/17 25/23 26/1 26/16 101/16 101/21 130/19 26/18 26/24 27/2 27/9 17/19 18/1 19/5 19/23 175/18 176/4 176/15 27/17 27/23 28/4 28/7 20/17 22/1 24/24 26/1 178/4 178/4 179/1 26/18 27/9 30/6 30/9 28/7 28/21 28/24 179/2 180/2 180/3 29/22 30/6 30/9 30/14 30/14 30/19 31/1 31/4 189/7 30/19 31/1 31/4 31/9 31/9 32/3 35/11 35/15 documentation [1] 31/17 31/20 32/3 35/2 36/13 37/24 40/11 178/9 35/11 35/15 36/2 36/4 44/14 48/11 83/11 documented [2] 36/10 36/13 36/17 Dr. Frank [4] 111/23 80/11 226/3 D 112/11 113/8 220/1 Dr. Keegan [6] 8/13 9/5 9/10 9/15 27/17 27/23 Dr. Martin [1] 217/8 Dr. Traci [2] 21/9 131/22 Dr. Vernon [3] 52/14 52/17 226/2 draft [1] 187/15 drafted [2] 80/25 182/8 drafters [2] 59/4 188/3 drafting [3] 58/22 144/1 150/9 drafts [1] 137/16 drainage [3] 85/25 86/4 86/6 draw [6] 22/7 22/17 27/11 137/25 168/14 235/11 drawing [4] 67/23 157/19 170/12 235/8 drawn [10] 16/6 34/24 158/1 164/11 165/24 168/22 206/1 206/5 206/15 229/12 draws [3] 124/19 165/14 169/6 drew [2] 169/10 173/2 drugs [1] 185/15 due [3] 26/21 49/23 146/20 Dunlow [30] 1/19 4/6 5/22 6/11 6/25 8/1 8/2 10/10 10/14 10/20 29/12 29/13 37/10 46/22 46/25 47/1 47/16 47/21 47/22 48/16 48/17 49/4 49/6 215/1 226/13 231/1 237/6 238/20 239/3 239/18 Dunn [1] 168/4 Durham [2] 2/3 64/2 during [6] 53/19 96/12 185/7 203/16 239/9 240/8 earlier [22] 45/23 46/2 73/17 74/8 80/17 81/6 82/22 83/3 83/10 84/1 90/12 134/16 139/25 161/24 177/1 177/24 177/24 181/5 187/15 193/17 211/13 222/24 Earls [2] 228/23 228/24 early [4] 151/11 176/2 191/21 226/5 ease [1] 57/6 easier [1] 47/8 easily [2] 201/19 202/8 easy [2] 62/21 105/14 eaten [1] 192/22 echo [1] 239/20 economic [4] 72/18 72/21 111/19 217/9 economical [1] 133/22 economy [1] 217/15 edicts [1] 71/18 educate [1] 101/17 educating [1] 123/12 education [10] 11/25 16/1 75/5 86/11 86/13 86/15 90/15 90/18 199/15 217/16 educational [3] 86/16 90/18 101/16 effect [25] 13/3 13/4 83/14 151/10 151/10 157/10 158/16 160/8 160/19 160/22 161/15 161/22 169/24 170/24 202/7 204/8 204/10 218/3 218/22 223/11 224/4 224/5 229/14 230/12 230/15 effective [1] 230/20 effectively [1] 116/20 effects [5] 51/24 61/12 73/16 76/9 219/22 effort [5] 51/19 57/8 59/8 147/9 168/18 efforts [1] 71/16 either [10] 14/2 14/5 E 36/23 91/16 100/1 e-mail [6] 5/25 175/2 103/16 117/14 191/20 175/5 175/5 239/25 202/7 228/6 240/3 elect [1] 94/5 e-mailed [1] 239/10 elected [6] 51/2 73/2 each [11] 11/14 14/4 73/5 138/19 171/13 64/24 78/22 85/15 217/13 88/8 89/24 94/25 95/2 electing [1] 218/11 97/18 110/19 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (13) distinction... - electing {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} E election [34] 7/18 10/25 21/14 21/15 24/12 24/19 24/20 24/25 36/3 37/14 50/9 50/9 74/11 75/11 75/22 75/23 75/25 76/1 78/2 85/16 97/22 100/8 102/15 147/22 178/11 197/25 209/10 216/4 216/18 216/22 216/24 216/24 218/9 221/7 elections [129] 9/13 13/17 15/7 21/12 21/18 21/21 21/23 22/8 22/15 22/18 24/4 24/17 34/9 36/4 36/21 37/1 38/2 38/12 39/3 44/11 51/13 67/14 70/21 71/10 71/11 71/12 71/14 71/16 71/19 71/19 71/21 71/24 72/3 72/3 72/6 72/11 72/12 73/7 73/11 73/15 73/25 74/6 74/13 74/14 74/18 75/12 75/13 75/14 75/16 76/10 76/12 76/15 76/19 76/25 77/4 77/9 77/10 77/12 77/14 77/18 77/25 78/5 78/14 78/15 78/19 85/19 86/4 86/6 87/23 88/3 89/25 91/4 96/17 96/24 97/14 97/19 133/21 146/11 146/13 146/15 146/24 147/4 147/13 147/23 148/4 148/10 148/13 148/16 148/22 148/23 149/1 149/6 149/10 149/11 149/12 149/13 149/15 149/16 149/17 149/21 149/22 150/4 151/1 151/15 151/16 151/23 151/24 152/3 155/3 159/3 159/5 159/8 159/11 162/14 171/17 171/19 171/24 171/25 172/10 191/9 192/2 199/2 200/22 215/6 216/10 216/20 221/3 231/16 231/17 electoral [8] 13/5 23/24 55/2 95/17 96/10 127/13 147/10 165/12 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} electorate [10] 71/17 76/16 76/23 76/24 77/2 77/4 115/18 147/10 147/17 150/10 electorial [1] 131/7 electronic [1] 179/21 element [1] 142/14 elements [2] 188/8 221/16 eligibilities [1] 134/15 eligibility [4] 101/25 115/9 169/16 181/21 eligible [22] 71/18 96/25 97/6 97/10 97/17 97/20 97/21 98/22 99/11 100/2 100/16 102/22 103/5 171/6 171/11 173/10 176/19 176/20 180/21 181/1 181/20 182/4 eliminate [1] 59/10 eliminated [2] 56/19 56/20 eliminates [2] 95/18 191/8 eliminating [1] 59/13 else [14] 5/14 5/17 41/25 42/14 53/12 73/2 87/15 106/15 159/1 208/6 223/6 223/7 235/7 238/21 embraces [1] 116/8 emerged [1] 96/4 emphasis [2] 13/9 61/20 emphasize [4] 31/15 75/10 127/19 226/9 empirical [1] 212/20 employ [1] 23/18 employed [1] 131/24 employers [1] 132/5 employment [1] 132/2 enabling [2] 162/1 162/2 enact [8] 68/9 70/17 70/19 70/23 70/25 93/21 94/5 161/21 enacted [28] 45/11 45/17 46/12 51/2 54/13 54/21 54/24 60/24 61/13 69/5 71/15 71/19 73/1 79/6 81/15 82/6 82/11 91/22 136/12 137/24 141/17 150/23 155/25 157/7 184/7 223/21 233/23 234/20 enacting [6] 45/22 80/12 138/6 162/1 186/23 214/1 enactment [13] 55/11 56/5 69/7 80/5 80/22 92/21 144/17 190/9 193/6 204/8 212/3 222/17 224/24 enactments [2] 141/22 234/17 enacts [2] 66/3 162/2 encourage [1] 216/11 encourages [1] 95/19 end [5] 149/2 175/13 175/14 175/20 238/14 ended [4] 120/20 137/20 137/21 176/6 ending [1] 237/24 enforce [2] 94/5 154/3 enforced [1] 61/12 enforcing [1] 221/8 enfranchised [1] 36/8 enfranchisement [7] 127/5 178/5 196/18 197/3 201/7 221/1 221/5 enfranchising [1] 211/1 engage [6] 31/3 31/4 31/7 104/1 105/2 105/11 engaging [1] 89/19 England [1] 33/8 English [4] 71/13 71/15 71/22 76/20 enhancements [1] 60/17 enjoin [7] 103/23 105/5 216/6 216/9 216/12 216/15 230/15 enjoined [3] 105/17 218/5 218/9 enjoining [2] 103/18 221/4 enjoy [1] 200/24 enlarged [1] 62/19 enlightenment [1] 9/18 enormous [1] 73/19 enshrined [2] 71/10 72/7 ensure [10] 116/23 116/23 121/24 125/1 125/4 125/9 126/18 126/25 128/5 161/7 ensures [2] 95/23 130/12 enter [1] 105/12 entered [2] 120/19 155/18 entering [1] 118/21 entire [9] 64/11 73/19 73/20 142/22 144/11 206/9 218/19 218/21 220/15 entirely [5] 100/11 137/9 137/19 137/22 145/19 entirety [3] 127/22 207/7 207/14 entities [2] 172/5 172/21 entitled [6] 50/3 68/12 110/1 124/5 132/22 178/7 entity [2] 171/22 182/11 envelope [1] 181/7 equal [68] 67/14 68/1 68/3 68/16 68/18 68/20 70/9 70/20 78/24 79/1 79/4 84/13 84/16 84/18 84/23 84/23 85/1 85/4 85/7 86/16 87/6 87/11 87/17 88/5 88/7 88/13 89/25 90/17 90/24 91/4 108/10 109/23 116/22 124/8 124/11 124/13 124/16 124/18 124/20 127/12 131/5 131/8 146/19 146/23 159/14 162/4 162/7 162/20 162/22 164/15 167/19 167/21 167/23 168/4 168/7 168/10 168/12 194/23 199/4 199/17 199/25 200/22 213/10 214/7 224/14 224/19 225/10 225/18 equally [3] 20/10 213/7 224/16 equitable [3] 103/15 103/17 145/9 equitably [1] 198/14 equities [4] 110/2 203/10 220/21 220/23 equity [1] 50/6 eradicate [1] 51/21 eras [1] 155/24 erroneous [1] 76/12 error [1] 40/10 errors [4] 16/22 16/23 17/2 22/21 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter escape [1] 211/12 especially [3] 185/15 216/3 218/22 essentially [13] 28/5 43/6 55/10 130/4 136/10 147/11 152/16 163/10 167/1 167/12 202/1 203/1 235/25 establish [1] 115/19 established [2] 149/13 234/5 establishes [3] 168/19 169/11 189/23 establishment [1] 115/4 estimate [3] 22/11 23/7 25/15 estimated [2] 23/24 170/19 estimates [5] 13/4 22/13 23/15 25/24 26/2 estimating [1] 24/24 estimation [1] 23/9 et [1] 1/9 evaluate [3] 36/16 114/15 114/19 evaluating [3] 10/2 20/14 35/7 even [62] 19/15 22/12 24/8 24/9 39/6 51/15 54/2 55/21 58/18 61/1 61/24 63/22 68/21 74/23 78/5 82/3 82/21 84/8 84/12 85/23 92/3 94/11 97/21 98/6 98/11 103/4 103/12 105/20 119/24 121/10 126/7 144/2 144/3 144/3 144/8 145/21 149/18 152/25 153/2 153/16 163/20 164/23 173/7 173/19 174/10 174/12 185/23 187/11 188/23 190/20 190/23 191/23 196/9 199/22 201/11 204/6 209/9 218/11 226/22 230/17 235/4 235/10 event [3] 36/17 69/11 188/23 events [2] 193/25 194/1 eventually [6] 137/20 137/21 137/23 152/19 168/14 211/9 everything [8] 7/24 14/11 61/10 116/9 (14) election - everything {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} E everything... [4] 120/10 138/21 189/2 239/15 evidence [61] 9/8 17/8 20/9 22/4 27/25 43/14 44/21 44/24 45/1 45/15 46/11 56/4 91/25 92/11 95/1 95/10 96/4 96/7 102/11 102/11 103/9 111/14 111/18 111/25 113/8 113/13 113/18 115/5 120/12 121/21 124/1 128/20 131/12 131/15 131/22 131/25 132/13 132/18 141/9 142/7 148/8 172/20 173/1 178/7 193/15 197/12 197/23 200/13 206/20 212/21 217/3 219/13 219/21 219/25 223/6 226/2 226/18 234/3 234/7 234/15 234/20 evidences [2] 184/9 193/19 evident [2] 17/16 106/18 evil [1] 116/12 ex [1] 219/16 ex-offender [1] 219/16 exacerbates [1] 126/7 exact [8] 82/4 82/4 93/20 104/9 115/23 222/22 224/4 224/5 exactly [13] 37/9 55/8 88/3 108/12 138/3 138/4 164/12 174/16 181/10 225/17 226/4 230/17 233/2 examine [1] 30/9 examined [1] 163/1 examining [2] 72/1 118/7 example [32] 15/11 15/21 19/3 19/14 22/22 34/13 36/1 45/14 45/24 62/13 81/13 85/23 93/9 95/2 107/9 112/4 113/23 121/8 136/3 146/19 158/22 159/25 161/11 162/12 162/15 166/24 197/20 201/12 217/2 218/2 219/12 220/2 examples [4] 86/18 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 201/9 201/18 220/5 exceed [1] 125/18 exceeded [1] 75/18 exceedingly [1] 38/3 excellent [3] 125/22 130/6 239/21 except [1] 65/18 exception [1] 136/6 excerpt [6] 59/23 60/13 95/5 95/9 99/18 221/2 excerpts [5] 60/6 60/7 98/23 98/24 99/2 exchanged [1] 47/7 exclude [8] 6/2 8/10 9/4 9/21 27/23 48/10 116/11 193/18 excluded [12] 11/10 15/22 15/25 16/8 17/7 17/11 17/13 19/10 19/13 29/5 29/22 146/5 excluding [2] 31/9 46/2 exclusion [2] 145/20 146/2 exclusive [1] 116/9 exclusively [1] 210/2 executing [3] 66/6 67/10 161/23 executive [7] 33/8 94/21 154/2 167/1 189/21 190/13 219/4 exercise [13] 30/15 31/2 31/3 104/13 105/2 105/11 162/23 172/9 213/22 214/4 221/8 221/14 230/14 exercises [1] 213/25 exhibit [1] 214/21 exhibits [3] 100/18 179/12 234/17 exist [4] 83/16 83/17 83/18 84/10 existed [6] 82/5 140/8 149/20 210/22 223/16 225/22 existence [3] 79/19 81/7 93/14 exists [8] 46/8 54/18 55/8 55/10 83/14 103/2 142/1 145/15 expand [1] 80/22 expanded [1] 54/8 expanding [1] 76/23 expect [1] 215/10 expecting [1] 186/7 expenditures [1] 111/21 163/22 expense [2] 197/5 197/5 explored [1] 137/4 experience [9] 10/4 explosion [1] 187/9 11/23 11/25 13/23 express [2] 52/12 14/3 15/2 15/14 33/25 80/19 35/3 expressing [2] 89/4 experienced [3] 30/4 89/16 35/6 42/24 expression [2] 88/22 experiences [1] 16/1 88/25 expressive [1] 201/9 expert [56] 6/3 9/6 9/10 9/25 10/2 13/1 expressly [4] 15/18 54/11 84/19 196/15 14/7 14/18 14/23 14/25 15/3 15/6 15/13 extend [13] 113/4 122/13 122/18 126/13 15/17 16/9 16/10 145/17 145/19 151/25 16/11 16/15 20/13 151/25 155/10 195/14 20/23 21/8 25/11 27/17 28/5 28/6 28/13 196/8 214/13 219/24 28/23 29/5 29/23 extended [16] 26/9 29/24 30/2 31/2 31/10 54/3 123/3 123/9 31/18 31/21 34/2 34/5 126/14 126/18 126/22 34/7 34/7 34/12 42/8 126/24 155/12 155/13 188/9 195/18 195/23 52/14 61/15 92/3 111/23 112/10 113/8 196/9 197/14 197/19 113/13 118/7 118/11 extending [2] 146/1 118/16 118/24 119/2 146/5 131/15 131/22 187/5 extension [3] 110/20 110/22 197/25 expert's [4] 11/22 15/15 15/20 22/24 Extensive [1] 219/25 expertise [17] 11/24 extensively [1] 52/20 12/25 13/19 14/3 14/8 extent [10] 42/13 14/11 14/20 15/1 16/2 45/14 64/20 76/10 98/4 160/6 194/17 16/21 17/4 27/10 28/25 32/6 32/7 32/11 206/25 230/15 234/13 33/25 extraordinary [1] 83/2 experts [15] 9/11 16/4 27/21 28/11 extreme [3] 31/8 147/5 210/8 31/14 31/24 31/25 33/21 33/22 34/21 36/1 36/9 36/11 36/15 F face [10] 124/21 212/21 explain [7] 10/3 10/6 125/7 125/8 132/1 60/4 66/9 93/14 160/2 194/25 195/11 199/9 202/5 229/13 229/21 164/14 explained [20] 10/7 faced [1] 132/7 facial [28] 43/12 14/10 21/5 21/13 43/18 141/17 141/18 21/16 22/25 59/14 141/24 154/15 154/17 72/15 89/24 94/11 102/23 123/8 123/22 155/1 195/3 195/19 127/14 131/3 136/20 196/11 197/9 199/5 200/1 214/15 214/16 162/21 165/4 191/9 228/19 228/19 228/25 220/10 explaining [3] 102/19 229/5 230/18 235/23 235/25 236/6 236/10 115/10 168/10 236/11 236/14 236/18 explains [3] 66/22 facially [18] 18/17 76/18 176/16 explanation [1] 21/8 19/1 20/2 49/20 49/24 84/2 109/19 123/17 explicit [2] 54/6 123/20 123/24 125/10 163/24 127/11 127/16 128/2 explicitly [2] 88/17 210/20 211/5 214/17 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 229/15 facilities [1] 111/3 facing [1] 132/9 fact [79] 12/12 14/13 17/2 19/8 20/2 23/3 27/11 30/3 31/2 31/12 31/17 32/15 33/15 34/16 35/6 36/10 39/1 39/3 39/22 40/19 41/23 42/4 42/5 42/24 43/6 45/1 48/5 51/10 56/10 61/21 63/17 74/3 74/8 75/22 84/7 91/17 96/3 97/14 100/12 104/22 108/8 113/20 114/7 117/11 119/21 122/4 124/6 127/4 129/8 131/25 132/2 136/24 141/7 142/12 144/21 161/3 170/4 192/12 195/17 196/2 198/15 202/24 204/9 206/14 206/18 209/8 210/7 211/7 223/12 223/25 224/23 226/22 227/24 228/7 228/9 228/18 229/6 229/12 236/7 factor [6] 80/4 80/4 80/5 83/1 84/7 200/15 factors [14] 10/1 17/15 20/20 45/19 45/19 80/7 84/4 193/7 193/14 211/3 212/10 215/14 215/15 224/22 facts [16] 11/15 17/21 22/2 22/19 23/18 26/14 26/15 26/18 26/21 43/23 46/17 110/8 110/23 132/23 192/13 192/14 factual [2] 94/25 95/8 fail [4] 77/20 127/15 200/22 200/23 failed [2] 23/17 202/3 failing [6] 26/9 110/19 122/13 122/19 185/12 216/12 fails [6] 25/19 66/25 91/18 123/23 198/25 203/3 failure [13] 113/10 114/21 116/16 123/1 123/4 123/9 124/14 126/14 195/23 196/6 197/19 198/6 198/8 fair [10] 37/17 39/9 39/21 39/25 129/6 184/22 185/9 186/18 (15) everything... - fair {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} F fair... [2] 216/10 221/2 fairly [4] 72/4 135/4 142/12 149/1 faithfully [5] 72/12 73/7 73/12 73/25 199/20 fall [3] 52/17 158/25 226/25 falls [1] 14/12 false [6] 42/5 167/20 168/14 190/16 191/5 191/14 falsely [1] 24/16 familiar [3] 10/10 102/12 142/10 Families [1] 218/25 family [2] 218/19 218/21 far [16] 32/3 112/2 117/20 125/18 132/1 155/12 156/3 172/18 207/24 211/14 211/18 211/22 212/14 220/11 220/19 226/19 far-reaching [1] 112/2 Faraji [4] 2/9 4/23 4/25 5/1 Farbod [1] 2/9 farcical [1] 226/1 fares [1] 202/19 farther [1] 155/13 fashion [3] 67/25 103/17 143/17 fashioned [1] 145/3 fast [1] 53/22 faulted [1] 208/24 favor [7] 110/3 172/14 207/5 210/6 220/23 224/13 237/3 favorable [1] 142/14 favored [2] 58/9 140/14 Favoring [1] 220/25 favors [3] 220/24 221/4 221/5 fearful [1] 103/4 feature [1] 199/5 features [1] 235/24 federal [62] 23/12 25/20 34/6 65/10 74/24 84/18 87/1 88/15 98/12 98/15 98/16 98/21 98/25 99/1 99/5 99/8 99/15 108/22 115/20 115/22 145/2 145/9 145/9 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 145/10 145/22 146/21 154/20 158/23 159/14 159/16 160/10 160/15 160/19 160/21 164/6 164/9 165/3 165/5 165/13 165/19 167/25 168/2 168/3 191/7 191/11 205/17 206/19 213/3 213/4 214/5 214/8 226/10 226/12 226/15 226/20 226/23 232/2 232/5 232/11 232/13 232/19 234/5 federally [1] 108/18 fee [17] 110/19 111/2 111/3 111/3 111/4 111/6 112/15 112/18 123/23 123/24 126/3 126/3 126/4 127/13 127/15 127/16 131/7 feedback [2] 8/5 33/18 feel [3] 6/7 8/23 219/5 feels [2] 27/5 105/11 fees [36] 26/10 26/12 111/4 111/14 112/6 112/23 114/22 116/17 116/22 122/11 125/15 125/18 125/19 125/20 125/25 126/1 126/2 126/6 126/9 127/6 129/1 129/5 129/19 129/21 129/23 130/7 130/19 130/21 130/25 142/3 153/12 155/8 177/5 177/6 195/7 196/5 feign [1] 189/10 Fellowship [1] 6/2 felon [20] 40/23 42/2 58/10 108/18 108/19 108/20 108/22 134/23 140/16 143/13 146/3 158/8 168/20 178/13 181/19 190/15 191/1 232/6 237/13 237/14 felonies [33] 18/11 18/14 49/22 52/6 54/9 55/1 80/23 80/24 82/13 82/15 82/20 95/18 95/19 113/10 136/14 136/23 139/22 157/9 157/25 159/1 163/3 170/15 176/13 186/15 186/16 195/8 196/24 200/24 201/4 201/22 202/25 210/4 235/3 felons [23] 38/7 41/5 41/10 70/17 70/23 144/13 157/12 157/20 158/18 159/22 166/15 166/21 169/12 176/7 190/23 199/24 203/23 209/7 211/1 213/11 213/13 214/3 233/6 felons' [1] 233/17 felony [136] 9/19 13/11 16/15 25/9 36/5 49/24 51/17 51/23 52/3 54/13 54/17 55/6 55/9 56/2 56/6 56/15 57/4 61/1 61/9 65/24 66/2 66/8 68/24 70/14 71/4 72/13 72/19 78/4 78/11 79/15 79/20 81/19 81/22 82/9 84/2 86/20 86/21 87/2 87/4 87/15 87/20 87/21 87/25 91/3 93/18 93/25 96/15 97/10 98/12 98/16 99/10 99/23 100/21 100/22 101/1 102/1 107/1 107/10 107/11 107/21 108/3 108/21 110/10 110/11 110/25 112/4 113/15 118/8 121/6 122/6 128/17 131/17 132/17 134/23 134/25 135/1 135/10 139/10 144/22 144/25 150/25 151/4 151/8 151/18 156/5 156/9 156/13 157/4 157/13 157/16 158/12 159/17 159/21 163/23 166/9 169/7 169/8 169/14 170/20 172/2 172/22 173/6 175/23 176/1 176/16 178/20 180/4 180/20 187/19 187/21 188/4 189/8 196/1 196/13 196/20 197/2 197/24 198/16 206/4 206/8 207/21 208/9 208/13 208/18 209/15 220/19 224/3 225/8 226/10 227/4 229/19 231/14 232/19 232/19 235/5 237/20 Felter [1] 207/8 few [13] 30/12 31/16 44/12 47/3 47/6 83/4 88/9 111/2 151/14 195/22 208/11 211/12 235/18 field [8] 11/20 11/24 12/1 12/12 15/2 15/4 22/20 90/10 file [2] 174/11 177/22 filed [3] 90/6 178/2 194/18 files [1] 53/11 filings [1] 179/13 fill [6] 6/7 101/11 179/3 179/6 179/7 192/1 filled [2] 180/23 181/2 fills [2] 179/24 180/3 final [16] 46/21 58/4 83/1 88/11 99/22 105/12 129/11 142/14 175/22 176/11 177/24 178/3 179/2 180/8 181/22 228/17 finally [10] 25/19 26/24 51/25 103/10 141/15 191/15 203/4 206/22 220/22 234/9 financial [72] 13/5 16/18 17/1 25/25 26/5 26/11 26/22 50/1 50/21 65/19 103/1 109/20 110/4 110/8 111/12 111/24 112/3 112/13 112/17 113/15 114/18 115/12 115/21 116/10 116/18 117/17 118/17 119/2 119/4 119/18 121/7 121/17 122/10 122/16 122/21 123/5 123/9 123/12 124/4 124/14 124/25 125/8 126/15 126/17 126/21 126/24 127/8 128/4 128/19 129/18 131/9 131/17 142/4 154/23 195/14 195/23 196/2 196/3 196/10 196/23 197/8 197/9 197/15 198/2 198/7 198/9 199/24 200/14 213/19 214/11 214/14 215/3 financially [1] 117/18 find [14] 28/13 31/11 31/13 38/21 39/24 40/22 42/3 42/4 42/22 102/18 178/16 181/16 197/3 200/10 finder [1] 43/6 finders [1] 42/24 findings [3] 18/4 21/13 21/21 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter fine [3] 29/11 47/22 112/18 fines [8] 110/13 118/10 118/10 119/18 129/1 142/3 155/8 195/7 finish [6] 59/19 100/1 152/21 211/11 231/22 232/6 finished [10] 65/17 88/6 99/8 103/1 139/16 170/11 170/20 183/12 206/12 227/6 finishes [2] 139/2 191/11 firm [1] 227/25 firms [1] 189/15 first [39] 6/18 9/24 11/5 17/19 18/1 29/22 32/12 36/9 52/22 54/24 57/6 61/23 69/4 79/4 81/7 82/13 85/17 87/13 93/17 100/18 104/15 104/16 111/15 130/16 134/17 135/2 136/8 136/9 140/4 142/8 142/11 146/20 156/17 169/11 190/1 194/20 200/5 237/17 239/1 fit [3] 137/3 137/6 182/18 five-minute [2] 44/1 238/22 five-year [1] 118/21 flaws [1] 24/12 flipping [1] 188/22 Florida [6] 128/11 131/3 154/19 166/13 200/9 200/11 flows [1] 202/23 Floyd's [1] 217/6 focus [2] 13/9 226/9 focused [4] 13/11 13/13 14/2 28/25 focuses [3] 16/13 18/10 87/7 focusing [3] 11/6 12/23 226/5 folks [4] 5/7 47/24 75/20 227/2 follow [1] 83/10 followed [1] 233/24 following [5] 115/10 135/22 179/21 219/13 222/10 follows [3] 114/24 218/20 221/2 followup [1] 120/22 (16) fair... - followup {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} F font [1] 63/24 forbidden [1] 19/18 forbids [2] 163/6 188/25 force [4] 69/9 150/23 163/21 164/2 forced [1] 114/5 foreclosed [1] 164/10 foregoing [2] 207/12 241/2 foregone [2] 94/4 169/20 foremost [1] 32/12 foreseeing [1] 155/8 forever [2] 139/23 166/15 forfeited [4] 135/20 138/9 176/9 176/17 forget [1] 211/7 form [42] 9/10 12/8 16/21 50/24 62/2 72/9 74/21 85/10 88/25 89/1 89/7 89/8 93/25 100/19 100/25 101/6 101/8 101/10 101/14 101/16 104/1 122/2 124/24 126/16 128/12 147/19 175/14 175/21 175/22 175/25 176/14 176/20 177/25 180/8 180/8 180/9 180/11 180/23 181/2 181/5 181/22 189/7 formalism [1] 104/1 format [1] 179/21 former [5] 52/10 87/16 170/13 196/18 211/1 formerly [2] 196/24 210/3 forms [12] 100/7 100/15 100/16 102/5 180/16 181/4 192/1 226/12 226/14 226/15 239/9 239/24 forth [3] 111/13 111/18 129/6 forward [27] 9/1 11/8 33/21 48/7 49/11 53/3 60/23 60/25 82/10 82/25 91/25 109/16 139/6 141/9 143/9 144/12 147/14 149/4 179/19 182/25 183/1 188/21 189/1 192/4 193/23 212/18 234/15 found [14] 20/8 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 49/14 68/18 112/11 112/15 132/4 135/19 143/1 159/5 165/22 199/3 200/5 202/14 202/15 frame [2] 134/4 222/12 framed [1] 223/18 framers [4] 115/2 115/14 149/17 149/21 frames [1] 239/7 framework [9] 79/10 79/25 80/1 80/2 81/12 136/16 137/5 224/18 225/10 franchise [6] 50/22 116/12 122/7 166/19 170/5 216/9 Frank [5] 111/23 112/11 113/8 118/25 220/1 frankly [2] 41/17 96/12 fraud [3] 76/2 76/4 76/7 freedom [5] 88/23 88/23 90/1 91/5 202/19 freely [1] 72/4 French [2] 9/17 12/5 frequently [2] 115/11 120/17 Frey [15] 57/3 57/4 57/21 58/6 58/8 59/3 59/9 152/20 153/2 184/12 211/7 211/9 211/9 222/19 223/10 Frey's [1] 57/11 Friday [1] 7/11 friends [1] 222/8 front [7] 43/13 43/15 43/20 174/16 210/4 211/2 236/17 Frye [5] 140/11 140/13 141/4 152/19 152/19 FTC [2] 113/13 131/15 FTCs [1] 113/11 full [10] 121/10 138/10 138/12 138/21 170/5 174/21 187/17 212/13 222/4 228/1 fully [6] 22/22 30/20 51/12 173/18 182/15 182/15 function [7] 18/13 19/11 19/25 30/15 31/8 33/19 235/9 fund [1] 130/23 fundamental [33] 30/1 35/4 72/7 77/21 77/24 78/7 78/16 78/19 79/6 79/13 79/16 84/15 84/25 85/15 85/20 86/3 86/12 87/2 87/4 88/7 162/24 163/4 165/17 165/24 167/19 168/2 168/8 168/9 168/16 200/25 203/13 215/24 224/21 fundamentally [1] 200/23 further [24] 10/7 11/19 13/10 15/9 15/14 15/24 21/15 23/7 24/15 26/13 27/19 67/2 91/11 91/16 105/25 107/24 120/14 134/14 134/21 144/19 167/10 188/14 230/23 241/6 furtherance [1] 54/7 Furthermore [1] 110/17 future [2] 210/17 219/9 G G-r-a-d-y [1] 230/3 Garland [1] 164/7 gatekeeping [2] 30/15 31/8 gathered [1] 192/14 gave [11] 58/15 58/23 69/24 70/1 70/3 95/11 108/13 150/23 205/5 228/24 238/3 GDP [1] 217/10 gender [2] 70/18 145/7 general [71] 1/1 1/15 2/15 2/16 5/9 5/12 11/19 15/2 20/16 22/20 40/14 41/21 46/12 49/20 51/6 54/20 54/24 55/5 55/14 56/14 56/21 56/23 57/3 57/16 58/20 59/3 59/7 59/18 60/14 61/3 66/1 66/3 66/11 66/14 68/8 68/17 69/3 69/6 69/13 69/15 69/19 69/25 70/1 70/3 71/6 74/13 75/11 81/8 85/3 85/6 85/21 86/19 90/22 91/2 93/11 93/24 94/1 110/24 111/2 116/8 116/14 121/4 130/22 135/19 141/18 147/22 148/11 216/17 221/18 223/22 238/3 General's [2] 133/20 219/21 generally [4] 13/8 17/24 20/21 22/6 generations [1] 61/7 genuine [3] 84/6 124/6 132/23 genuinely [1] 200/13 George [1] 217/5 gerrymander [1] 147/11 gerrymandered [1] 160/12 gerrymandering [3] 72/1 147/5 147/6 get [62] 7/19 10/12 45/24 47/25 57/11 58/12 59/20 94/12 106/11 110/6 119/12 120/6 120/8 120/22 126/8 130/10 130/12 130/13 132/5 134/8 136/23 139/7 139/18 140/22 141/2 143/4 143/7 144/8 144/21 144/23 147/10 153/3 154/16 158/13 163/12 168/18 170/20 181/17 183/23 187/21 188/1 188/11 191/9 191/23 194/6 194/17 196/21 196/25 197/6 206/20 211/10 214/2 215/3 222/20 222/20 224/7 229/17 230/20 232/11 235/5 239/10 240/4 gets [8] 101/22 107/9 120/3 121/24 143/5 152/25 156/11 192/8 giant [1] 98/7 give [37] 6/13 6/17 7/11 7/15 7/16 7/17 8/21 30/14 44/1 48/12 48/25 63/1 86/18 93/9 99/7 108/6 139/14 143/18 160/18 161/15 161/22 175/24 180/25 188/4 201/12 212/12 213/17 213/22 221/12 221/13 221/13 221/14 222/21 226/17 228/1 237/9 237/11 given [26] 15/1 16/12 30/22 35/11 45/1 48/5 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 52/10 61/10 66/24 77/7 84/5 86/15 90/17 94/16 99/9 114/1 160/8 160/22 167/10 169/24 174/18 174/18 208/23 226/14 227/3 239/7 gives [7] 36/11 157/16 161/10 174/19 211/16 214/7 226/16 giving [4] 89/7 107/4 173/22 201/9 global [1] 217/1 goal [2] 52/12 57/11 goals [2] 57/5 158/2 good [21] 4/2 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7 4/19 5/6 7/24 49/9 50/12 57/10 74/12 75/24 93/3 152/16 166/16 192/6 194/13 194/15 235/2 240/4 Google [1] 108/17 got [16] 4/20 8/20 23/21 48/21 109/2 120/10 125/24 135/22 139/16 141/6 144/13 154/17 158/4 222/1 230/25 231/5 governed [2] 78/13 224/22 government [28] 12/8 12/9 12/9 72/9 72/10 72/17 77/1 87/7 89/23 91/10 91/15 91/21 92/4 92/9 92/13 93/8 94/14 94/22 95/13 95/22 96/2 108/13 115/4 227/12 227/19 228/14 232/12 232/13 government's [1] 90/9 government-impose d [1] 77/1 governmental [6] 107/25 108/4 169/2 219/2 233/10 233/13 governor [3] 128/11 166/25 200/9 governs [2] 80/1 171/24 Grady [9] 104/10 228/22 230/3 235/17 235/19 236/3 236/3 236/7 236/8 grant [11] 16/2 105/3 158/5 158/10 165/1 165/1 207/5 207/16 (17) font - grant {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} guard [1] 189/16 guess [6] 109/9 grant... [3] 221/21 129/11 153/16 185/25 221/22 237/3 208/5 212/1 granted [4] 148/21 guidance [1] 228/24 187/18 193/23 216/2 106/15 guilty [3] grants [1] 155/21 134/23 134/25 granular [1] 206/20 grapple [1] 194/1 H gravity [1] 217/3 hac [2] 2/7 2/10 great [6] 4/17 47/18 half [5] 6/3 6/4 101/6 50/17 108/9 120/1 101/8 131/23 147/11 Hampton [2] 85/25 greater [7] 63/16 86/4 163/20 164/2 214/7 hand [4] 18/23 77/16 219/11 219/24 220/11 97/2 221/24 greatest [1] 225/24 handed [2] 98/2 98/2 greatly [1] 165/11 handful [1] 223/14 Gregory [42] 1/18 happen [5] 38/19 4/4 5/22 6/10 6/24 137/1 143/11 210/18 7/21 10/10 10/14 215/20 10/16 29/9 29/11 37/9 happened [5] 19/4 46/22 46/23 46/23 34/25 160/9 190/21 48/14 49/4 49/5 50/18 223/20 107/7 107/15 107/24 happening [1] 108/15 109/1 109/4 215/20 109/6 109/11 134/15 happens [4] 106/22 152/7 156/17 158/7 143/7 177/17 177/21 183/12 183/13 188/7 happy [2] 11/6 107/3 207/19 222/18 228/2 hard [3] 32/25 114/2 228/8 231/1 237/7 175/8 239/2 239/13 harder [1] 150/25 Gregory's [4] 37/7 hardly [2] 69/16 192/8 231/8 239/24 114/4 Griffin [1] 213/21 Harlan [1] 145/15 gross [3] 46/5 73/18 harm [6] 203/9 185/22 215/19 216/12 217/24 grossly [4] 61/18 218/1 218/18 67/16 185/13 185/23 harmonize [3] 66/16 ground [3] 164/24 67/5 90/20 169/16 194/16 harmonized [3] grounded [1] 213/2 66/21 68/3 68/15 grounds [3] 16/8 harmonizing [1] 67/3 103/18 234/2 harms [3] 219/10 group [15] 74/2 85/4 219/23 220/17 85/5 85/7 85/9 85/15 Harper [8] 123/18 87/11 87/12 87/16 123/19 127/10 127/20 88/4 88/5 124/20 128/1 199/2 199/14 177/13 180/25 216/14 214/16 groups [7] 85/14 Harper's [2] 52/23 86/7 86/25 87/9 87/22 53/16 87/24 108/11 Harrison [4] 123/7 growing [2] 167/15 197/16 197/22 198/24 185/16 Harsh [1] 220/12 grows [1] 63/19 Hart [1] 141/25 growth [1] 111/14 Harvey [2] 151/22 guarantee [3] 73/11 152/4 149/25 150/1 has [152] 9/11 9/18 guarantees [2] 66/24 12/4 12/14 12/17 152/3 13/19 13/24 14/2 G 14/10 15/5 15/9 16/18 20/18 20/20 21/17 22/20 25/18 31/12 32/6 32/7 32/12 32/16 32/21 32/23 32/24 32/25 33/5 33/6 33/18 33/21 33/22 33/24 39/5 39/14 40/11 42/11 42/14 44/12 44/14 45/7 51/6 66/11 66/19 69/9 69/14 74/5 78/8 80/11 80/15 81/11 83/14 85/2 85/15 88/6 93/24 94/19 95/10 96/1 102/25 103/16 104/1 105/11 105/20 108/3 110/24 111/10 113/22 123/8 123/22 125/19 126/20 130/20 130/22 134/19 136/17 142/12 142/15 144/6 145/3 145/23 146/7 146/16 146/22 152/8 152/23 156/19 157/14 157/23 161/7 161/8 163/1 163/3 165/10 165/18 165/19 166/24 166/25 168/16 168/25 169/15 171/22 172/10 173/6 173/15 174/4 174/18 176/6 180/10 181/10 189/7 189/17 192/7 193/8 196/9 199/8 202/7 205/7 205/11 206/1 206/5 206/7 206/11 206/15 207/3 208/8 208/15 208/15 209/19 210/11 212/2 213/14 214/4 215/18 216/6 216/18 218/24 219/19 219/19 219/25 221/7 221/18 221/20 225/13 227/5 227/20 232/3 232/21 234/20 235/5 235/15 235/24 240/3 hasn't [1] 15/7 have -- I [1] 40/3 haven't [9] 41/23 173/3 173/4 173/11 181/9 181/22 188/24 197/11 197/11 having [7] 31/16 48/4 62/19 121/3 172/21 197/4 213/10 he [164] 9/18 9/22 11/11 13/10 13/19 13/20 14/2 14/5 14/9 14/10 14/12 15/7 15/16 15/23 15/25 16/18 16/22 16/23 17/8 18/1 18/10 18/12 20/22 21/5 21/8 22/3 22/21 22/25 23/1 23/4 23/7 23/9 23/11 23/12 23/18 23/19 23/19 23/25 24/12 24/14 24/15 24/20 24/22 25/1 25/10 25/17 25/19 26/2 26/3 26/5 26/6 26/8 26/8 26/13 26/16 26/18 27/3 27/5 27/6 27/19 30/11 31/11 31/18 31/19 31/22 31/24 32/6 32/7 32/8 32/8 32/12 32/15 32/17 32/20 32/21 32/23 32/24 32/24 33/2 33/5 33/7 33/9 33/18 33/20 33/23 34/4 34/5 34/7 34/23 35/5 35/16 35/17 35/18 35/19 37/20 37/20 38/4 38/5 38/7 38/9 38/17 39/18 40/7 40/18 40/20 41/3 41/4 41/7 41/7 41/20 41/20 41/22 41/22 41/24 42/14 42/17 42/19 58/9 58/11 58/19 58/20 58/21 58/23 59/8 59/25 60/3 102/19 102/20 107/11 123/8 129/20 136/11 138/19 138/20 138/20 139/23 140/14 140/19 144/19 144/21 153/5 187/6 196/17 197/1 197/5 197/18 197/23 197/24 198/2 198/2 198/3 198/3 198/7 207/22 210/6 210/7 211/11 212/3 214/15 219/5 219/18 223/17 223/18 226/13 he's [23] 5/11 5/12 13/10 13/12 14/1 14/13 22/10 27/19 28/6 29/23 32/13 33/2 33/3 33/11 33/14 34/2 37/21 38/10 38/10 42/8 140/17 141/4 187/6 head [5] 37/8 77/5 118/13 188/22 218/21 headquarters [1] 52/18 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter health [2] 90/15 217/15 hear [14] 6/9 8/19 11/7 29/16 44/24 46/17 50/15 109/1 109/5 133/5 217/17 228/6 228/8 236/18 heard [8] 6/4 30/4 30/16 35/9 43/13 51/12 109/4 217/21 hearing [9] 1/17 91/20 133/12 136/25 137/1 137/2 217/3 227/15 236/5 heart [1] 73/15 heightened [15] 79/1 79/3 85/8 85/20 86/13 86/22 88/9 89/20 124/17 128/13 162/22 163/4 163/18 165/15 166/14 Heights [14] 45/9 46/14 80/7 81/12 83/1 84/4 192/23 192/24 193/3 193/7 193/13 193/14 224/22 225/10 held [31] 15/2 15/12 24/5 25/11 53/7 66/19 67/3 72/5 81/16 84/19 84/24 85/2 86/2 86/5 86/12 88/13 88/17 88/19 115/18 116/6 128/12 154/23 154/25 160/7 160/17 163/8 163/15 169/3 189/13 205/19 206/18 help [3] 130/23 174/7 203/24 helpful [13] 16/6 28/14 30/3 30/6 30/7 31/13 35/5 38/22 38/25 38/25 39/21 46/17 205/24 helps [1] 8/5 Henderson [4] 55/18 55/20 55/22 80/25 Henderson's [1] 55/24 Henry [7] 57/3 57/21 58/6 58/8 123/7 197/16 222/18 her [22] 21/13 36/11 94/22 95/25 98/3 99/14 102/24 115/13 126/18 174/13 189/24 190/4 191/2 191/6 218/3 218/5 218/6 218/7 218/12 218/14 218/24 219/19 (18) grant... - her {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 220/7 220/8 highest [2] 64/1 here [136] 4/11 4/11 125/14 4/12 4/14 4/18 4/19 30/12 4/21 5/23 18/15 25/12 highlight [4] 36/2 146/8 220/21 27/2 28/21 30/3 30/13 highlighted [1] 116/1 30/15 30/24 31/3 highlighting [1] 31/17 32/3 33/19 175/7 34/14 35/1 35/4 35/7 highlights [2] 86/9 43/11 43/19 44/24 144/15 45/8 45/8 53/9 56/17 highly [1] 220/1 60/5 67/9 69/14 70/13 Hill [4] 148/20 148/25 75/1 76/3 76/9 78/8 149/5 152/2 79/8 81/5 81/23 82/9 Hilton [2] 104/8 83/2 87/10 90/25 104/17 91/13 91/23 93/23 8/6 8/16 16/2 98/23 99/18 102/12 him [6] 58/24 138/10 197/25 103/18 104/24 105/18 24/1 111/1 117/2 122/22 himself [1] 33/9 196/20 hire [3] 127/11 130/10 133/25 196/25 134/7 134/21 135/9 hired [1] 33/13 135/24 136/4 136/18 hiring [2] 33/9 197/6 138/2 138/25 141/8 1/8 9/6 9/6 his [133] 141/25 142/23 143/15 9/11 9/23 10/7 10/7 144/4 144/5 145/21 10/8 11/2 11/13 11/15 146/1 150/5 150/17 12/1 12/4 13/1 13/7 150/21 151/2 151/7 13/10 13/25 14/5 14/6 154/20 155/24 156/21 14/8 14/9 15/1 16/21 156/25 157/22 158/20 16/22 17/5 17/10 160/18 164/13 164/14 17/20 17/21 17/22 165/25 167/13 168/11 19/9 20/23 20/25 174/22 175/1 175/23 20/25 21/7 21/20 176/3 176/5 176/12 22/18 22/24 23/9 177/24 183/5 189/2 23/14 24/1 24/8 24/9 193/25 194/2 196/14 24/10 24/16 25/3 197/23 199/7 199/8 25/10 26/2 26/2 26/14 201/20 201/24 203/6 26/17 26/20 26/21 203/17 203/24 205/2 27/22 28/24 28/25 205/9 205/16 205/24 29/24 30/14 30/21 205/25 207/3 207/7 30/21 30/23 31/6 208/21 210/19 210/19 31/10 32/4 32/5 32/11 211/4 211/23 213/5 33/10 33/12 33/19 213/24 223/20 225/17 33/24 34/12 35/2 35/7 229/15 232/21 233/6 35/8 35/10 35/11 233/19 234/11 236/17 35/16 35/16 35/18 here's [4] 58/3 95/2 36/7 37/8 39/8 39/20 142/16 176/4 40/12 40/19 41/9 heretofore [1] 146/7 42/12 42/19 42/21 herring [2] 122/14 43/3 43/4 44/16 52/16 159/9 55/17 56/3 56/4 56/7 herrings [1] 159/6 58/11 58/15 58/21 herself [1] 21/12 58/24 58/25 59/14 hey [3] 53/1 171/7 59/14 74/16 98/21 180/25 123/8 123/8 123/22 4/22 53/3 Hi [2] 126/18 138/10 138/17 high [3] 19/10 103/3 140/2 140/16 141/13 184/24 144/17 170/9 174/13 high-profile [1] 103/3 190/4 192/6 197/16 higher [7] 18/9 63/22 197/18 198/2 198/6 65/2 205/7 220/5 H 198/8 198/9 210/1 210/5 219/17 219/19 222/19 222/22 222/23 223/4 historian [1] 226/3 historical [10] 19/14 80/7 80/10 81/2 84/5 150/3 150/12 187/5 193/4 193/12 historically [2] 19/17 80/15 history [34] 9/16 13/14 13/14 19/18 51/22 52/3 66/15 69/1 69/8 72/2 77/5 80/8 80/11 81/4 81/5 81/10 81/11 82/6 84/6 136/15 144/10 146/14 146/17 147/8 186/10 188/6 189/6 193/5 193/10 193/21 193/25 194/2 217/17 234/16 Hog [1] 115/5 hold [9] 77/21 115/2 130/17 136/25 162/8 162/9 165/25 168/7 169/19 holding [4] 68/16 161/13 168/7 236/2 holds [2] 143/19 143/21 hole [1] 226/25 Holmes [13] 34/4 67/19 68/4 80/1 81/13 82/9 83/23 84/9 93/19 161/17 161/20 193/8 224/22 honest [2] 115/11 221/3 honestly [3] 72/4 183/9 187/12 Honor [107] 4/10 4/16 4/21 4/25 5/4 5/11 8/13 8/25 9/3 10/19 10/22 23/23 28/9 41/14 43/25 49/9 64/21 74/4 104/18 106/10 106/25 107/22 108/8 108/25 109/2 109/5 109/7 109/15 110/7 110/23 112/3 112/13 113/7 113/16 114/3 115/25 116/10 117/16 118/15 119/3 120/1 120/13 120/23 122/14 123/5 123/19 123/25 124/9 125/23 127/25 130/5 130/16 132/10 132/25 133/9 150/20 154/10 156/16 156/17 166/12 171/16 172/3 174/6 174/8 174/15 179/14 179/22 181/3 182/23 187/3 208/8 208/9 208/14 209/20 209/22 210/11 210/13 212/17 213/3 213/16 213/24 214/4 214/9 214/11 214/18 214/25 215/14 216/15 216/25 217/5 217/25 219/3 219/23 220/22 221/1 221/15 221/17 222/3 223/17 224/9 227/1 227/7 227/10 228/2 229/16 238/6 238/17 Honor's [1] 187/19 Honorable [3] 1/17 1/18 1/18 Honors [109] 9/24 11/2 11/11 11/21 12/20 13/22 14/16 16/8 17/2 18/15 19/1 20/2 20/22 21/2 22/22 25/5 25/22 26/13 26/15 26/24 27/16 27/22 28/18 29/17 35/8 35/9 35/18 37/17 39/17 43/9 44/4 44/9 44/18 45/2 49/14 50/12 50/15 56/17 58/5 59/24 61/5 63/7 63/13 64/7 64/16 65/22 69/11 70/16 72/11 75/10 78/22 83/23 85/24 89/6 89/21 91/20 93/9 95/5 96/3 96/12 98/9 100/11 100/17 101/21 102/12 103/10 104/6 105/1 105/25 109/18 112/20 114/14 115/14 117/22 121/20 123/15 125/2 126/15 127/11 128/21 130/25 131/7 133/19 134/9 135/9 137/15 137/20 194/13 199/3 215/4 216/21 217/9 217/13 220/4 222/9 223/25 224/11 225/6 225/17 226/8 228/17 228/21 230/22 230/23 231/6 235/14 236/19 236/23 237/5 Honors' [2] 137/25 225/7 hope [3] 221/12 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 222/3 239/2 Hopefully [1] 231/6 horrific [1] 156/12 horrifying [1] 52/15 hour [4] 6/4 6/4 6/19 133/14 hours [5] 6/18 6/20 34/10 49/1 58/25 house [8] 1/9 32/10 55/18 55/24 58/9 111/19 140/13 188/12 household [1] 218/21 how [56] 24/2 25/15 25/16 27/6 37/8 37/9 38/17 38/17 43/9 47/19 47/20 51/9 52/17 61/16 71/3 76/4 99/8 104/3 118/17 119/3 129/9 133/2 137/4 138/17 141/16 141/17 148/19 148/23 150/15 152/2 153/7 164/23 165/4 166/14 170/9 172/8 176/19 181/8 181/14 183/15 183/25 184/1 184/2 184/4 187/17 187/21 188/2 189/5 189/8 190/14 203/25 209/2 212/22 215/9 222/12 227/2 however [18] 12/19 14/4 15/7 16/7 17/12 21/19 28/20 28/22 29/1 36/7 37/24 57/25 58/19 90/1 125/23 150/2 197/21 201/18 huge [2] 118/1 217/9 human [1] 211/23 humane [1] 72/18 Hunter [5] 20/8 81/21 82/9 83/25 225/7 hyper [1] 104/1 hyperbolic [1] 216/21 hyperformalism [1] 105/2 hypothesis [1] 35/23 I I'd [8] 117/15 119/11 134/5 134/7 180/13 187/4 189/19 196/14 I'll [60] 8/6 17/12 30/12 40/3 44/1 44/19 49/1 50/19 51/8 52/1 52/22 53/5 57/21 64/8 65/15 65/22 66/9 70/11 78/21 78/24 (19) here - I'll {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} I I'll... [40] 84/13 88/9 88/11 89/21 101/10 101/21 103/10 104/7 108/25 109/2 109/7 111/2 129/11 130/3 133/22 134/4 137/15 137/21 137/25 140/9 141/15 156/4 175/6 175/22 176/3 178/17 187/18 188/13 194/15 194/17 209/4 212/4 212/12 222/4 222/21 222/24 228/17 231/7 234/23 235/14 I'm [111] 4/2 4/4 4/8 4/11 4/21 5/19 5/20 6/5 6/24 7/24 9/1 12/21 29/11 29/18 29/19 43/17 49/3 49/5 50/13 51/22 53/3 53/4 53/11 61/19 61/22 62/18 62/21 75/8 76/21 77/19 79/8 83/21 98/12 100/11 100/15 100/17 101/3 102/12 107/3 107/4 107/8 107/17 107/25 108/19 109/4 109/7 109/8 109/11 111/1 118/12 118/12 124/8 125/16 125/23 129/16 129/19 129/20 129/23 130/2 133/2 133/6 133/25 141/8 147/21 150/19 152/9 152/12 152/21 153/2 153/3 155/16 156/15 158/20 167/2 167/5 171/7 172/20 173/18 174/16 174/16 175/1 175/15 182/13 183/10 184/16 186/7 186/20 187/2 187/10 192/20 192/21 194/20 204/18 209/6 209/7 211/9 211/17 212/1 212/4 212/9 215/15 215/17 215/19 221/24 230/2 236/19 237/15 238/19 239/2 239/23 240/4 I've [10] 8/20 30/25 89/23 102/6 103/11 106/1 125/16 159/4 192/21 240/2 i.e [1] 116/25 ID [20] 34/4 34/6 68/6 68/6 68/7 68/15 68/17 68/19 68/21 68/23 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 68/25 70/2 81/13 81/14 81/15 93/24 161/20 161/22 161/23 205/12 idea [2] 102/20 190/14 ideal [1] 210/12 identification [1] 190/17 identified [3] 25/8 123/2 169/9 identify [2] 13/23 94/14 identity [3] 72/18 72/21 227/24 ideological [2] 72/18 72/21 ignore [5] 32/15 82/7 139/21 162/17 162/18 ignored [1] 23/4 ignores [3] 22/13 32/10 168/21 ignoring [1] 22/23 II [11] 9/5 11/13 11/17 13/1 17/4 17/6 17/17 17/22 18/1 20/25 27/23 III [1] 21/2 illicit [1] 85/10 Illinois [3] 213/16 213/21 213/21 illustrate [2] 37/5 85/17 Illustrating [1] 132/7 illustration [1] 37/16 imagine [2] 81/2 126/2 immediate [3] 140/20 216/2 216/2 immediately [2] 45/24 141/5 immense [1] 218/25 immune [2] 68/11 70/15 impact [50] 13/3 13/5 13/17 18/2 18/16 18/19 19/2 19/6 19/15 19/24 20/9 20/14 20/19 20/19 20/25 23/25 36/24 37/6 37/16 40/5 40/7 42/7 42/10 45/4 45/7 45/8 45/12 45/14 45/17 45/25 46/8 46/19 51/7 61/14 79/20 80/9 83/2 83/2 83/12 83/22 83/24 84/3 84/6 117/12 148/15 193/18 193/21 199/24 217/22 220/11 impacted [7] 18/21 20/16 28/4 51/2 76/2 76/4 76/8 impactful [3] 50/9 89/4 213/7 impacts [3] 24/25 46/10 46/11 impermissible [3] 109/24 128/10 212/23 implemented [1] 167/5 implementing [21] 66/7 66/12 66/14 67/11 68/9 68/11 68/16 69/1 69/3 69/8 69/10 69/12 69/14 69/19 69/20 70/6 70/14 71/5 93/18 93/22 94/2 implicate [1] 84/15 implicated [3] 79/14 165/16 165/17 implicates [1] 79/5 implicit [1] 163/25 implicitly [1] 219/14 implied [1] 34/16 import [2] 184/5 193/12 importance [2] 45/7 46/16 important [31] 22/23 22/25 26/3 27/5 41/14 41/18 45/4 75/15 91/9 91/15 92/24 135/14 136/1 138/1 139/4 140/13 143/14 145/8 146/15 148/19 149/3 149/5 151/5 193/21 200/14 211/13 216/3 216/22 216/24 220/22 228/14 importantly [3] 123/14 176/14 236/13 impose [9] 110/18 122/11 122/16 127/24 192/13 192/14 195/7 197/9 234/12 imposed [11] 26/11 77/1 110/24 118/10 118/11 121/12 131/11 214/10 229/7 235/21 240/7 imposes [1] 229/14 imposing [2] 16/25 104/12 imposition [4] 119/2 119/4 142/4 230/9 impositions [1] 146/22 167/25 168/3 118/16 168/17 205/2 207/10 impossible [1] 219/15 incorrect [8] 16/23 17/1 23/15 25/21 impoverished [1] 26/15 123/5 123/7 213/12 impressed [1] 239/3 233/3 increase [1] 22/14 imprisoning [1] 226/7 increased [3] 111/6 111/12 170/22 imprisonment [3] 60/3 188/10 223/3 increases [1] 219/18 increasing [1] improve [1] 218/4 111/11 improvement [1] 59/21 increasingly [1] improving [1] 218/7 111/16 incredibly [2] 136/22 inability [2] 127/5 239/3 197/14 inaccurate [4] 26/2 incurred [1] 219/23 30/17 35/17 42/15 indeed [2] 87/17 89/6 inadequate [1] 92/17 independent [6] inadmissible [1] 21/1 15/17 21/24 25/3 28/6 31/19 31/20 inappropriate [1] 213/5 independently [2] 17/11 105/17 INC [1] 1/4 indeterminate [2] incarcerated [13] 185/4 185/11 49/23 51/15 55/16 61/2 79/23 82/21 84/9 INDEX [1] 2/20 102/8 139/23 186/7 indicate [2] 65/2 180/17 223/23 224/6 235/6 indicated [2] 95/6 incarceration [5] 237/10 57/13 59/17 132/2 206/12 219/22 indicates [5] 95/9 incentive [1] 219/20 106/22 176/23 183/4 211/23 incident [1] 138/22 indicating [1] 60/14 include [6] 74/23 80/7 114/17 126/3 indication [3] 27/5 180/15 180/25 145/20 220/6 indicative [1] 190/16 included [10] 23/3 52/7 60/22 125/20 indifference [1] 126/6 144/22 144/24 219/17 175/9 177/24 179/13 indigent [5] 114/9 114/13 127/4 127/8 includes [9] 14/11 213/18 32/14 78/4 97/17 101/23 116/10 127/14 indirectly [1] 54/14 175/10 176/12 indisputable [1] 20/9 including [17] 33/10 individual [25] 62/8 77/21 77/23 78/1 78/2 54/12 58/2 71/22 100/22 101/2 103/17 85/14 87/2 87/4 97/5 112/17 123/17 127/17 97/12 97/18 98/7 138/13 157/19 176/9 117/23 120/3 130/6 181/5 205/19 210/22 196/3 197/16 198/12 198/17 200/16 200/18 216/13 inclusion [1] 145/15 216/13 217/25 219/13 220/11 incompatible [1] 67/12 individual's [2] 85/18 176/6 inconsistent [1] 19/16 individually [2] 130/10 130/12 incontrovertible [1] 114/7 individuals [51] 36/8 36/12 36/18 36/19 incorporated [6] Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (20) I'll... - individuals {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} I individuals... [47] 36/25 37/2 50/23 50/25 57/7 60/20 72/13 72/23 73/6 77/22 86/3 87/13 87/14 87/20 87/21 89/17 96/24 97/25 98/3 98/5 99/14 99/16 99/20 102/13 102/14 106/7 106/13 108/12 122/23 122/25 124/10 124/14 154/25 186/23 200/12 201/11 201/13 201/18 206/2 206/3 206/7 216/16 219/5 219/23 226/10 226/24 235/21 individuals' [1] 202/2 Industries [3] 167/24 168/7 207/10 ineligible [6] 96/19 97/24 98/19 99/5 100/1 102/16 inequitable [2] 198/19 204/11 infamous [8] 52/6 52/7 54/10 80/23 84/14 138/8 152/12 152/13 infect [1] 225/16 inferred [1] 163/25 inflation [1] 111/10 inform [3] 97/4 171/22 171/25 information [27] 7/2 13/7 26/16 26/21 31/12 32/2 40/21 97/17 98/5 98/14 99/4 99/20 99/20 99/25 179/18 181/11 198/12 198/13 198/15 198/16 198/20 198/22 231/11 231/13 231/15 232/11 232/13 informed [3] 177/17 178/24 231/23 informing [1] 96/24 informs [2] 191/24 219/14 infringe [1] 78/19 infused [1] 82/8 inherently [1] 169/5 initial [5] 57/25 80/3 137/16 202/10 203/10 initially [1] 81/24 initiative [2] 1/4 26/17 injunction [31] 6/16 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 48/25 50/5 50/7 103/15 103/19 104/13 105/12 110/1 203/5 203/8 203/15 203/15 203/20 204/1 204/14 204/17 204/17 204/19 204/20 204/23 204/25 205/7 205/8 207/15 215/22 220/17 220/24 221/17 221/23 237/1 injures [1] 151/6 injurious [1] 120/25 injury [5] 142/12 142/12 142/15 215/25 216/5 inmate [4] 103/21 105/7 135/23 185/7 inner [1] 12/11 innovation [1] 218/17 inquiry [1] 224/22 insist [1] 122/8 insisted [1] 60/15 insistence [1] 60/19 instance [3] 14/22 75/1 121/8 instead [8] 18/10 22/12 68/2 143/1 146/23 151/9 160/17 171/21 instinctive [1] 102/9 Institute [2] 111/13 218/17 instituted [1] 115/15 institutions [2] 12/24 32/18 instructive [4] 49/15 112/1 127/11 154/20 instructs [1] 101/1 Insurance [1] 205/3 insure [1] 50/7 insurmountable [1] 121/21 intended [11] 45/10 61/13 145/18 149/18 149/21 187/22 204/18 204/20 210/21 211/18 223/9 intending [1] 105/17 intent [58] 56/8 58/24 77/5 79/7 79/12 80/19 81/3 81/17 81/25 82/12 84/4 85/10 115/25 136/3 138/1 138/24 138/25 139/21 141/8 141/10 144/11 144/12 144/16 144/16 147/12 148/9 148/16 150/8 150/13 150/16 150/17 152/10 155/4 155/6 155/15 155/16 155/22 155/24 156/7 170/10 172/17 173/3 181/24 182/14 182/18 183/4 183/7 184/10 184/21 188/3 193/19 194/5 194/10 202/7 211/15 222/19 223/5 225/14 intention [3] 196/22 197/7 211/24 intentional [7] 46/13 79/8 80/2 162/6 182/24 183/23 192/25 intentionally [1] 196/12 interact [1] 99/13 interest [57] 10/9 72/9 88/2 89/23 91/10 91/15 91/18 91/22 92/2 92/5 92/9 92/13 92/16 93/8 93/14 94/3 94/7 94/15 94/22 94/25 95/2 95/4 96/3 96/6 104/6 107/25 108/4 108/14 115/19 156/8 156/15 156/18 169/2 188/14 188/15 188/21 189/1 189/1 190/2 207/24 208/1 208/4 218/7 219/17 220/24 221/1 221/4 221/7 226/8 227/7 227/12 227/18 228/14 233/10 233/13 233/19 241/7 interests [23] 90/20 91/8 91/11 91/16 92/17 92/20 92/24 93/13 93/16 94/10 94/13 94/17 94/20 95/13 95/21 95/22 190/5 190/9 227/14 227/19 227/22 233/5 234/19 interferes [1] 162/23 intermediary [1] 208/3 intermediate [18] 70/10 90/3 90/8 90/19 90/21 91/1 91/8 91/16 132/21 154/23 228/3 228/5 228/7 228/11 228/15 234/9 234/11 234/13 internal [1] 100/7 interpret [6] 14/6 67/24 71/4 146/24 154/2 187/25 interpretation [2] 71/23 186/3 interpreted [7] 67/20 68/2 68/5 95/25 151/22 165/13 189/8 interpreting [3] 58/23 67/9 128/8 interrogatories [3] 94/14 227/23 233/9 interrogatory [18] 92/6 92/8 94/23 189/2 189/13 190/3 190/7 190/7 190/8 227/9 227/10 227/11 227/21 228/1 232/24 232/25 233/4 233/7 interrogatory's [1] 233/11 interveners [1] 34/18 intervening [2] 82/1 225/13 intervention [1] 34/20 interview [1] 175/21 intimately [1] 75/14 introduced [9] 54/16 57/16 58/1 137/18 137/23 138/7 138/7 139/15 139/20 introduction [1] 137/16 introductory [1] 47/4 invalid [7] 49/20 123/21 127/11 128/3 141/23 143/21 154/24 invalidate [2] 143/23 158/15 invalidated [1] 214/17 invalidating [1] 142/22 involve [1] 230/13 involved [3] 43/23 84/1 223/6 involvement [1] 58/21 involves [1] 34/9 involving [3] 15/6 34/3 34/6 Iowa [2] 166/24 166/25 irrational [1] 218/25 irrelevant [5] 92/17 123/6 123/15 123/15 190/12 irreparable [7] 203/9 215/23 215/24 216/6 216/12 217/24 218/18 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter irreparably [1] 219/10 irrespective [1] 79/24 isolation [1] 66/25 issue [53] 11/24 14/14 30/2 35/14 37/13 41/8 46/9 46/18 50/4 71/18 90/14 104/9 104/12 105/13 146/9 150/9 153/8 155/4 157/24 158/16 158/17 158/22 159/12 161/12 162/13 163/1 164/12 165/22 187/6 187/6 189/11 189/17 194/20 194/22 194/24 199/16 200/5 200/8 201/20 202/11 202/12 205/13 205/18 205/18 206/16 206/17 208/8 210/11 210/18 210/19 211/4 229/3 236/15 issued [3] 113/11 167/1 174/24 issues [20] 11/3 14/18 31/13 32/25 40/2 102/6 124/6 132/23 188/13 194/17 194/21 195/5 203/13 206/20 214/9 217/21 217/23 221/25 225/2 235/15 it [416] it's [152] 8/16 18/14 19/19 19/21 20/22 22/6 25/14 27/11 28/14 32/24 35/23 36/14 37/5 38/9 38/24 38/25 39/7 39/19 39/21 39/25 41/21 41/23 42/17 42/19 42/20 42/21 43/18 44/22 44/23 45/4 45/21 46/7 46/9 46/10 46/15 49/17 51/21 61/11 63/3 64/5 64/6 75/21 75/22 80/10 80/14 84/15 89/3 89/6 94/19 104/19 106/4 108/1 113/16 117/5 117/21 118/9 118/25 120/13 120/17 123/15 123/16 128/18 134/12 134/12 135/22 136/1 136/1 136/5 136/15 138/12 138/24 140/1 140/3 140/4 140/17 141/3 141/12 142/17 (21) individuals... - it's {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} I it's... [74] 142/21 142/22 142/24 143/14 143/16 145/8 146/14 146/17 149/4 149/14 150/18 151/5 155/5 156/4 158/20 159/9 162/1 163/12 164/17 166/2 166/24 167/5 167/16 168/21 169/5 169/14 170/7 170/17 171/20 172/13 174/25 179/18 180/22 180/23 181/10 182/1 183/5 183/10 184/7 186/4 186/11 186/11 186/14 187/24 188/2 188/11 188/20 189/15 191/13 203/8 204/24 205/24 210/12 220/11 222/7 222/23 223/4 223/11 224/4 224/4 229/19 229/20 230/2 230/5 231/20 234/1 234/2 234/7 235/11 235/19 235/25 236/1 237/18 239/5 items [4] 174/7 175/15 175/16 228/2 iterations [1] 136/10 its [47] 26/25 44/11 48/13 66/6 68/22 69/9 71/12 73/16 76/18 77/5 80/8 80/8 83/14 116/8 120/11 124/21 125/7 125/7 127/21 133/21 140/3 141/23 142/7 145/17 154/18 155/2 166/25 167/2 176/1 184/2 188/22 190/3 194/25 195/11 202/5 207/7 207/14 225/14 227/20 227/20 228/20 229/1 229/8 229/13 229/21 235/24 236/12 itself [15] 30/6 44/21 45/13 46/10 76/18 78/6 96/1 96/3 106/12 162/16 164/12 165/14 196/22 200/2 211/23 IV [1] 22/9 J Jacoboson [1] 3/5 Jacobsen [3] 106/4 191/8 235/10 Jacobson [20] 2/6 3/10 4/19 49/11 49/19 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 50/11 50/13 104/15 107/8 136/8 136/20 147/2 181/4 190/4 190/14 221/24 222/2 233/3 235/18 236/21 Jacobson's [2] 148/3 190/11 jail [7] 107/19 125/15 125/18 125/19 125/20 126/4 126/6 January [2] 52/23 53/16 jarring [1] 51/9 Jessica [1] 109/12 Jim [7] 51/21 55/20 61/6 61/10 61/11 80/25 80/25 job [2] 132/5 132/7 jobs [3] 72/24 217/11 217/11 John [2] 1/18 55/18 Johnson [15] 57/3 57/4 57/11 57/15 59/9 129/15 137/13 137/18 138/4 139/6 139/21 152/18 184/12 187/16 200/4 joined [2] 68/20 133/25 jointly [1] 6/20 Jones [9] 2/5 4/20 4/20 4/20 128/11 131/2 154/19 166/13 200/8 Josh [1] 2/15 journals [3] 12/16 33/15 33/16 Joy [4] 57/3 57/15 129/14 152/18 judge [132] 4/4 4/6 5/20 5/21 5/21 5/22 5/22 6/10 6/10 6/24 6/25 7/21 7/23 8/1 8/2 10/10 10/10 10/14 10/14 10/16 10/20 29/5 29/9 29/11 29/12 29/13 31/16 37/7 37/8 37/9 37/10 43/4 43/16 43/20 44/22 46/22 46/22 46/23 46/25 47/1 47/10 47/16 47/16 47/21 47/21 48/5 48/7 48/8 48/14 48/16 48/17 49/5 49/6 50/18 71/24 84/20 88/16 92/23 93/2 107/7 107/15 107/24 108/15 108/16 109/1 109/4 109/6 109/11 118/20 129/16 129/18 129/20 129/22 130/1 134/15 137/2 137/5 147/3 148/4 150/8 152/8 152/23 153/6 153/9 153/15 153/16 153/20 154/2 154/9 154/21 155/4 155/9 156/17 158/7 164/6 164/7 164/8 168/25 183/12 183/13 183/14 184/16 188/7 192/8 207/19 208/6 209/12 209/17 209/18 209/19 210/2 211/16 212/2 212/9 215/1 222/17 226/13 228/2 228/8 231/1 231/1 231/8 236/5 236/17 237/6 237/6 238/20 239/2 239/2 239/13 239/18 239/24 Judge's [2] 152/15 209/4 judges [30] 1/19 30/4 35/6 42/24 44/24 49/3 113/17 113/20 117/23 117/25 128/17 128/22 129/5 130/7 130/10 130/11 130/19 130/20 154/1 154/3 155/17 185/5 185/24 185/25 210/9 210/24 215/5 238/20 238/25 239/20 judges' [2] 129/7 129/8 judgment [35] 6/15 9/14 11/1 48/6 48/8 48/24 49/13 50/3 56/11 111/5 117/8 117/11 117/18 117/21 117/24 119/14 119/21 124/5 132/22 157/6 157/8 177/8 186/5 186/5 188/5 197/18 206/24 207/2 207/5 207/14 207/16 214/20 221/21 236/25 237/3 judgments [2] 125/15 214/23 judicial [9] 6/1 85/19 85/21 90/23 143/25 162/9 165/1 165/1 181/25 judiciary [1] 137/8 July [1] 49/15 July 15 [1] 49/15 juris [1] 14/19 jurisdiction [3] 121/4 212/25 213/1 jurisdictions [8] 111/20 117/6 118/8 118/9 118/10 118/10 118/17 118/18 jurisprudence [3] 146/21 167/23 168/1 jury [5] 30/5 30/17 43/7 43/23 44/22 just [133] 5/15 7/19 8/5 8/12 8/23 10/9 10/12 18/7 18/13 19/11 19/25 37/5 38/13 43/5 43/21 44/12 45/3 47/10 47/20 48/3 48/19 48/21 49/3 53/9 53/16 54/10 55/1 57/2 58/3 59/17 61/11 61/24 62/23 63/3 63/7 64/10 65/3 75/3 75/13 76/3 80/23 81/23 82/9 82/17 83/4 83/10 84/1 88/8 89/22 91/22 95/12 95/25 96/22 97/23 98/6 98/9 98/18 102/6 103/9 105/20 108/6 108/13 109/10 109/12 117/25 129/4 133/2 133/22 134/4 134/4 140/4 142/21 144/2 150/1 152/8 160/1 160/2 160/16 161/11 162/17 166/15 167/21 171/13 175/2 175/16 177/19 179/2 179/10 183/10 187/14 187/25 188/13 188/16 189/19 190/12 192/22 205/11 205/22 205/23 206/22 207/1 208/7 209/4 209/15 211/12 212/1 213/5 214/20 215/10 220/21 222/21 222/25 223/19 224/4 226/25 227/10 228/2 231/7 231/10 232/2 232/24 233/1 234/23 234/24 235/16 235/18 236/20 236/23 238/1 238/8 238/19 238/23 240/13 justice [47] 1/1 1/4 1/16 2/13 2/17 5/5 5/13 9/1 12/12 13/15 26/23 29/19 32/21 32/22 32/24 41/16 44/10 45/20 46/4 49/11 53/4 102/17 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 102/23 109/16 111/2 111/17 111/21 129/13 129/14 129/14 145/15 151/21 152/19 152/20 153/2 184/1 184/5 185/12 187/10 211/9 212/18 217/7 217/16 225/22 225/25 228/22 228/24 justification [1] 93/20 justified [1] 93/22 justify [2] 94/1 221/10 juvenile [1] 106/23 juxtapose [1] 111/11 K Karen [1] 189/21 Kath [2] 53/3 57/14 Kathleen [1] 53/5 KAYE [1] 2/5 Keegan [6] 8/13 9/5 9/10 9/15 27/17 27/23 keep [12] 44/21 48/21 55/15 59/18 60/18 136/1 160/6 195/4 209/7 209/8 210/14 211/17 keeping [1] 48/20 Keith [3] 1/18 46/23 152/7 Kellie [1] 239/10 Kentucky [4] 121/8 121/13 121/15 121/16 Kentucky-like [1] 121/16 kept [2] 60/16 184/20 key [5] 16/25 26/6 26/21 82/10 199/7 kids [8] 19/3 19/7 19/8 19/9 19/12 50/25 72/23 218/14 kind [7] 118/4 130/7 130/8 150/18 152/9 214/1 216/1 King [8] 71/16 71/17 76/21 86/10 90/12 91/6 91/11 217/8 Kline [1] 15/11 know [154] 5/2 5/10 34/23 35/24 36/11 38/16 38/17 40/3 41/9 42/24 43/8 43/9 43/10 43/14 44/21 46/1 46/3 47/7 47/19 47/20 48/20 49/3 53/1 75/19 76/3 99/15 100/11 102/16 106/3 108/5 113/16 114/10 117/13 (22) it's... - know {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} K know... [121] 120/6 120/15 120/19 137/10 141/7 141/8 142/16 142/23 143/6 144/2 144/8 144/10 144/13 148/14 148/21 148/23 150/18 150/19 151/4 151/5 151/10 151/19 152/5 153/9 154/1 154/18 155/3 155/15 155/17 155/19 155/23 157/11 157/19 157/21 158/22 159/7 161/13 162/10 162/13 164/4 164/9 164/22 165/4 165/8 166/13 166/14 168/18 168/24 169/22 171/17 172/3 172/12 172/23 173/11 173/16 173/23 174/15 174/23 177/17 179/14 179/18 181/8 181/10 181/11 182/7 182/9 182/12 182/14 183/18 183/23 183/24 183/25 184/4 184/11 184/20 186/8 187/3 187/6 187/12 187/20 187/24 188/5 188/22 189/11 190/11 190/14 190/21 191/4 191/24 192/17 192/20 192/20 193/18 199/3 209/5 209/12 211/20 215/9 215/14 215/17 216/23 223/6 223/17 225/21 226/5 226/18 226/19 227/9 227/24 230/18 230/19 232/12 233/25 234/12 234/24 234/25 235/1 235/8 235/10 239/6 239/8 know that [1] 53/1 knowledge [9] 11/25 16/19 16/20 16/20 26/21 106/10 186/14 186/24 239/4 known [6] 38/8 45/18 67/20 80/6 187/4 226/4 knows [1] 47/25 L label [1] 42/11 lack [6] 15/1 16/19 16/21 26/21 27/9 27/14 lacks [3] 12/25 15/23 87/4 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 151/3 154/2 154/4 laid [1] 30/18 155/5 156/1 157/13 land [1] 70/24 160/15 162/23 163/19 landowners [2] 166/25 167/2 169/14 150/1 150/2 170/2 170/6 170/13 language [8] 58/2 170/18 171/18 172/3 58/24 120/4 135/4 138/11 144/9 176/12 176/9 182/8 185/5 185/18 188/19 188/25 189/3 189/7 189/15 192/7 larceny [10] 107/9 107/10 107/16 107/19 192/7 193/18 199/4 200/1 200/2 205/12 156/5 156/6 156/13 158/9 207/22 207/22 207/1 214/6 216/6 large [7] 61/17 63/15 220/22 221/8 225/4 225/9 225/11 225/13 73/12 74/1 119/17 225/16 226/4 227/17 158/18 219/10 largely [3] 22/9 69/13 227/24 228/20 229/1 233/10 233/12 233/15 92/7 larger [3] 63/19 76/2 233/16 233/20 234/2 234/5 234/8 234/10 76/8 last [15] 71/25 91/20 234/12 236/12 97/22 101/8 110/24 lawmaking [1] 118/21 133/7 135/12 155/24 135/13 147/3 156/3 laws [21] 13/17 56/6 203/21 217/10 238/2 71/18 80/12 81/22 81/23 93/25 94/6 238/21 136/12 157/24 167/4 lastly [1] 214/25 169/19 169/21 169/21 late [2] 47/3 111/6 later [19] 7/15 30/12 185/5 185/9 185/11 63/2 65/15 66/9 70/11 185/11 185/16 216/9 220/13 78/21 93/11 111/19 117/14 134/14 138/5 lawsuit [2] 14/15 122/17 150/18 155/9 155/9 168/6 187/11 191/4 lawyer [4] 114/14 196/25 215/5 215/8 240/7 lawyers [1] 215/5 latitude [1] 207/4 law [136] 14/22 28/10 lay [2] 9/24 30/16 34/7 45/12 45/17 lead [1] 142/5 45/22 46/12 51/24 leaders [6] 51/2 59/4 54/2 57/1 59/8 59/18 59/15 73/5 78/14 94/5 61/12 66/2 80/5 81/14 leaders' [1] 60/22 81/18 82/1 82/4 82/8 leading [1] 33/16 82/23 84/2 84/15 85/8 learning [1] 218/15 85/12 89/6 91/9 91/17 least [14] 34/16 39/12 39/25 60/2 73/8 91/21 91/22 92/4 84/7 117/5 118/21 92/10 92/25 93/15 94/4 94/15 94/24 95/2 120/10 138/25 142/24 152/20 202/10 223/2 95/10 95/14 95/23 103/2 110/8 112/14 leave [4] 103/4 115/19 117/17 117/24 139/17 212/4 215/18 123/21 124/5 124/23 leaves [1] 117/22 126/12 126/16 127/11 leaving [1] 56/4 127/25 128/9 128/17 lectures [1] 13/8 131/8 132/23 135/3 led [7] 55/22 56/1 59/8 85/22 137/13 135/6 135/8 135/16 185/15 187/8 136/7 137/21 138/6 138/6 141/17 141/23 left [11] 23/21 28/2 142/6 143/21 143/23 29/10 46/20 58/6 60/7 143/23 143/23 145/9 62/1 95/6 106/2 146/16 146/18 150/3 205/22 230/25 137/13 137/24 138/3 legal [40] 9/24 13/5 138/19 139/13 140/6 14/20 16/17 16/25 25/24 26/4 26/5 26/22 141/22 145/18 154/1 42/8 42/9 42/18 45/12 155/6 155/7 155/16 155/25 157/2 157/5 46/9 51/25 76/12 158/3 160/6 161/21 79/10 96/1 110/8 111/12 111/24 112/2 161/25 162/1 162/2 112/16 114/11 114/12 169/10 170/8 171/18 114/18 116/17 118/16 171/21 172/5 172/15 173/2 173/21 173/21 119/4 124/4 142/8 150/23 178/4 199/23 173/25 178/12 178/19 181/18 182/9 183/7 215/2 224/9 224/14 185/21 186/22 187/4 224/18 225/1 234/1 187/16 193/16 194/2 legality [1] 122/15 194/9 201/5 206/1 legally [3] 42/18 206/5 206/14 206/15 155/15 155/15 legislation [40] 57/23 206/19 208/19 208/23 66/3 66/7 66/12 66/15 223/7 223/18 232/9 67/11 68/9 68/11 232/12 233/22 235/12 68/17 68/19 69/1 69/4 legislature's [3] 144/12 184/21 206/6 69/8 69/10 69/13 69/14 69/14 69/20 legitimate [11] 91/18 69/21 70/2 70/6 70/14 169/1 169/9 169/23 170/6 171/16 182/20 71/6 80/25 81/15 221/7 232/8 234/2 81/18 82/18 82/24 234/4 93/22 93/23 94/2 134/6 144/1 161/22 length [5] 118/19 118/24 166/10 199/1 162/3 162/3 183/12 187/22 197/3 234/19 224/2 legislative [48] 2/14 lengthen [1] 121/10 9/9 9/12 10/24 14/24 lengthy [1] 164/9 29/19 34/17 34/21 lens [5] 38/18 38/19 39/2 39/23 39/23 54/20 67/23 69/25 77/17 77/22 80/8 81/4 less [6] 19/19 107/17 81/5 81/9 84/5 91/24 107/18 157/4 173/19 92/2 92/5 92/7 122/7 186/18 133/24 138/1 138/25 let [4] 49/3 53/9 141/12 144/1 144/10 118/14 118/23 148/10 150/8 152/10 let's [3] 38/7 38/18 172/9 172/17 181/24 38/18 188/5 189/6 193/25 letter [23] 96/22 97/5 194/2 194/15 206/18 97/8 97/23 171/1 171/3 171/7 171/10 207/4 207/6 207/12 211/15 213/25 234/16 171/13 171/14 173/9 173/11 178/12 178/20 235/9 180/19 181/17 181/17 legislatively [1] 181/19 231/17 237/13 166/11 legislator's [1] 45/16 238/4 238/9 238/11 letters [1] 98/18 legislators [13] 59/10 82/22 130/9 level [10] 24/4 74/14 144/11 152/18 155/18 75/12 89/21 91/18 183/18 184/7 193/19 92/14 102/9 119/1 193/22 193/23 223/8 219/13 224/20 225/21 Lewis [6] 29/4 43/15 71/25 88/16 202/11 legislature [69] 202/11 45/10 45/21 46/1 70/16 70/19 70/23 LFOs [3] 121/24 132/16 213/13 70/25 129/7 130/18 135/7 135/11 136/12 liberally [2] 113/19 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (23) know... - liberally {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} L liberally... [1] 128/22 Liebs [1] 168/24 life [5] 19/14 66/9 67/16 205/3 217/23 lifetime [4] 50/10 67/11 216/23 235/20 light [1] 186/10 like [50] 6/7 7/12 10/11 12/8 31/15 44/23 55/1 57/9 59/17 60/17 63/9 69/18 75/15 76/3 81/23 82/9 82/17 84/1 88/12 89/12 90/8 92/21 105/11 119/11 120/15 121/16 127/25 132/25 133/2 133/8 134/5 152/1 156/20 157/4 171/11 180/13 186/16 189/4 189/19 196/14 204/17 204/19 205/23 206/11 206/22 207/1 215/4 216/20 218/3 218/14 likelihood [8] 38/3 38/13 39/2 39/22 68/19 203/8 215/15 219/18 likely [10] 19/19 20/12 39/5 39/14 39/21 50/5 110/2 132/5 215/22 218/8 likes [1] 217/1 Likewise [1] 30/13 limit [5] 113/5 121/11 121/12 127/7 133/6 limited [3] 14/23 131/4 154/12 line [17] 51/19 71/3 157/19 163/6 169/6 169/10 170/12 206/1 206/5 206/9 206/10 206/11 206/16 213/8 230/18 235/8 235/11 lines [1] 150/11 linked [1] 155/21 links [1] 27/3 Lisa [2] 1/17 5/19 list [12] 6/3 74/17 92/12 94/13 97/15 97/19 101/23 111/1 111/1 129/9 130/21 231/12 listed [5] 92/5 94/23 112/21 227/14 227/20 listened [1] 74/19 listening [1] 5/15 lists [5] 26/11 93/17 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 94/3 94/7 97/17 literacy [8] 19/15 19/17 19/22 20/2 56/13 93/10 93/12 93/15 literally [4] 147/25 159/21 159/22 217/23 litigation [3] 15/17 203/17 203/25 little [17] 35/13 39/11 47/3 63/24 65/15 70/11 109/3 119/15 133/14 150/17 160/1 166/24 207/9 211/23 212/1 219/19 230/19 live [6] 65/12 72/14 73/3 78/9 88/1 99/23 lived [2] 12/6 19/4 lives [5] 51/1 73/1 75/14 75/15 217/22 living [10] 50/23 61/9 64/17 87/14 87/15 120/25 121/14 124/10 216/16 226/11 LLP [1] 2/5 local [4] 54/2 75/13 111/20 216/19 logic [3] 19/5 19/9 19/24 logical [1] 188/2 long [8] 103/20 146/17 156/24 182/1 209/8 210/14 220/19 239/6 longer [9] 21/14 54/14 93/2 96/25 117/18 172/11 177/15 186/25 232/18 look [29] 11/22 22/5 36/15 38/18 38/18 38/24 39/1 39/23 40/9 40/23 40/24 41/20 41/25 57/16 58/5 59/24 63/23 92/18 98/24 100/24 101/12 102/16 104/22 130/17 134/17 144/6 155/15 193/14 209/23 looked [16] 58/17 61/11 75/13 97/23 98/18 119/3 131/15 136/10 147/7 147/8 148/7 165/19 174/4 176/11 211/20 233/21 looking [14] 30/21 30/21 40/8 40/20 42/17 61/23 75/12 119/1 155/1 161/24 186/13 224/12 229/16 233/20 looks [2] 167/21 193/8 lose [2] 206/8 208/18 losing [1] 36/20 loss [1] 215/23 lost [3] 178/13 206/2 208/25 lot [9] 4/3 16/2 44/25 102/24 187/19 192/21 195/16 224/10 234/24 lots [2] 56/3 102/11 louder [1] 44/19 low [4] 23/15 38/3 38/14 196/12 lower [1] 37/2 loyalty [2] 147/19 147/21 lump [1] 126/2 lunch [4] 6/19 133/5 133/11 133/15 Luther [1] 217/8 lynched [1] 55/25 lynching [2] 55/21 55/23 lynchings [1] 81/1 M ma'am [7] 4/19 8/18 29/11 48/15 48/17 125/12 132/13 made [45] 16/23 22/21 30/23 31/24 32/4 35/19 38/20 43/11 43/12 44/13 44/20 48/11 51/5 55/5 57/23 92/21 93/20 94/1 99/8 119/19 148/7 156/24 157/2 157/5 157/8 158/25 159/1 167/13 179/16 187/15 188/17 189/20 190/19 193/2 193/17 203/2 206/7 213/18 228/10 228/11 229/20 232/3 233/9 233/16 234/21 Madison [2] 199/18 213/9 mail [6] 5/25 175/2 175/5 175/5 239/25 240/3 mailed [1] 239/10 main [4] 2/3 40/4 44/4 55/24 Maine [1] 167/16 maintain [2] 77/23 234/10 maintains [1] 82/19 maintenance [1] 231/12 major [3] 32/9 32/19 197/2 majorities [1] 132/14 majority [9] 11/14 19/5 19/8 78/10 78/10 114/8 167/7 199/15 213/7 make [50] 17/16 18/2 25/23 35/20 38/10 40/5 42/7 42/9 44/4 45/3 69/18 84/12 104/5 107/4 107/8 110/13 117/23 118/14 125/18 125/19 129/5 130/3 139/8 151/1 152/9 154/12 157/11 160/2 165/23 167/19 171/7 173/19 173/22 178/23 181/17 182/10 200/21 201/14 209/6 209/13 222/5 227/25 229/9 231/7 231/22 232/22 235/12 237/15 237/23 238/9 makes [20] 82/15 93/1 96/4 96/7 100/20 101/9 116/24 127/12 127/16 128/16 131/6 136/6 153/15 188/3 205/6 223/18 229/13 229/14 229/16 232/17 making [20] 8/4 37/21 38/4 38/14 39/6 39/18 44/19 92/21 128/5 131/18 144/8 156/24 169/21 170/21 177/7 183/21 185/21 217/14 217/20 218/13 male [2] 150/1 150/2 Malin [2] 147/1 147/18 man [1] 116/9 mandamus [1] 204/25 mandate [2] 93/21 179/2 mandated [3] 178/11 178/11 181/18 mandates [3] 71/11 72/11 128/14 mandatory [7] 185/17 204/13 204/16 204/19 204/23 205/7 205/8 manifestly [1] 94/16 manipulate [4] 71/16 76/22 147/9 150/10 manipulated [1] Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 148/12 manipulating [1] 71/17 manipulation [2] 147/16 147/18 manner [7] 66/25 83/25 135/3 135/6 135/8 135/16 219/20 manners [1] 144/14 manual [1] 101/22 manuals [1] 100/7 many [16] 7/14 7/14 12/12 12/21 33/4 33/19 102/9 103/4 129/9 147/15 163/12 196/23 216/19 217/14 220/24 221/5 map [3] 64/20 64/23 64/25 maps [2] 64/19 64/21 margin [10] 37/1 74/14 74/19 75/2 75/5 75/7 75/8 75/18 76/3 76/8 mark [1] 201/19 Marriott [1] 143/19 Martin [1] 217/8 Martinez [2] 28/15 28/16 mass [2] 64/19 221/19 Massachusetts [1] 2/6 matches [1] 190/24 material [2] 124/6 132/23 materials [2] 106/19 175/3 math [1] 150/19 matter [28] 5/21 7/10 14/25 16/20 25/2 34/17 40/8 43/1 51/9 56/23 66/10 71/3 75/14 76/5 79/13 79/16 94/25 95/8 124/5 126/20 132/22 142/6 188/2 203/10 206/5 222/12 223/7 228/9 matters [4] 13/1 27/18 126/23 229/19 maxed [1] 7/1 maximums [1] 186/19 may [68] 5/16 7/4 8/24 29/21 31/13 37/25 38/1 38/11 38/21 38/21 39/17 39/24 39/24 40/21 (24) liberally... - may {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} M may... [54] 40/22 40/22 41/15 42/3 42/4 42/22 42/22 43/9 44/5 44/6 44/16 45/21 47/5 58/17 71/6 82/6 100/15 103/21 104/20 116/9 117/20 119/19 120/25 121/2 122/4 125/5 129/20 141/7 145/16 145/19 155/19 156/14 157/18 166/16 169/22 177/6 177/18 187/11 188/21 189/2 196/1 199/23 201/1 204/12 207/2 210/15 210/25 210/25 212/15 213/12 217/11 232/7 233/13 235/1 maybe [13] 36/12 62/24 85/25 108/1 119/17 167/17 174/6 177/1 178/17 186/2 210/16 225/21 238/2 McGrady [4] 11/21 15/14 17/15 20/19 me [37] 14/23 43/17 47/17 49/3 49/11 50/15 53/9 99/7 108/5 109/1 109/4 109/5 118/6 118/14 133/1 133/2 137/15 153/15 153/20 153/25 156/4 174/16 191/3 209/15 209/15 209/17 209/19 211/12 211/15 211/16 231/2 237/8 237/9 237/11 238/3 241/5 241/5 mean [19] 14/17 14/20 37/11 43/8 48/19 77/12 95/25 116/3 118/20 125/22 150/15 153/24 181/4 186/18 186/20 189/13 208/7 211/12 234/15 meaning [4] 24/17 40/7 58/23 72/3 means [17] 14/23 56/13 83/11 88/21 89/4 89/11 125/5 125/17 125/19 127/18 131/9 146/25 169/19 198/5 203/21 228/25 229/1 meant [3] 57/24 59/5 81/17 Meanwhile [1] 92/15 mechanical [1] 67/25 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} mechanics [1] 43/9 Mecklenburg [4] 64/6 161/7 161/11 220/6 median [12] 112/7 112/8 112/9 112/11 112/21 112/22 112/23 112/24 113/1 113/2 131/13 131/14 medium [1] 112/6 meet [9] 12/2 17/18 18/24 18/25 22/1 48/3 123/18 214/4 229/7 meeting [2] 47/25 229/13 meets [1] 148/5 member [1] 51/3 members [15] 44/11 57/2 71/14 72/20 72/22 72/25 78/9 78/13 102/19 133/21 134/2 187/4 218/12 218/13 221/19 memorial [1] 203/23 memorialize [1] 48/19 men [10] 53/22 54/3 77/13 77/15 115/11 115/13 152/11 159/8 159/16 186/1 mention [11] 57/19 100/23 100/23 101/3 101/4 101/7 101/9 101/15 108/6 196/14 216/19 mentioned [21] 25/5 50/13 50/19 53/15 58/3 63/9 69/3 69/11 71/9 84/1 88/8 90/12 91/12 96/22 104/10 151/14 222/18 222/21 224/1 230/2 235/18 mentioning [3] 100/10 101/13 101/19 merely [4] 16/9 58/24 92/12 126/12 merits [9] 34/15 34/22 50/6 50/20 65/22 110/2 110/6 203/8 203/11 Merrick [1] 164/7 mess [1] 96/14 message [1] 219/6 met [6] 5/19 117/19 117/20 221/17 222/11 222/12 method [1] 22/6 methodology [8] 20/24 22/20 23/6 156/11 156/11 156/12 23/19 23/19 24/1 157/5 157/12 158/8 24/24 35/16 197/23 198/1 207/22 methods [8] 9/20 207/22 208/9 208/12 11/16 13/24 14/4 17/23 20/17 24/8 31/6 208/18 209/15 Michaux [29] 58/15 misdemeanor-felony 58/19 59/7 59/14 [1] 209/15 59/20 60/11 60/14 misdemeanors [2] 157/19 157/20 60/17 129/14 138/5 138/17 138/18 141/13 misleading [2] 34/23 189/25 153/4 153/4 170/9 184/12 186/9 192/6 misled [2] 30/17 31/1 196/17 196/23 210/1 misread [1] 146/14 210/23 211/8 222/22 misrepresentations 222/25 223/3 223/11 [1] 32/5 234/18 misrepresented [1] Michaux's [6] 59/23 34/14 60/6 137/4 144/15 miss [1] 201/19 197/1 209/24 missing [1] 48/1 mission [1] 149/4 Mickey [1] 129/14 misstated [1] 30/11 middle [3] 74/19 146/25 217/1 mistakenly [1] 18/10 Middletown [1] 2/10 mistakes [1] 16/22 misunderstanding midst [1] 217/9 might [18] 5/3 30/17 [2] 238/2 238/7 45/5 45/6 46/17 53/2 misunderstands [2] 106/20 127/23 138/21 204/14 204/15 148/15 150/25 180/16 Mixon [1] 151/19 182/8 192/22 193/21 mob [1] 55/25 229/10 229/11 229/12 model [1] 35/21 modeled [2] 71/21 military [1] 52/18 76/19 millions [3] 67/15 67/15 217/11 modeling [1] 35/22 mind [7] 46/12 136/1 modern [1] 186/2 183/10 188/18 193/20 modified [1] 114/25 193/22 195/4 moment [5] 57/21 58/17 108/16 150/7 minded [1] 89/12 213/6 minds [4] 45/16 155/18 184/6 193/16 moments [1] 88/10 mindset [1] 186/22 Monday [1] 90/6 monetary [4] 117/7 minimums [2] 117/8 153/11 177/7 185/17 186/19 minorities [1] 185/13 money [19] 89/6 89/8 minute [5] 6/12 29/10 114/6 115/16 115/21 116/10 116/21 116/25 44/1 46/20 238/22 117/11 117/21 118/1 minutes [20] 6/21 6/22 8/21 23/21 28/2 120/9 121/17 122/2 31/16 47/3 47/6 133/4 122/6 123/1 125/3 129/19 177/5 133/7 204/3 204/5 205/22 207/17 212/6 monies [2] 119/25 212/16 222/1 230/25 177/10 231/5 235/19 monitor [1] 98/4 monitoring [5] 229/4 mirrors [1] 54/18 229/11 230/9 230/11 mischaracterize [1] 235/21 35/15 misdemeanants [1] Montana [1] 165/10 158/18 Montesquieu [6] 9/17 12/5 13/9 32/7 misdemeanor [17] 107/16 107/18 156/6 32/9 32/23 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter month [5] 53/19 112/14 126/1 241/9 241/9 monthly [1] 26/12 months [2] 118/9 118/25 MOORE [12] 1/8 34/4 67/19 68/4 69/17 70/1 80/1 81/13 83/24 93/19 193/9 224/22 Moore/Arlington [1] 224/22 more [38] 7/12 7/17 8/8 21/17 43/9 55/25 64/11 64/14 64/16 65/5 65/15 67/5 67/7 73/8 73/22 76/17 78/1 81/3 91/10 99/9 107/17 109/21 111/12 115/4 116/19 123/14 126/5 132/5 149/18 186/2 203/13 204/3 204/11 216/16 226/7 228/2 229/12 238/18 Moreover [4] 111/17 131/22 216/21 217/8 morning [12] 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7 4/18 4/19 9/3 12/19 49/9 49/13 50/12 most [29] 12/4 50/9 55/1 59/11 63/23 63/25 63/25 71/23 89/3 89/11 99/4 113/21 115/11 116/8 128/11 130/5 131/2 141/19 142/2 148/5 176/14 189/14 200/23 216/22 216/24 219/1 224/7 227/3 235/15 Mostly [1] 232/25 mother [2] 218/3 218/10 motion [21] 6/2 6/4 6/5 6/14 8/10 9/14 11/1 28/20 48/4 48/6 48/8 48/10 48/24 49/13 56/11 193/17 197/17 206/23 207/14 207/15 236/25 motions [1] 6/14 motivated [2] 79/12 79/23 motivating [3] 80/4 80/5 84/7 motivation [7] 56/5 82/8 84/11 170/8 224/24 225/3 225/16 motivations [1] (25) may... - motivations {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} M motivations... [1] 233/22 motive [1] 52/20 motives [1] 130/17 mount [2] 76/11 141/20 mountains [1] 103/9 move [5] 40/2 124/8 146/11 206/24 207/13 moved [1] 80/21 moving [1] 207/3 Mr [17] 4/11 4/20 4/25 44/2 44/9 50/11 104/15 106/4 107/8 117/2 129/2 145/15 152/7 170/25 170/25 222/1 233/3 Mr. [60] 4/9 4/18 4/19 4/23 5/8 44/5 44/12 49/19 50/13 50/19 52/1 55/20 74/7 106/2 109/13 134/8 136/8 136/20 138/16 147/2 148/3 150/6 154/16 166/2 179/23 181/4 183/16 184/20 186/9 190/4 190/11 190/14 191/8 194/12 197/22 198/24 205/16 208/2 208/2 208/2 209/2 212/7 214/10 221/24 223/14 223/17 225/19 226/12 227/8 227/10 235/10 235/10 235/15 235/18 236/21 237/9 238/1 239/8 239/22 239/23 Mr. Atkinson [7] 4/18 50/13 50/19 52/1 106/2 109/13 212/7 Mr. Atkinson's [1] 208/2 Mr. Cox [18] 44/5 150/6 166/2 179/23 183/16 184/20 194/12 205/16 208/2 223/14 225/19 226/12 227/8 227/10 235/15 238/1 239/8 239/22 Mr. Cox's [1] 223/17 Mr. Faraji [1] 4/23 Mr. Harrison [2] 197/22 198/24 Mr. Henderson [1] 55/20 Mr. Jacobsen [2] 191/8 235/10 Mr. Jacobson [11] {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 4/19 49/19 136/8 136/20 147/2 181/4 190/4 190/14 221/24 235/18 236/21 Mr. Jacobson's [2] 148/3 190/11 Mr. Michaux [1] 186/9 Mr. Rabinovitz [11] 4/9 44/12 74/7 138/16 154/16 208/2 209/2 214/10 235/10 237/9 239/23 Mr. Stead [1] 5/8 Mr. Steele [1] 134/8 MS [7] 5/4 10/9 29/8 53/9 98/3 99/7 218/15 Ms. [28] 4/18 10/21 23/22 28/1 28/4 29/15 31/16 37/12 94/20 94/23 95/6 95/9 95/11 95/20 95/25 98/23 99/14 99/18 99/24 100/6 101/5 101/13 190/12 190/18 191/8 218/6 226/19 227/16 Ms. Bell [17] 94/20 94/23 95/6 95/9 95/11 95/20 95/25 98/23 99/14 99/24 100/6 101/5 101/13 190/12 190/18 191/8 227/16 Ms. Bell's [2] 99/18 226/19 Ms. Carpenter [8] 4/18 10/21 23/22 28/1 28/4 29/15 31/16 37/12 Ms. Norman [1] 218/6 Ms.Vysotskaya [1] 4/12 much [13] 12/22 30/8 36/23 44/23 84/19 85/24 130/14 152/1 225/10 228/21 230/22 230/24 231/7 multi [2] 110/20 110/21 multi-year [2] 110/20 110/21 multiple [4] 12/15 15/1 169/9 198/25 murky [1] 230/19 must [31] 11/22 17/13 28/11 45/18 66/4 66/21 66/23 68/17 69/15 72/3 77/19 77/20 89/9 91/21 101/2 103/24 105/18 110/12 110/14 111/5 114/15 124/25 126/25 149/17 160/8 169/24 178/12 184/6 193/20 205/8 228/20 mute [3] 8/5 47/11 218/6 mutually [1] 105/23 my [57] 8/20 8/25 14/19 28/9 29/17 43/10 43/16 43/21 44/5 44/18 47/2 47/4 47/14 47/17 49/9 49/11 51/22 106/10 106/25 107/4 117/16 118/13 120/2 133/23 133/25 134/8 137/19 138/16 141/16 150/19 153/6 153/10 153/15 154/5 154/5 154/8 154/15 172/19 177/12 178/17 182/16 183/10 185/17 192/22 194/11 194/13 205/16 207/23 208/5 209/15 222/8 222/24 228/3 233/1 234/23 235/8 238/18 Myers' [1] 15/24 myself [2] 5/22 6/25 N N.C [5] 1/23 2/13 2/17 205/4 207/11 NAACP [7] 1/5 15/10 34/5 34/13 60/8 78/8 220/10 name [10] 4/23 5/10 8/11 8/25 29/17 49/9 129/9 194/14 229/23 229/25 named [2] 54/16 55/18 namely [2] 93/5 95/14 narrowly [1] 229/12 National [2] 114/12 207/10 naturalized [1] 134/19 naturally [1] 15/16 nature [4] 7/9 112/2 204/24 236/10 nauseam [1] 207/20 NC [4] 1/4 2/3 2/14 2/18 nccourts.org [2] 1/24 241/14 near [2] 53/24 63/23 nearly [5] 9/4 53/20 100/6 111/6 201/15 necessarily [6] 39/18 39/19 126/14 141/12 180/22 195/14 necessary [13] 5/16 6/9 11/11 16/21 17/9 28/12 58/12 66/16 91/10 91/15 104/14 122/6 220/17 need [26] 6/6 6/7 11/8 15/15 29/2 30/15 31/7 44/16 49/2 77/24 87/5 90/13 94/11 105/10 106/5 123/12 157/3 176/20 178/16 212/15 216/2 217/17 237/25 239/12 240/8 240/12 needing [2] 44/21 57/9 needs [1] 139/13 negate [1] 43/5 negative [4] 188/21 219/8 219/21 234/7 negativing [1] 170/1 negroes [1] 52/19 neighborhood [5] 19/4 19/7 19/9 19/12 19/13 neighbors [3] 51/1 51/4 72/24 neither [5] 74/9 91/23 92/3 97/18 194/25 neutral [8] 18/17 19/1 20/3 20/10 84/2 199/20 202/5 210/21 never [11] 13/10 13/12 13/24 14/1 14/13 38/16 41/3 139/18 149/6 171/6 230/20 nevertheless [5] 66/13 67/24 86/13 105/1 199/25 new [15] 33/8 61/6 61/10 68/5 81/14 81/18 94/20 143/12 143/17 144/9 146/6 179/18 226/1 233/21 234/12 news [5] 55/22 58/3 58/4 140/9 170/16 next [18] 21/2 54/20 57/14 59/22 60/5 62/7 64/19 96/21 97/7 101/10 101/16 101/21 136/12 138/19 176/11 191/17 200/19 239/25 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter no [115] 4/9 5/2 7/15 9/18 13/19 14/2 14/22 16/18 17/18 19/1 19/6 20/3 21/14 25/1 27/5 28/9 29/11 29/13 31/7 41/8 41/8 43/24 46/23 47/1 48/1 48/15 48/17 51/9 51/13 54/14 56/4 57/19 58/21 61/21 67/23 69/8 71/3 73/11 76/3 79/10 84/6 91/10 92/10 92/23 93/2 95/10 96/25 100/23 100/23 101/3 101/4 101/9 102/3 102/20 106/12 107/10 109/10 115/1 117/18 118/10 124/6 132/4 132/6 132/23 134/23 135/4 142/1 145/22 146/24 153/1 153/20 156/13 156/19 160/18 160/18 160/18 168/11 168/21 172/11 177/15 178/22 179/11 180/1 182/24 182/25 183/24 195/11 195/20 199/8 199/9 200/2 202/19 209/14 210/25 210/25 211/23 213/17 216/4 216/4 217/11 219/19 221/7 222/12 223/5 223/8 224/19 228/10 228/12 229/18 230/25 231/3 232/3 232/18 234/6 240/7 nobody [5] 42/1 42/13 99/10 142/23 226/20 nodding [1] 37/7 noise [1] 44/19 nonAfrican [1] 41/7 noncitizens [1] 149/11 none [6] 11/16 17/21 36/9 54/1 215/7 231/2 nonetheless [2] 15/11 186/19 nonfelons [1] 169/12 nonpartisan [2] 24/22 25/16 nonzero [1] 38/1 normal [2] 69/22 70/6 Norman [2] 218/2 218/6 Norman's [1] 218/15 NORTH [226] 1/1 1/4 1/8 9/7 9/25 13/19 (26) motivations... - NORTH {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} N NORTH... [220] 15/6 15/11 15/19 16/12 17/8 18/5 18/7 18/9 18/14 22/12 22/17 23/14 24/5 25/11 26/4 26/22 27/24 29/3 29/7 29/18 34/3 34/3 34/6 34/8 34/8 34/10 41/17 44/10 46/6 49/19 49/21 49/22 50/7 50/22 50/23 51/6 51/8 51/11 51/23 52/4 52/12 53/25 54/8 54/12 54/18 56/2 56/5 61/9 63/14 63/22 63/25 65/8 65/12 65/24 66/5 66/17 66/19 67/2 67/12 67/16 67/20 71/22 71/24 72/8 72/12 72/14 72/15 73/3 73/5 73/8 74/6 74/22 75/25 76/10 76/18 78/8 78/9 79/1 79/4 80/11 83/6 84/8 84/16 84/18 84/22 84/24 85/2 85/16 85/25 86/1 86/2 86/4 86/11 87/7 87/11 87/14 87/15 88/3 88/8 88/13 88/14 88/17 88/18 88/22 89/19 90/7 90/12 91/3 95/17 95/18 96/15 97/12 98/10 98/16 98/19 99/12 99/24 101/18 102/17 102/20 104/4 104/8 104/11 104/19 107/1 108/17 110/5 110/9 110/10 110/14 112/3 112/13 113/20 114/5 114/8 114/22 115/2 115/15 115/18 115/18 115/20 115/23 116/14 117/24 121/1 121/4 121/14 124/9 124/10 124/11 124/17 124/23 126/11 126/16 128/9 128/16 131/23 132/15 132/17 134/11 136/9 137/7 139/9 145/22 145/25 146/12 146/16 146/23 147/14 149/20 149/24 150/21 151/15 152/1 160/19 161/14 161/15 161/19 163/21 167/1 167/8 167/22 167/23 168/3 184/19 185/2 185/4 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 193/10 199/12 200/25 201/3 201/22 201/24 202/25 206/2 207/1 207/9 208/16 210/20 212/24 213/3 214/5 214/6 215/11 215/20 216/7 216/16 220/9 220/14 220/18 221/7 221/19 224/3 226/11 226/16 228/23 233/14 233/18 234/5 236/4 North Carolina [9] 13/19 34/8 34/8 34/10 41/17 65/8 65/12 66/5 66/17 North Carolina's [1] 34/6 Northern [1] 154/19 notable [1] 220/5 notably [5] 20/22 56/9 59/11 88/24 228/6 note [17] 56/17 58/25 64/8 64/21 74/23 108/15 108/17 111/2 141/15 169/18 188/16 191/16 192/3 223/4 227/10 228/17 232/2 noted [1] 145/15 noteworthy [1] 54/23 nothing [16] 8/2 34/21 34/22 41/19 42/5 42/11 90/4 98/4 103/14 105/22 106/21 117/24 123/23 127/6 208/15 216/6 notice [7] 133/1 137/1 175/12 175/24 176/15 208/1 237/11 notification [6] 96/19 100/5 102/6 106/8 106/17 238/13 notified [1] 226/23 notifies [1] 97/14 notify [10] 96/17 97/19 97/24 97/25 99/16 174/13 231/9 232/4 237/19 237/21 notifying [2] 97/5 231/17 noting [1] 234/24 November [5] 7/18 50/8 185/2 216/17 216/22 now [66] 17/12 25/7 29/16 38/21 41/1 42/3 43/20 48/2 52/22 53/6 53/8 56/12 57/14 58/13 61/19 65/22 74/17 78/24 84/13 89/21 94/16 94/20 96/19 101/6 106/1 109/6 111/11 122/1 124/8 133/4 136/19 137/15 138/11 141/16 145/1 145/20 146/11 147/18 147/22 149/24 153/20 153/21 155/17 155/19 155/20 162/20 169/22 173/8 173/10 176/19 178/7 179/23 180/5 182/1 183/23 184/5 184/22 200/9 204/18 209/13 209/18 210/11 211/15 212/4 217/19 218/6 nullity [1] 145/17 number [36] 16/22 23/8 23/13 30/11 36/25 37/2 37/6 44/13 46/5 64/16 65/11 65/12 65/16 67/16 70/4 73/18 74/15 74/20 75/17 76/2 76/7 90/23 113/24 129/10 134/22 136/2 136/10 145/7 167/14 167/14 170/7 170/22 187/9 237/10 237/12 237/12 numbers [6] 25/21 38/13 47/8 62/19 73/24 156/2 numerous [13] 12/15 24/11 61/15 71/20 74/6 104/3 115/22 136/24 191/18 193/7 206/18 214/6 216/7 NW [1] 2/6 O o'clock [1] 6/23 O'Connor [1] 151/21 oath [2] 140/23 147/21 object [2] 137/12 149/1 objection [1] 233/16 objections [2] 60/23 223/24 objects [2] 233/7 233/11 obligation [21] 50/1 93/24 96/1 109/20 112/17 117/7 122/22 123/9 124/4 124/15 124/25 126/15 126/17 126/21 128/19 131/17 213/17 214/11 214/15 234/6 234/7 obligations [52] 13/5 16/18 17/1 25/25 26/5 26/11 26/22 50/21 65/19 95/24 103/1 110/9 111/12 111/24 112/3 113/15 114/18 116/18 117/8 118/17 119/4 119/19 121/7 121/17 122/10 122/16 123/5 123/13 124/25 125/9 126/19 126/24 126/25 127/9 128/5 142/4 154/23 177/7 195/14 195/23 196/2 196/3 196/6 196/10 197/15 198/3 198/7 198/9 199/23 199/24 200/14 215/3 oblivious [1] 16/24 observed [1] 111/20 Observer [3] 58/4 140/9 170/16 observing [2] 5/12 5/15 obstacle [2] 115/17 118/2 obstacles [2] 57/6 59/11 obtain [1] 121/6 obtained [1] 26/16 obtaining [1] 122/25 obvious [1] 226/6 obviously [32] 70/17 78/9 96/2 104/24 136/16 143/24 149/19 154/12 157/2 158/19 159/16 162/1 164/1 165/7 167/13 169/12 170/15 170/21 170/23 170/24 172/5 173/17 183/5 184/21 192/19 220/20 223/20 224/10 225/3 227/15 232/12 233/16 Occidental [1] 205/3 occurred [2] 103/3 153/25 occurrence [1] 135/21 occurring [1] 129/18 occurs [2] 216/4 218/19 oddly [1] 22/25 Odom [1] 140/21 off [10] 8/22 53/7 106/2 118/13 124/25 172/1 189/16 222/20 231/18 237/19 offender [3] 175/24 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 219/14 219/16 offenders [2] 175/13 175/14 offenses [2] 20/11 110/25 offer [5] 11/12 16/9 17/9 29/23 35/3 offered [7] 17/10 28/7 31/12 33/23 41/20 43/14 140/21 offering [1] 41/18 offers [1] 35/5 office [18] 1/23 2/13 2/18 98/15 108/18 108/19 108/20 108/21 108/22 113/21 115/2 115/9 133/20 134/15 177/22 178/2 191/10 214/22 officer [5] 174/19 175/24 179/5 179/24 180/3 officers [4] 99/16 175/19 175/20 176/15 official [4] 1/8 1/22 97/22 241/13 officials [4] 73/2 100/8 217/13 219/3 often [3] 38/8 61/2 115/12 often-used [1] 38/8 oh [4] 47/18 139/25 189/12 238/6 okay [37] 4/17 5/6 5/14 5/17 8/15 10/18 11/7 11/9 29/8 44/3 44/8 47/12 48/16 48/18 50/11 50/15 53/9 53/9 62/20 62/23 63/8 107/6 119/9 120/21 126/10 133/10 133/16 134/3 134/11 180/2 180/18 223/19 230/4 231/4 238/8 238/16 238/24 old [6] 21/24 22/7 22/11 22/16 86/20 192/18 older [1] 134/19 Olga [3] 2/17 133/25 134/1 omission [1] 22/24 omitted [3] 27/4 27/6 27/7 once [22] 55/20 97/16 97/20 99/11 102/9 109/15 127/10 144/19 146/3 152/20 171/6 177/14 177/21 (27) NORTH... - once {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} O once... [9] 178/19 180/15 180/18 180/21 184/13 207/21 212/18 216/4 221/11 one's [5] 82/16 88/20 88/21 89/4 197/6 one-stop [1] 101/11 one-third [1] 217/10 onerous [4] 136/22 137/7 149/18 170/16 ones [5] 55/2 55/2 93/5 95/12 227/15 only [63] 26/10 28/5 28/6 36/19 45/14 48/6 52/6 57/24 70/17 70/23 75/11 75/12 77/10 77/13 77/15 86/19 86/21 90/4 104/2 117/7 126/17 127/22 128/3 133/7 139/1 139/1 139/15 141/10 143/22 144/20 144/23 151/18 151/25 155/11 155/12 155/25 157/8 158/12 159/8 159/15 162/16 163/5 166/8 167/15 170/19 174/1 176/7 177/12 180/24 181/11 185/20 187/23 192/5 193/4 193/5 193/19 195/22 197/20 198/16 200/16 213/1 235/6 239/11 open [2] 80/19 186/20 opening [6] 56/18 63/3 64/9 228/4 230/6 235/18 operate [3] 105/16 105/20 195/21 operated [1] 69/9 operates [6] 53/25 89/14 184/1 184/1 184/3 184/5 operating [2] 173/23 188/24 operation [2] 51/24 106/12 operations [1] 130/23 opine [1] 26/25 opined [1] 20/6 opinion [19] 16/15 27/18 29/23 29/24 31/2 35/3 35/5 35/7 41/4 41/8 41/9 41/19 71/25 152/15 164/8 164/13 181/25 213/8 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 228/22 opinions [6] 11/12 15/18 17/4 17/10 30/6 31/12 opponents [1] 59/17 opportunities [1] 132/2 opportunity [5] 30/18 48/2 169/20 222/14 231/24 opposed [7] 28/6 48/13 129/22 153/23 154/7 204/13 208/4 opposite [1] 96/8 oralist [1] 49/12 Orange [1] 64/6 oranges [1] 151/5 order [20] 19/20 28/11 48/19 49/15 49/17 59/20 116/23 116/23 119/21 121/24 125/1 128/19 143/2 145/17 158/15 167/1 175/22 192/1 226/4 236/10 ordered [1] 110/13 orders [2] 95/20 120/19 organic [1] 169/14 organizational [5] 123/10 216/13 216/14 218/1 219/3 original [25] 57/15 57/24 58/9 58/16 59/5 60/8 61/11 82/2 82/8 82/24 115/25 136/19 138/24 138/25 140/2 140/2 140/3 140/5 140/14 140/15 141/10 175/5 187/15 188/3 225/16 originally [4] 141/5 150/15 168/14 179/15 originates [1] 167/23 origins [1] 12/23 other [110] 5/7 16/3 16/6 16/10 18/22 20/23 22/21 27/21 32/11 33/5 33/9 34/3 40/2 40/4 42/23 44/5 45/19 45/19 46/7 51/3 56/13 57/22 60/14 66/4 66/17 66/23 67/1 67/6 67/12 68/12 70/15 71/7 72/22 72/25 72/25 79/14 83/15 90/10 93/4 93/16 95/12 97/2 102/20 103/22 108/4 112/19 112/23 115/21 117/20 118/10 122/11 125/11 125/13 125/25 126/2 133/24 136/3 138/22 145/7 147/15 149/7 149/9 149/24 150/3 151/15 151/16 151/16 156/10 156/13 157/9 159/9 159/12 159/23 160/15 161/15 162/3 162/11 162/18 163/21 165/1 165/5 168/1 175/15 180/8 180/15 188/13 192/4 195/8 195/10 198/4 198/23 200/25 201/9 205/18 206/10 209/18 214/9 214/10 222/8 223/9 224/17 225/1 225/2 229/11 229/19 230/10 232/10 236/8 236/24 239/20 others [4] 75/16 86/15 128/15 197/13 otherwise [8] 92/17 117/6 128/24 152/5 159/23 163/6 216/10 240/13 ought [3] 12/9 71/14 221/3 our [106] 6/11 6/11 6/13 6/17 7/1 7/7 11/5 12/11 16/25 19/18 20/5 22/22 24/11 28/23 32/23 36/2 41/23 43/2 44/14 48/4 49/14 49/18 50/4 50/9 50/20 51/25 52/14 52/22 56/18 61/15 65/22 72/9 78/22 84/13 85/24 89/22 89/24 90/6 94/11 100/18 104/10 104/18 110/3 113/20 114/11 115/14 116/1 117/5 118/15 118/24 119/2 122/17 123/10 133/11 133/21 136/2 136/3 141/16 142/1 142/19 144/5 147/1 157/23 162/21 164/5 169/9 169/14 186/21 188/16 189/13 192/25 193/1 194/4 198/19 200/3 204/16 206/25 211/22 212/25 213/2 214/6 214/21 215/17 216/7 216/12 216/14 216/22 216/25 217/13 217/18 217/18 218/2 220/3 221/17 221/21 221/22 224/9 225/18 226/3 227/23 227/24 230/22 233/6 235/17 236/9 240/8 ourselves [2] 7/14 206/24 out [62] 5/20 7/1 9/24 15/16 30/18 31/18 31/19 32/6 32/8 32/22 36/5 37/14 38/12 39/10 40/17 42/12 52/19 57/4 65/21 74/24 77/16 87/1 98/2 101/5 101/11 121/1 121/12 126/8 136/13 142/21 143/3 143/9 145/18 152/4 156/3 159/22 163/14 174/20 177/14 179/3 179/6 179/7 179/25 180/3 180/23 181/2 188/6 189/22 191/15 191/17 192/1 192/20 199/19 206/22 210/11 212/25 213/1 214/20 217/11 231/25 236/21 240/11 outcome [15] 35/24 39/3 39/5 39/15 39/19 74/5 75/19 75/22 76/7 88/2 132/9 147/10 148/10 148/17 241/7 outcomes [9] 24/3 24/12 35/21 36/3 38/1 74/12 75/23 217/22 220/1 outlined [2] 79/25 205/16 outset [2] 79/9 214/11 outside [3] 25/10 53/21 180/16 outspoken [1] 55/20 outstanding [4] 126/21 195/14 196/10 198/4 over [31] 33/4 52/1 52/2 55/21 57/12 60/22 63/4 63/18 63/21 69/12 78/8 81/1 86/20 106/1 110/23 112/10 116/9 125/17 133/14 172/22 194/10 203/18 203/19 205/11 210/3 210/24 216/4 217/20 221/24 223/24 234/23 overall [2] 40/23 42/2 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter overcoming [1] 141/21 overhauled [1] 140/7 overpopulation [1] 186/12 overriding [1] 209/24 overthrown [1] 12/10 overtones [1] 226/6 overwhelming [3] 78/10 114/8 212/20 owe [8] 103/1 112/16 113/1 116/22 118/1 125/3 126/1 153/12 owed [12] 111/24 112/6 112/8 112/9 112/12 112/19 112/22 112/23 112/24 113/2 113/3 117/12 owes [7] 112/14 117/7 124/24 126/16 131/13 131/14 177/4 owing [1] 121/9 own [21] 13/25 14/6 21/20 22/18 25/3 25/10 26/2 26/20 39/8 39/13 66/6 68/22 69/9 70/24 76/18 76/22 83/14 116/21 122/24 166/6 236/20 P p.m [3] 133/15 133/15 240/14 package [2] 144/11 194/21 page [15] 58/8 63/1 64/8 76/18 78/7 92/10 93/17 100/25 144/16 144/20 145/12 145/12 191/2 197/1 205/5 Pager [1] 132/3 pages [6] 52/15 64/22 92/16 92/19 190/11 190/11 paid [3] 119/25 121/10 177/11 pandemic [2] 217/1 217/4 panel [19] 5/21 5/22 29/5 30/4 43/13 43/16 43/20 44/22 48/5 48/7 48/9 84/20 88/16 147/3 148/4 150/8 164/6 236/5 236/17 panel's [1] 71/25 paper [5] 48/22 98/1 98/6 98/6 176/11 papers [1] 98/7 papes [1] 7/14 paraded [1] 55/23 (28) once... - paraded {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} P paragraph [8] 23/4 59/25 140/20 175/7 185/8 191/17 222/23 233/7 paragraphs [1] 92/18 pardon [2] 137/15 138/11 parent's [1] 218/24 parents [2] 218/19 218/24 park [3] 19/3 19/7 19/10 parking [1] 16/2 Parliament [1] 71/14 parliamentary [1] 147/11 parole [31] 57/19 58/2 58/18 59/19 60/11 60/16 93/6 100/9 100/12 100/12 100/23 101/3 101/12 101/19 102/1 103/23 105/8 110/12 110/17 121/8 121/11 128/24 132/15 138/14 138/22 139/13 142/4 167/12 185/6 195/9 229/18 parolee [2] 105/8 135/23 parolees [4] 139/3 154/14 175/12 195/24 part [13] 26/11 33/12 45/20 54/22 58/19 92/3 118/11 132/25 142/11 143/25 147/3 169/14 171/9 partially [2] 57/8 114/2 participate [6] 73/4 131/3 169/20 171/4 192/2 221/6 participating [2] 5/7 115/17 participation [7] 95/17 96/11 170/14 170/24 171/9 218/22 220/14 particular [22] 14/14 40/16 41/8 45/7 46/18 62/14 67/13 85/16 90/9 116/21 120/12 129/20 134/17 147/10 170/13 200/10 200/16 202/4 202/12 205/1 215/25 233/20 particularly [12] 49/15 51/7 54/23 73/15 103/5 120/25 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 131/18 137/7 155/5 170/16 172/17 218/4 parties [17] 5/16 77/3 79/2 79/11 79/18 79/18 79/25 203/16 203/21 204/9 224/17 224/20 224/21 225/3 236/6 236/15 236/16 partisan [5] 16/16 72/1 147/5 147/5 148/11 parts [2] 54/23 79/11 party [23] 24/13 24/14 24/16 25/3 25/6 25/8 25/15 25/17 34/19 38/9 38/19 88/21 89/1 89/11 147/19 147/20 150/11 204/23 205/1 205/8 207/3 227/25 241/6 pass [13] 17/19 19/20 19/22 23/16 27/14 60/4 66/14 69/19 70/2 71/6 93/25 161/25 171/18 passage [4] 44/15 58/4 58/22 82/2 passed [7] 58/12 59/21 66/11 69/3 69/14 141/1 205/12 passes [2] 68/17 69/15 passing [1] 94/2 pasted [2] 63/3 92/8 pasting [1] 92/12 Pate [1] 168/5 patience [1] 240/13 pattern [1] 16/16 patterns [8] 13/17 16/24 22/1 24/17 24/21 24/23 25/4 32/19 Paul [7] 2/16 3/4 3/7 3/11 44/9 133/19 182/8 pay [52] 26/9 50/25 72/23 110/12 110/14 110/19 111/4 111/5 113/5 113/11 113/14 114/6 114/22 116/16 121/7 121/17 122/6 122/13 122/19 123/1 123/4 123/9 123/12 123/23 124/14 124/25 125/4 125/8 126/8 126/14 126/18 126/25 127/5 127/8 127/15 127/15 127/20 127/24 128/4 128/4 131/5 131/17 132/16 195/23 197/14 197/19 198/6 198/9 199/23 199/24 200/14 213/19 paying [1] 121/24 payment [12] 50/1 65/18 109/20 110/19 114/17 120/9 122/21 124/4 127/13 131/6 213/13 214/14 payments [1] 110/5 pays [1] 123/23 Pearl [1] 2/9 peer [6] 11/18 12/15 17/24 20/20 25/1 25/18 peer-reviewed [2] 25/1 25/18 pejority [1] 189/16 penalties [1] 119/2 penalty [5] 163/9 163/10 163/13 163/16 164/1 pencil [1] 104/2 penciling [1] 230/13 Pennsylvania [2] 151/20 151/21 people [281] people's [1] 75/15 per [1] 168/8 percent [39] 18/5 18/7 36/12 36/13 36/14 36/18 36/19 36/20 37/21 37/22 38/1 41/10 61/25 62/1 62/3 62/11 62/13 62/15 64/12 64/14 64/16 73/9 73/19 73/22 83/5 83/6 109/9 111/6 111/13 112/16 112/25 113/12 113/12 114/12 158/5 158/11 170/19 170/19 220/3 percentage [12] 18/20 18/21 62/5 62/9 63/10 63/12 64/2 64/23 65/1 74/1 83/7 83/9 perfect [7] 24/17 25/4 38/9 38/10 53/10 182/18 184/17 perfection [1] 38/6 perfectly [2] 35/8 42/16 perform [3] 21/20 63/15 204/23 perhaps [7] 50/9 62/23 118/6 172/4 173/24 177/3 180/15 period [29] 19/18 51/16 55/15 56/14 56/19 56/19 56/21 56/23 58/2 82/21 121/10 126/13 126/13 126/22 141/7 149/14 152/17 152/25 153/19 155/10 176/1 176/6 181/25 188/9 197/13 211/14 223/23 224/1 230/16 periods [1] 186/25 permanent [2] 103/16 220/17 permanently [2] 166/21 183/21 permissible [3] 77/9 127/23 161/20 permission [3] 137/11 163/24 163/25 permit [1] 122/12 permitted [4] 95/13 102/4 135/2 135/5 permitting [2] 220/24 221/5 pernicious [1] 51/7 persistent [1] 132/7 person [81] 15/3 56/1 57/22 68/8 77/20 85/15 96/15 96/18 97/2 97/21 98/21 100/14 102/2 105/8 105/9 107/9 107/15 107/17 107/17 116/20 116/21 117/6 121/1 121/4 121/9 121/14 122/5 124/24 125/17 125/19 126/20 131/13 131/14 134/18 134/18 134/23 134/23 135/2 135/4 135/19 137/2 137/5 138/7 140/22 149/22 152/16 153/1 156/5 156/6 156/8 156/10 156/11 156/13 158/12 164/18 165/7 165/9 165/10 171/22 171/22 172/6 172/7 172/8 172/22 173/6 178/13 179/3 179/7 180/4 180/10 180/15 180/24 181/7 181/20 187/21 191/21 196/20 218/15 231/17 237/21 237/24 person's [6] 26/8 57/18 57/25 94/9 107/10 144/18 personal [2] 189/3 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 220/10 personally [1] 182/5 persons [8] 37/6 123/3 124/16 127/8 131/9 152/5 202/21 227/13 perspective [5] 46/18 117/10 182/6 182/7 224/14 persuasive [5] 31/6 39/25 42/22 213/2 213/6 pertaining [1] 175/10 peruse [1] 216/11 petition [3] 59/12 92/23 196/20 petitioning [2] 93/2 197/6 Pew [1] 111/8 PhD [1] 32/12 Phillips [1] 24/6 philosopher [3] 9/15 9/17 12/5 philosophical [1] 12/8 philosophy [5] 9/17 12/4 12/13 13/9 16/14 phonetic [1] 72/16 photo [4] 5/2 161/20 161/22 161/23 photographic [2] 68/7 68/23 photos [2] 5/8 5/14 phrase [1] 139/3 PI [4] 132/25 212/10 214/25 215/14 pick [2] 106/2 211/20 picture [2] 12/7 205/23 pictures [1] 4/3 pie [1] 61/25 piece [3] 41/25 98/1 98/6 Pin [1] 164/17 Pin/1966 [1] 164/17 pinsite [1] 205/4 place [8] 32/22 76/20 129/9 130/4 136/21 155/20 210/7 211/3 placed [6] 103/22 107/10 110/17 136/11 136/22 186/16 places [1] 30/11 placing [1] 172/23 plain [5] 120/4 125/7 143/6 232/20 232/21 plainly [2] 87/23 127/25 plaintiff [9] 48/11 (29) paragraph - plaintiff {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} P plaintiff... [8] 102/23 102/23 123/7 127/22 196/4 197/16 218/2 219/4 plaintiffs [182] 1/6 2/4 2/8 2/11 6/4 6/17 6/21 7/16 7/19 8/9 8/20 9/2 9/3 9/21 12/18 29/21 30/10 30/17 31/2 31/18 32/2 32/4 32/15 33/22 34/12 34/14 34/25 35/14 36/6 39/7 39/12 39/20 40/3 40/4 40/9 40/17 40/24 41/2 42/7 42/13 43/12 43/19 49/7 49/10 49/13 49/16 50/3 50/5 50/14 77/19 80/3 92/24 94/16 103/12 105/4 109/17 110/1 121/20 122/15 122/18 122/20 123/2 123/11 123/25 124/5 127/2 127/6 127/20 128/21 132/18 132/22 135/14 135/15 138/2 138/15 139/5 139/14 141/9 142/9 142/18 142/19 143/2 143/8 143/18 144/4 145/1 145/5 145/13 146/12 149/4 151/6 158/6 158/11 159/7 159/19 160/24 160/25 161/6 161/17 162/18 164/11 165/23 167/12 167/18 167/24 168/13 170/1 173/3 174/18 174/18 174/24 174/25 179/16 188/17 189/3 189/7 189/10 189/14 190/1 190/19 191/16 192/5 193/9 193/25 195/2 195/11 195/13 195/19 196/3 196/11 197/11 197/11 197/12 197/15 197/20 198/5 198/13 198/15 198/17 198/20 199/1 199/20 199/25 200/11 200/17 200/18 200/20 201/2 201/7 201/23 202/3 202/6 202/9 202/18 202/20 203/9 203/10 203/19 204/7 204/12 204/15 205/25 206/10 206/14 206/15 206/23 208/21 211/4 212/6 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 212/19 215/16 215/22 216/13 216/14 217/25 218/1 224/13 224/23 233/4 235/4 236/11 236/14 Plaintiffs -- the [1] 206/14 plaintiffs' [45] 6/14 7/9 9/11 9/13 10/25 28/2 29/10 30/24 31/14 31/21 31/24 31/25 33/21 35/9 35/25 36/11 39/4 42/6 48/23 49/18 77/19 80/1 111/23 146/9 150/11 175/2 177/1 187/5 189/20 198/24 200/21 203/4 203/14 203/24 205/20 207/6 207/13 207/15 212/21 232/3 232/23 233/14 234/7 234/21 236/25 plan [3] 6/11 6/17 10/23 planning [1] 12/21 plausible [1] 169/2 play [2] 41/9 159/10 please [6] 6/7 29/21 43/16 47/13 119/11 132/12 pled [1] 106/15 pledge [1] 147/19 plurality [1] 167/7 pocket [1] 123/23 point [74] 4/9 7/1 8/22 22/23 22/25 29/2 29/3 32/22 37/11 37/18 37/18 37/24 39/10 39/25 40/1 40/17 41/14 41/18 41/19 42/11 42/21 43/22 45/3 49/2 58/14 67/19 69/8 83/23 104/7 108/9 118/6 118/6 119/20 120/20 123/19 125/23 126/6 128/16 129/6 130/6 130/16 130/24 140/6 148/19 151/19 152/11 153/4 153/6 154/11 173/8 174/6 174/7 175/7 182/9 184/13 185/2 185/7 185/17 189/12 189/22 193/17 198/24 206/22 208/6 209/5 209/23 212/8 213/15 214/20 218/18 225/6 228/8 232/15 236/21 pointed [4] 32/6 32/8 101/5 210/11 points [15] 23/1 23/3 31/23 35/19 44/4 44/12 44/13 44/20 92/8 92/11 154/11 193/1 195/22 231/7 234/21 policies [6] 51/2 73/1 89/5 89/13 187/8 219/22 policing [1] 75/15 policy [55] 18/17 18/21 19/1 19/24 20/10 20/12 60/25 60/25 61/2 61/4 82/19 83/13 87/24 111/16 166/16 167/13 169/3 169/22 169/23 171/16 171/20 172/12 172/14 173/21 173/22 173/25 175/10 175/18 176/4 177/16 177/20 177/21 178/1 182/5 182/5 182/7 182/19 184/19 185/3 206/5 206/13 206/16 206/21 210/16 217/14 217/15 217/21 217/23 218/12 219/2 219/3 223/21 223/23 224/25 232/8 politic [1] 72/17 political [62] 9/15 9/16 9/17 12/3 12/3 12/7 12/10 12/13 12/16 12/18 12/19 12/23 12/24 13/9 14/12 14/16 14/19 16/4 16/5 16/6 16/13 16/14 32/6 32/10 32/12 32/13 32/18 32/20 33/3 33/4 33/6 33/8 33/11 33/15 33/16 33/17 33/18 33/23 34/1 35/20 42/9 51/18 54/6 72/19 72/22 88/21 88/22 88/25 89/1 89/1 89/7 89/10 89/11 89/15 89/17 89/19 114/24 116/24 131/4 201/14 202/15 209/6 politics [1] 13/13 poll [12] 93/10 93/11 93/13 101/22 101/23 127/20 127/21 127/24 127/25 199/3 199/5 214/17 polling [1] 34/10 Poole [2] 115/6 115/9 142/5 154/14 175/11 195/9 195/25 196/5 poor [2] 124/16 219/22 220/12 229/18 210/16 popularity [1] 185/16 232/24 population [46] 18/7 post-incarceration 18/22 20/5 20/16 36/8 [1] 132/2 40/14 40/14 40/16 post-release [29] 100/10 100/11 100/14 40/23 40/24 41/21 42/2 42/2 45/23 46/1 100/24 101/4 101/7 61/25 62/3 62/6 62/10 101/9 101/13 101/15 101/19 102/2 103/24 62/12 62/14 62/15 110/12 110/18 111/25 63/10 63/13 63/14 64/3 64/4 64/12 64/15 112/19 112/22 113/3 64/24 65/1 73/9 73/20 128/25 131/14 132/15 73/23 83/5 83/8 83/9 138/14 142/5 154/14 175/11 195/9 195/25 83/17 83/20 139/22 196/5 229/18 160/13 166/1 166/3 166/3 233/5 233/17 posted [1] 233/2 populations [3] 41/1 potential [8] 27/3 37/5 37/16 38/1 118/1 45/22 63/15 125/14 137/8 190/15 populous [2] 63/23 63/25 potentially [9] 38/25 74/5 74/11 104/23 PORTER [5] 2/5 118/4 146/20 182/23 28/15 28/16 49/12 209/9 215/20 50/14 poverty [3] 114/10 portion [8] 10/23 115/12 126/8 23/5 23/16 40/10 40/12 42/20 100/24 Powell [1] 102/23 179/24 power [26] 51/18 54/7 84/24 85/1 85/5 portions [2] 30/9 85/7 85/13 85/22 86/7 105/17 86/24 87/6 87/8 87/12 pose [2] 109/12 87/17 87/18 88/5 88/7 230/12 111/10 124/16 124/21 position [6] 24/9 131/8 142/18 143/20 24/9 66/15 130/15 145/10 148/11 158/21 130/17 206/20 positions [1] 239/5 powerless [1] 219/6 PowerPoint [1] positive [4] 109/9 190/16 191/5 204/24 62/24 powers [1] 143/24 possess [4] 9/22 10/4 17/3 121/16 practice [4] 113/19 possibilities [1] 90/4 117/5 167/3 222/14 possibility [1] 38/12 practices [1] 76/21 possible [11] 19/21 practicing [1] 16/5 55/3 75/21 75/23 preceded [1] 203/22 82/14 134/9 144/4 precedence [1] 29/7 210/12 210/15 220/25 precedent [2] 90/7 168/19 221/6 precedents [1] 104/4 possibly [2] 65/5 126/4 preceding [1] 140/20 post [36] 2/13 2/18 precise [2] 116/12 100/10 100/11 100/14 213/15 100/24 101/4 101/7 precisely [1] 61/12 101/9 101/13 101/15 precision [1] 38/15 101/19 102/2 103/24 preclearance [1] 110/12 110/18 111/25 192/15 112/19 112/22 113/3 preclude [1] 152/14 128/25 131/14 132/2 precluded [3] 54/11 132/15 137/1 138/14 56/12 127/4 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (30) plaintiff... - precluded {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} presenting [3] 13/25 38/22 178/10 precludes [3] 89/15 preserve [1] 203/16 89/19 202/21 presided [2] 55/21 precluding [1] 89/17 81/1 precondition [1] president [1] 216/18 121/19 presidential [1] predetermine [2] 209/10 148/10 148/17 presiding [4] 1/19 predict [4] 24/21 5/20 210/3 210/24 24/22 38/5 38/15 pressured [1] 111/20 predicted [1] 24/12 presumption [1] predicting [1] 24/2 141/21 prediction [3] 37/21 pretrial [1] 111/3 38/10 39/18 238/1 pretty [1] predictions [1] 35/21 7/16 7/19 prevail [5] predictor [4] 24/17 221/3 236/11 236/14 25/4 25/7 38/9 prevalence [1] predominant [4] 56/5 186/19 80/4 148/9 148/16 prevent [8] 52/13 predominantly [1] 77/1 80/19 116/13 137/9 191/12 196/12 216/16 prefatory [2] 141/15 220/17 148/3 prevented [3] 122/25 prefer [2] 11/2 197/25 198/8 184/13 prevents [4] 49/21 preferred [1] 211/11 51/11 157/13 163/19 prejudice [1] 210/8 previous [2] 137/19 preliminarily [1] 197/18 216/8 previously [6] 102/6 preliminary [21] 6/15 123/9 173/9 177/1 48/25 50/5 103/16 209/3 210/22 110/1 203/5 203/7 Pride [1] 129/14 203/14 203/15 204/1 primary [6] 6/17 57/5 204/13 204/17 204/19 196/17 202/9 203/15 205/7 207/15 215/22 211/2 220/16 220/23 221/17 principally [1] 33/22 221/22 237/1 principle [6] 27/11 preparation [1] 239/4 35/4 85/17 165/6 prepared [4] 7/11 216/8 221/2 47/5 48/19 55/19 principles [5] 11/16 prescribe [1] 135/7 12/24 17/23 24/8 prescribed [4] 66/1 127/12 135/3 135/6 135/16 prior [22] 7/17 13/23 presence [1] 21/5 25/8 63/6 71/16 81/15 present [10] 25/17 82/6 86/2 107/10 68/7 68/23 86/19 107/19 137/17 137/22 94/25 95/8 95/11 170/15 170/18 184/22 183/6 203/25 227/18 185/4 187/10 198/12 presentation [9] 6/18 198/21 204/8 204/10 6/18 28/2 51/22 227/15 179/21 222/24 228/4 prism [1] 49/17 239/5 239/9 prison [26] 55/7 presentations [2] 57/12 57/25 58/11 13/8 239/21 59/6 60/10 82/16 presented [13] 10/7 102/10 105/19 105/22 13/11 13/12 14/14 139/2 139/12 139/16 27/16 28/7 28/20 74/7 139/16 140/16 141/1 90/3 104/11 172/21 141/6 141/11 152/21 197/12 228/12 P 158/13 184/14 185/7 186/15 186/24 211/11 222/20 prisoner [1] 140/25 prisoners [2] 140/18 140/19 prisons [3] 131/24 186/12 226/23 privileges [2] 114/25 116/25 pro [3] 2/7 2/10 219/20 pro-social [1] 219/20 probably [8] 7/1 7/8 108/1 175/8 185/1 185/25 218/8 232/10 probation [112] 26/9 45/24 57/19 58/2 58/17 59/19 60/11 60/15 93/6 99/15 100/9 100/23 101/2 101/12 101/19 102/1 102/25 103/23 105/7 105/8 106/7 106/8 106/9 106/13 106/24 107/2 107/11 110/12 110/17 110/17 110/20 111/25 112/4 112/8 112/10 112/12 112/14 113/2 117/7 117/9 118/9 118/20 118/22 118/24 119/17 119/20 119/22 119/24 120/2 120/7 120/16 120/18 122/12 122/13 122/18 123/3 123/8 126/13 126/14 126/18 128/24 129/22 131/13 132/15 138/13 138/22 139/7 139/12 142/5 143/13 153/12 154/14 155/10 156/14 174/10 174/19 174/20 175/19 175/20 176/1 176/15 177/2 177/4 177/6 177/14 178/20 179/5 179/24 180/3 180/22 186/10 186/16 187/20 187/21 187/25 195/9 196/7 196/8 196/9 197/19 197/24 197/24 198/1 198/4 198/23 209/7 209/9 210/14 211/17 215/2 220/12 229/18 probationary [1] 186/4 probationer [12] 126/16 126/17 126/23 126/25 135/23 143/5 143/7 174/13 177/4 188/1 188/4 196/1 probationer's [1] 187/18 probationers [8] 125/2 139/3 139/17 139/18 167/11 175/11 176/1 195/22 problem [6] 27/4 146/9 146/10 179/11 196/18 203/14 problems [3] 173/17 202/1 210/22 procedural [5] 57/6 59/10 59/21 60/17 92/20 procedures [1] 215/25 proceed [10] 5/23 6/14 8/24 48/23 49/3 49/5 49/6 133/2 133/17 212/16 proceeding [1] 43/22 proceedings [4] 1/15 240/14 241/3 241/5 process [9] 55/2 95/15 96/9 96/14 100/5 103/7 103/8 106/17 146/21 processes [1] 131/4 produce [3] 45/17 190/21 191/5 produced [3] 100/19 106/19 106/20 produces [1] 191/19 product [3] 11/16 17/23 24/8 production [2] 125/24 175/9 professional [4] 14/3 14/8 33/5 241/13 professionalism [2] 239/4 239/17 professor [1] 12/3 professors [1] 33/10 profile [1] 103/3 profound [1] 218/22 prohibit [2] 139/1 163/22 prohibited [1] 214/3 prohibitory [4] 204/17 204/20 204/25 205/8 prohibits [2] 160/21 165/3 Project [1] 132/1 projects [1] 37/15 prolonged [1] 123/4 promise [1] 222/5 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter promote [1] 89/12 promotes [2] 95/16 170/13 promoting [1] 96/10 prong [3] 23/16 29/1 220/20 prongs [1] 17/19 pronunciation [1] 8/11 proper [1] 217/18 properly [1] 149/12 property [37] 71/2 109/22 110/6 114/20 114/23 115/1 115/1 115/3 115/7 115/16 115/19 115/21 115/23 115/24 116/3 116/3 116/6 116/6 116/7 116/12 116/15 116/21 116/25 120/24 121/22 122/2 122/3 122/5 122/9 123/16 124/2 194/23 194/24 195/1 195/5 195/12 199/9 propose [1] 174/17 proposed [2] 12/1 160/24 proposing [1] 161/6 proposition [7] 74/10 85/11 88/19 90/4 192/19 236/3 236/5 propositions [1] 89/2 prosecuted [2] 102/4 102/15 prosecution [1] 218/17 prosecutions [1] 103/3 prosecutors [1] 226/23 prospects [1] 219/9 protect [5] 76/15 77/15 90/16 91/7 164/15 protected [4] 88/22 168/9 201/10 201/11 protection [49] 68/1 68/3 68/16 68/18 68/20 70/9 70/20 78/24 79/2 79/4 84/13 84/16 84/18 84/23 88/13 89/25 90/24 91/4 108/10 109/24 124/8 124/11 124/13 124/18 127/12 131/5 146/19 146/23 159/14 162/4 162/7 162/20 162/22 164/15 167/21 168/4 168/7 194/23 (31) precludes - protection {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} P protection... [11] 199/4 199/17 200/1 200/23 213/10 214/7 214/7 224/15 224/19 225/10 225/19 protections [4] 67/15 84/17 88/15 90/11 protective [2] 67/5 67/7 protects [2] 77/11 78/1 protests [1] 217/6 protocols [1] 98/10 prove [2] 137/2 137/6 provide [24] 13/20 16/14 17/4 27/6 27/17 27/19 28/12 31/23 46/11 52/2 67/10 86/6 88/14 98/5 170/10 176/15 179/20 198/13 198/21 231/15 232/13 234/3 234/7 234/11 provided [31] 9/9 9/12 26/7 26/10 27/21 29/7 32/1 33/18 37/20 61/15 71/13 93/10 99/19 140/22 174/24 174/25 175/2 175/12 175/14 175/17 175/18 176/14 177/13 179/1 182/17 189/6 190/24 234/16 234/20 237/16 239/25 provides [10] 27/5 39/23 45/15 56/3 84/17 86/14 114/24 145/4 166/19 232/4 providing [7] 70/17 70/23 90/14 167/8 175/6 230/20 233/19 provision [83] 55/10 65/23 65/25 66/6 66/6 66/16 66/17 66/23 66/24 67/10 67/21 67/22 67/25 68/2 68/5 68/6 68/15 68/22 68/24 68/25 68/25 69/5 69/7 69/9 69/18 69/21 69/23 69/24 70/7 70/13 70/15 71/4 71/13 71/15 71/22 76/19 79/19 79/24 93/18 135/7 135/9 135/13 135/13 135/15 135/18 135/18 136/5 136/6 136/13 140/15 143/12 144/5 146/14 146/17 157/7 157/13 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 158/14 158/19 158/23 158/24 159/20 160/4 160/5 160/5 160/8 160/11 160/22 161/1 161/2 161/3 161/4 161/5 161/7 161/21 161/22 161/24 163/8 167/20 178/16 178/22 178/25 201/3 208/22 provisions [42] 58/9 66/4 66/17 66/20 67/3 67/5 67/7 67/12 68/12 69/6 69/16 71/7 71/9 93/4 93/7 105/15 115/22 134/6 143/16 144/7 149/7 149/9 149/24 150/3 159/10 159/12 159/23 160/15 160/16 160/19 161/14 161/15 161/18 162/4 162/9 162/10 162/11 162/17 162/19 165/5 192/18 201/7 proximity [1] 23/1 proxy [1] 38/8 public [35] 26/7 32/1 53/21 87/24 97/14 99/13 102/11 110/15 111/17 120/11 125/25 126/3 152/15 152/25 175/1 175/6 176/5 180/14 181/25 190/25 217/14 217/15 217/21 217/23 218/4 218/7 218/12 219/2 220/24 221/1 221/4 231/14 231/21 231/25 237/23 publication [2] 11/19 25/18 publish [2] 33/15 33/16 published [9] 12/14 12/17 13/8 13/11 13/13 13/25 21/9 32/9 32/23 publisher [1] 12/18 publishing [1] 32/10 pull [9] 52/22 52/22 52/25 57/14 58/13 59/22 62/7 74/17 96/21 pulled [3] 184/18 239/8 239/24 punishable [2] 55/7 82/16 punishment [5] 46/6 55/8 128/13 128/14 152/13 punishments [1] 52/8 Purdie [2] 219/4 221/11 pure [1] 162/3 purported [10] 52/12 92/4 92/13 92/15 94/17 94/25 95/2 95/4 95/13 227/12 purportedly [5] 77/21 94/4 95/14 95/23 122/9 purpose [7] 5/24 12/2 15/18 31/22 76/25 148/11 203/15 purposes [8] 48/20 56/11 72/15 77/25 79/17 87/23 108/9 155/14 pursuant [5] 17/7 27/24 66/3 174/24 176/8 purview [2] 166/16 166/18 put [37] 8/21 33/21 76/20 91/25 111/13 111/18 113/18 115/7 116/24 128/21 130/7 139/5 141/9 144/12 149/4 149/9 155/6 155/20 179/9 179/18 182/25 182/25 187/16 188/21 189/1 210/6 212/22 213/19 214/1 214/20 219/25 221/12 229/3 229/10 230/11 234/14 238/21 putting [5] 7/14 64/10 143/8 183/1 240/7 Q qualification [19] 114/20 114/23 115/1 115/24 116/15 121/23 122/5 122/9 123/16 123/18 128/6 164/11 194/23 194/24 195/1 195/6 195/12 199/9 202/24 qualifications [32] 9/19 9/23 10/4 11/5 11/12 11/22 15/21 17/3 17/9 28/22 29/2 32/3 32/4 32/5 43/3 71/2 109/22 110/6 115/3 115/16 116/3 116/7 116/11 116/13 120/25 122/3 124/3 134/13 134/16 149/8 149/10 215/7 qualified [31] 14/7 14/17 15/8 16/9 16/14 27/17 27/19 27/21 28/11 28/13 28/23 28/24 29/23 35/3 77/8 77/11 77/13 97/1 149/3 152/1 152/4 152/6 163/5 164/16 166/5 199/6 199/11 201/4 202/13 220/25 221/6 qualify [4] 11/23 14/23 15/3 209/14 qualitative [5] 32/14 33/7 33/11 33/18 33/25 quantitative [9] 9/20 13/24 14/1 14/4 32/14 33/7 33/11 33/17 33/25 quarter [1] 217/10 question [57] 20/3 28/3 31/15 32/8 42/23 43/21 45/25 60/7 66/10 77/25 80/6 87/6 102/2 102/3 103/10 106/3 107/7 108/1 108/1 115/8 116/2 117/2 118/5 118/15 119/11 119/15 120/1 120/13 120/16 120/22 125/13 126/5 142/24 154/5 154/5 158/4 159/5 166/20 172/19 174/9 176/23 176/25 177/2 183/13 183/24 187/14 193/6 208/5 209/19 215/1 215/8 215/9 215/9 225/5 227/14 234/1 238/7 questioned [1] 22/24 questioning [2] 58/15 59/1 questions [27] 7/4 7/6 7/7 12/8 29/9 29/13 44/5 46/21 46/24 46/25 47/1 52/1 101/23 101/25 105/25 117/3 190/4 192/21 207/18 230/23 231/1 231/9 236/24 237/6 238/18 239/25 240/9 quick [3] 107/7 238/19 238/23 quickly [4] 192/22 214/9 214/19 220/21 quintessential [1] 217/24 quite [4] 120/17 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 138/24 147/25 184/25 quo [10] 203/16 203/17 203/21 204/1 204/7 204/13 204/19 204/21 204/22 215/16 quotation [1] 188/6 quotations [1] 205/4 quote [24] 76/16 76/21 77/8 84/23 85/22 88/19 90/16 90/19 90/23 94/4 94/8 100/9 103/24 116/5 149/2 149/5 152/4 152/5 164/10 169/16 204/18 204/20 222/15 223/15 quoted [3] 115/9 152/2 218/20 quoting [6] 76/22 141/25 148/20 150/7 164/14 164/17 R Rabinovitch [1] 133/23 Rabinovitz [17] 2/12 3/3 3/8 4/9 29/18 44/2 44/12 74/7 138/16 154/16 194/14 208/2 209/2 214/10 235/10 237/9 239/23 race [19] 18/17 18/18 18/23 18/24 19/1 20/3 20/10 70/18 75/2 75/5 75/7 79/8 79/17 79/20 80/2 80/3 224/14 224/19 224/24 race-neutral [3] 18/17 19/1 20/10 races [6] 18/12 19/7 24/22 25/16 38/20 65/6 racial [26] 13/17 15/7 18/13 19/11 19/25 20/19 45/9 45/11 51/9 64/20 74/2 79/23 80/8 82/8 183/15 183/15 183/17 183/19 183/19 210/23 217/7 220/13 225/3 225/21 225/24 226/6 racialized [1] 220/1 racially [4] 79/7 79/12 81/24 225/14 raise [3] 46/16 105/13 159/7 raised [5] 31/14 35/14 52/2 228/3 228/8 raises [2] 84/7 104/9 (32) protection... - raises {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} R raising [2] 37/7 104/24 Raleigh [4] 2/14 2/18 52/19 53/20 Ramirez [1] 163/7 rampant [1] 80/20 ranked [1] 12/18 rasing [1] 155/4 rate [16] 18/10 19/13 40/15 40/25 41/5 41/11 42/1 61/18 62/16 63/16 63/21 65/2 114/4 190/16 191/5 220/6 rates [4] 18/9 19/10 21/11 64/1 rather [13] 15/17 52/6 54/10 68/14 70/10 76/9 92/22 93/2 97/24 116/8 164/16 168/9 206/17 ratification [1] 130/1 ratified [2] 54/19 69/5 ratio [6] 62/16 63/10 63/12 63/18 64/5 64/7 rational [24] 90/5 90/16 91/6 156/21 156/23 165/21 168/23 169/1 169/24 169/25 170/2 170/2 172/13 173/15 173/20 182/9 182/17 189/8 200/6 208/4 233/25 234/4 234/6 234/8 rationale [8] 166/17 169/22 169/23 182/19 192/3 192/6 192/8 234/4 rationales [1] 188/18 rationals [3] 169/9 234/15 235/2 ratios [3] 62/8 63/22 64/10 re [9] 36/8 127/5 142/20 178/5 196/18 197/3 201/7 211/1 221/5 re-enfranchised [1] 36/8 re-enfranchisement [6] 127/5 178/5 196/18 197/3 201/7 221/5 re-enfranchising [1] 211/1 re-write [1] 142/20 reached [1] 36/15 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} reaching [1] 112/2 read [27] 8/16 14/21 19/19 19/22 20/1 35/18 36/22 37/8 37/9 37/13 37/15 48/4 65/25 100/15 105/6 116/4 138/15 138/17 143/7 143/9 152/12 159/21 161/14 162/14 175/8 213/8 222/25 reading [7] 35/8 81/6 125/17 139/5 139/18 174/10 177/12 reads [7] 31/10 31/11 104/3 104/23 161/23 190/6 227/1 ready [11] 5/23 8/19 48/23 49/3 49/4 49/5 49/6 49/8 109/14 133/16 133/18 reaffirms [1] 223/3 real [6] 19/14 52/20 92/12 111/9 216/5 238/23 real-life [1] 19/14 realize [2] 8/20 230/18 really [11] 36/22 38/16 42/6 66/10 120/15 140/13 143/11 146/24 188/15 208/15 235/1 realm [1] 14/19 Realtime [2] 241/12 241/12 reapportionment [2] 163/9 163/15 reason [21] 30/1 42/20 46/15 70/19 70/25 74/12 109/10 135/10 143/23 146/8 169/3 172/25 177/3 182/13 202/12 203/3 210/6 224/15 224/17 229/22 236/16 reasonable [10] 14/21 156/24 157/6 169/10 169/16 172/4 172/14 173/22 182/10 206/6 reasonably [2] 24/7 233/19 reasoned [1] 164/9 reasoning [4] 77/11 163/20 164/1 165/18 reasons [18] 11/11 15/10 17/11 20/25 27/16 29/22 30/25 39/12 89/23 94/10 108/13 133/22 195/18 198/25 203/11 207/12 229/11 237/2 reauthorization [2] 192/11 192/15 reauthorizing [1] 192/18 rebels [1] 52/11 rebut [4] 28/7 28/12 74/7 212/25 rebuttal [18] 6/9 6/21 9/11 28/5 28/10 29/6 31/17 31/23 33/20 37/19 37/25 38/23 39/10 40/1 178/17 212/10 221/25 235/16 rebutted [1] 56/10 rebutting [1] 133/7 recall [2] 143/14 163/24 recalling [1] 118/13 receive [22] 85/19 93/6 97/22 98/20 98/25 103/24 106/13 114/6 114/15 116/20 121/2 121/17 122/23 124/22 125/1 125/4 125/5 128/2 175/4 177/9 178/10 222/15 received [10] 5/25 22/20 31/21 52/7 65/13 102/21 102/25 107/14 173/9 173/11 receives [3] 98/7 98/14 99/25 receiving [3] 138/11 185/13 185/22 recent [9] 21/17 21/25 22/14 22/15 61/6 99/4 113/21 113/23 227/3 recently [4] 53/19 104/8 128/11 131/2 receptiveness [1] 210/25 recess [6] 7/2 47/4 47/23 133/11 133/15 238/19 recidivism [5] 13/6 16/18 26/25 27/3 27/10 recidivist [3] 229/4 230/10 235/22 recited [1] 188/25 recognize [3] 145/8 146/15 151/6 recognized [4] 148/18 170/6 199/22 213/15 recognizes [2] 78/6 referring [7] 6/24 61/6 140/19 144/21 146/22 166/4 184/20 186/9 recognizing [4] 7/9 168/2 185/18 186/11 refers [2] 105/9 recommend [2] 30/8 138/20 228/21 reflect [3] 72/17 78/5 78/14 recommended [1] 140/24 reflecting [2] 9/6 117/11 reconcile [1] 66/16 reconciled [1] 66/23 reflects [1] 64/23 reconvene [1] 239/12 refrigerants [1] 15/24 record [31] 15/10 34/14 48/20 48/22 refuse [1] 198/21 53/7 81/23 91/25 refused [1] 198/13 102/12 107/10 107/20 regain [4] 102/10 113/18 121/21 124/1 116/24 123/13 126/25 128/21 132/6 132/18 regaining [3] 118/2 138/25 141/12 148/7 122/7 213/14 156/12 156/14 187/2 regard [3] 15/21 212/22 219/25 222/25 123/19 185/15 223/6 223/12 226/2 regarded [1] 32/9 226/14 226/19 233/1 regarding [4] 9/25 record -- I [1] 48/20 43/3 168/5 217/14 regardless [7] 39/4 records [5] 132/4 60/10 85/8 85/9 85/14 132/8 132/9 175/6 123/22 177/10 190/22 red [3] 122/14 159/6 regards [5] 118/23 119/1 120/11 130/16 159/9 redemption [1] 219/9 131/15 regime [21] 121/16 redistricting [4] 130/8 137/17 140/8 67/22 160/5 160/7 155/6 155/8 157/22 205/12 redrafting [1] 144/3 165/19 170/15 170/19 174/5 184/2 188/24 redress [2] 142/15 189/23 192/13 192/15 216/5 193/23 194/3 205/20 redressability [1] 210/8 210/12 146/9 regimes [3] 151/18 reduce [4] 117/8 182/19 182/20 182/21 168/20 189/9 register [6] 97/3 reduced [3] 56/14 97/10 99/6 177/18 56/21 56/25 191/20 237/25 reduces [1] 114/5 reemphasize [1] 83/4 registered [9] 24/18 24/19 86/21 96/16 reentry [2] 13/16 97/2 147/20 149/12 16/17 172/11 241/13 refer [10] 6/24 7/13 11/1 57/24 140/9 registering [6] 49/23 88/25 89/10 89/18 145/1 145/6 186/4 191/13 202/22 186/6 189/11 registration [24] 7/18 referee [1] 33/14 24/13 24/14 24/16 reference [3] 63/2 25/4 25/6 25/15 38/9 129/5 181/21 referenced [2] 10/24 38/19 95/17 96/10 96/20 97/1 100/19 17/15 100/25 172/2 175/14 references [1] 175/25 176/14 176/20 228/18 181/5 191/1 231/12 referred [6] 61/6 120/17 136/8 136/12 237/19 181/5 188/7 registrations [1] 25/9 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (33) raising - registrations {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} R regular [1] 215/10 regularly [2] 114/10 190/24 regulate [2] 90/9 91/2 regulates [1] 95/16 regulation [3] 148/14 148/15 166/18 rehabilitate [1] 185/13 rehabilitated [2] 144/19 170/11 rehabilitation [3] 94/9 170/5 219/15 rehash [1] 203/13 reinforce [1] 17/2 reintegration [1] 219/9 reiterate [1] 239/16 reject [1] 77/16 rejected [7] 29/25 30/1 68/10 82/3 93/23 199/25 225/15 rejects [1] 93/19 related [10] 9/19 55/2 110/8 113/1 117/4 124/6 132/24 146/10 194/22 241/6 Relatedly [1] 79/18 relates [6] 13/18 20/7 25/24 26/5 65/21 67/4 relating [3] 67/21 68/5 70/13 relationship [2] 158/2 169/1 relative [8] 20/5 85/2 85/5 86/10 87/8 87/12 88/5 204/21 relatively [1] 31/8 relax [1] 194/6 release [38] 59/16 100/10 100/11 100/14 100/24 101/4 101/7 101/9 101/13 101/15 101/19 102/2 103/24 105/9 110/12 110/18 111/3 111/25 112/19 112/22 113/3 128/25 131/14 131/24 132/15 138/14 140/25 141/1 141/6 142/5 154/14 175/11 185/6 195/9 195/25 196/5 220/12 229/18 released [5] 57/13 60/9 60/10 102/10 131/23 relevance [3] 42/18 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 45/8 155/19 relevant [28] 15/1 22/2 22/19 24/23 27/18 28/21 40/22 42/18 45/6 45/14 45/21 46/7 79/11 80/7 96/17 134/21 136/2 136/15 142/2 142/3 155/5 155/25 173/24 174/2 193/5 193/19 198/18 224/18 reliability [11] 11/3 11/5 17/14 17/18 17/20 23/17 27/14 28/22 29/1 35/14 43/3 reliable [17] 11/16 17/13 17/23 22/19 23/5 23/18 23/25 24/4 24/8 24/25 25/6 25/12 25/14 25/22 27/11 27/22 29/25 reliably [1] 23/20 reliance [2] 94/22 95/20 relied [11] 11/4 16/23 20/13 22/3 28/22 31/24 31/25 44/14 84/22 130/22 192/12 relief [14] 49/19 105/4 127/7 142/9 143/17 143/19 145/4 145/5 158/6 158/10 167/12 216/2 216/3 230/20 relies [4] 21/8 22/9 25/12 97/25 relieve [3] 152/22 153/11 197/8 rely [14] 22/7 44/16 94/15 111/16 146/18 179/15 188/18 192/23 192/25 194/17 198/14 198/20 202/10 227/22 relying [6] 21/23 22/16 130/6 161/18 188/25 192/18 remain [1] 105/16 remained [2] 111/7 198/23 remaining [1] 95/22 remains [1] 61/3 remarkable [1] 91/23 remarks [1] 47/4 remedial [2] 145/16 161/1 remedies [1] 50/20 remedy [16] 52/2 103/11 103/16 103/17 104/12 105/13 143/22 145/3 158/16 160/24 161/6 203/5 203/6 203/14 210/22 230/12 remember [6] 60/1 135/14 177/25 222/25 225/20 239/23 remind [1] 109/18 reminder [1] 183/11 remit [2] 128/17 128/18 remote [1] 1/17 remove [6] 57/9 82/23 93/11 119/22 190/25 196/22 removed [2] 82/2 190/17 removing [1] 93/13 render [1] 80/21 renders [1] 70/14 reoffend [1] 219/18 Rep [1] 58/8 repeal [2] 158/19 213/18 repealed [1] 140/3 repeatedly [2] 66/20 193/9 replace [3] 137/14 196/19 209/25 replaced [5] 137/22 140/3 140/6 151/11 223/15 replacement [2] 137/17 140/1 replaces [1] 137/19 reply [18] 6/21 90/6 94/11 100/18 104/18 113/9 116/1 145/1 179/16 179/19 190/2 193/2 193/3 197/15 197/21 198/25 203/20 214/21 report [67] 9/4 9/6 9/11 10/7 10/24 11/2 11/9 11/13 13/2 13/25 14/5 14/9 15/9 16/22 17/5 17/7 17/11 17/16 17/17 17/19 17/22 18/1 20/23 21/1 23/2 23/4 27/22 27/24 28/6 28/12 29/6 30/21 31/10 34/12 34/16 34/22 37/20 39/13 40/11 40/12 40/19 42/12 42/19 42/21 42/25 44/15 45/5 48/11 48/12 48/19 52/16 55/17 56/3 56/4 56/8 63/3 64/9 64/22 74/16 74/18 83/11 113/9 113/21 118/16 118/24 130/18 214/22 reportedly [1] 92/9 reporter [6] 1/22 48/21 205/5 241/12 241/13 241/13 reports [9] 28/11 31/21 34/20 36/23 48/4 52/18 118/7 118/11 185/13 represent [2] 110/16 233/16 representation [4] 85/19 129/6 187/19 220/14 representations [2] 189/20 232/23 representative [23] 59/3 72/16 137/13 137/18 138/4 138/5 139/6 139/21 140/10 140/13 140/21 141/4 152/19 153/4 161/9 184/12 184/12 187/16 192/6 211/7 211/8 211/9 223/10 representatives [7] 1/9 55/19 59/9 129/13 161/8 163/12 164/21 represented [4] 40/15 113/11 113/12 189/14 represented -- the [1] 40/15 representing [7] 9/1 29/19 44/6 44/10 133/20 133/24 134/1 Republican [4] 24/19 24/20 147/20 147/21 Republicans [1] 24/24 request [4] 32/2 125/24 175/9 237/1 requested [2] 49/19 158/6 requesting [3] 142/18 142/20 158/11 requests [1] 233/4 require [16] 69/1 69/7 94/8 122/5 126/12 142/17 142/20 158/1 171/21 174/10 174/12 196/7 232/9 232/9 232/13 234/11 required [17] 19/20 22/3 49/1 55/12 68/21 127/6 130/18 142/25 160/22 161/21 171/25 175/3 196/19 224/1 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 228/15 229/3 234/14 requirement [21] 18/24 18/25 34/10 59/11 59/13 59/19 60/20 60/23 103/23 114/15 116/19 128/1 137/10 182/22 199/23 204/1 234/2 234/14 237/18 237/20 238/4 requirements [8] 10/1 10/11 19/16 57/9 67/1 168/5 194/6 231/9 requires [19] 69/12 93/3 110/19 116/20 117/25 124/21 125/8 128/4 141/24 147/24 161/25 174/11 178/16 178/23 204/23 231/13 231/16 231/20 237/22 requiring [8] 92/22 93/2 122/23 137/5 147/19 153/17 160/5 171/19 requisite [4] 9/22 10/4 17/3 142/10 reregister [1] 231/24 rerun [1] 76/1 research [7] 15/16 21/25 111/8 120/14 177/19 185/12 185/22 residency [2] 149/14 168/5 resident [2] 5/20 218/7 residents [3] 19/5 85/23 164/21 resolution [2] 7/10 224/13 resolve [3] 8/6 77/25 87/5 resourced [1] 189/15 resources [2] 123/11 205/2 respect [26] 30/2 61/8 80/10 80/13 81/20 84/16 89/3 95/3 95/12 96/14 140/10 155/3 155/25 158/8 183/7 183/20 202/6 204/22 222/17 223/12 225/18 225/18 225/24 226/2 226/8 227/7 respectfully [6] 14/16 152/8 153/24 208/14 221/20 222/8 respective [2] 9/6 239/5 respectively [1] 13/6 (34) regular - respectively {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} R respond [5] 6/5 6/20 7/7 7/8 209/3 response [23] 29/16 32/1 58/14 76/21 92/9 94/13 94/23 140/19 141/3 158/5 175/9 179/18 182/16 189/13 190/3 190/7 190/8 190/8 206/25 212/13 212/20 233/6 239/24 responses [6] 9/13 10/25 92/6 198/19 232/24 232/25 responsibility [2] 172/22 172/24 responsible [1] 220/13 rest [1] 11/6 restitution [18] 110/14 112/8 112/24 113/1 113/4 113/5 114/22 116/17 116/23 119/18 121/9 121/9 125/14 127/6 129/1 155/13 177/5 197/19 restitutions [1] 122/12 restoration [54] 49/25 58/10 60/1 60/2 86/23 92/22 93/1 98/1 99/16 99/21 103/20 109/19 120/5 121/23 122/21 124/3 130/14 135/24 136/13 136/17 136/21 137/12 137/17 138/6 139/4 140/7 140/16 140/24 142/20 143/15 144/24 151/9 157/15 170/21 172/23 175/11 175/24 176/2 176/5 176/8 176/12 178/24 180/7 183/3 186/14 194/3 211/19 211/25 222/8 222/13 223/1 223/2 232/17 233/23 restore [15] 45/22 45/23 59/5 59/16 60/8 135/12 139/1 144/18 187/17 187/23 201/6 204/18 204/20 213/11 235/3 restored [68] 23/9 55/7 55/10 55/14 56/15 56/24 57/7 57/18 59/12 70/18 70/25 82/17 95/24 103/25 105/7 105/21 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 122/24 125/9 129/17 130/10 135/2 135/5 135/21 136/23 137/3 137/6 138/10 138/15 139/8 139/19 140/23 141/2 143/13 153/13 170/23 171/23 172/8 174/14 176/10 176/18 176/25 177/16 177/18 180/6 180/11 181/10 181/14 182/12 183/22 194/7 196/21 196/25 197/4 197/7 201/5 206/13 208/19 210/5 231/10 231/24 232/7 232/16 232/20 235/8 237/14 237/21 237/25 238/11 restores [3] 139/11 146/3 151/3 restoring [5] 94/9 95/15 135/8 135/16 206/1 restrains [1] 205/1 restrict [1] 216/9 restricted [2] 71/18 129/7 restricting [1] 129/8 restriction [4] 19/15 20/16 20/18 77/8 restrictions [9] 15/20 20/15 76/15 77/1 77/3 84/10 149/19 201/16 215/24 restrictive [1] 91/10 result [12] 19/23 46/4 65/19 68/21 113/6 121/14 125/2 135/18 164/25 172/14 184/2 217/23 resulted [2] 16/22 17/1 results [2] 37/3 113/4 resume [1] 7/7 resuming [1] 7/8 retained [3] 14/15 31/20 31/22 retaining [1] 148/11 return [2] 87/25 217/12 revenue [2] 111/17 217/15 Reverend [2] 220/9 220/16 review [26] 11/18 17/24 20/20 70/15 90/16 91/7 156/22 156/23 162/9 165/21 168/23 169/24 169/25 170/3 172/13 173/15 173/20 182/10 182/17 188/20 189/8 200/6 213/23 233/25 234/4 234/6 reviewed [6] 12/15 12/16 25/1 25/18 33/12 162/11 reviewer [2] 33/14 33/19 reviewing [2] 33/20 135/9 revised [3] 121/13 194/3 194/4 revision [1] 186/23 revocation [1] 183/2 revoked [1] 154/22 revolved [1] 234/25 revote [1] 128/19 rewrite [1] 143/23 rewriting [1] 172/3 Reynolds [2] 164/18 168/1 rhetorical [1] 212/4 rhetorically [1] 39/8 Ricken [1] 213/15 ridiculous [1] 19/16 rights [186] 23/9 32/19 45/13 45/22 45/23 46/2 50/1 51/14 55/7 55/9 55/14 56/15 56/24 57/7 57/12 57/17 59/6 59/12 59/16 59/17 60/2 60/9 67/4 67/6 67/8 70/18 70/24 71/13 72/8 76/20 78/3 78/7 80/12 82/17 84/17 86/23 90/17 90/24 91/3 91/7 93/1 94/9 95/16 95/24 98/1 99/17 99/21 102/10 103/20 103/25 105/6 105/19 105/21 115/20 116/24 116/25 118/3 120/5 122/21 122/24 123/13 124/3 124/13 125/9 129/17 130/2 130/10 130/14 135/3 135/6 135/8 135/12 135/20 135/21 135/25 136/5 136/13 136/17 136/21 136/23 137/3 137/6 137/12 137/17 138/6 138/8 138/9 138/14 139/1 139/5 139/8 139/17 139/19 140/8 140/23 140/24 141/2 142/21 143/13 143/15 144/13 144/19 144/24 146/3 151/9 153/13 154/22 157/15 160/14 160/15 164/10 170/21 170/23 171/23 172/1 172/8 172/9 172/23 174/13 175/11 175/12 175/25 176/3 176/5 176/8 176/8 176/13 176/18 176/24 177/15 177/17 178/24 180/5 180/8 180/10 181/14 182/11 182/12 183/1 183/3 183/20 183/22 187/18 187/21 187/23 188/1 192/11 192/16 194/6 196/25 197/4 197/6 201/5 201/6 201/17 205/21 206/1 210/5 211/14 211/18 213/11 213/14 214/2 215/12 215/24 219/15 221/14 222/20 223/2 224/7 224/21 226/18 229/17 231/10 231/23 232/7 232/16 232/20 235/3 235/7 235/8 237/14 237/21 237/25 238/10 238/11 righty [1] 47/15 rise [1] 21/17 road [1] 148/5 Roblez [2] 53/3 53/9 role [1] 143/25 roles [5] 172/2 190/18 191/1 231/18 237/19 room [1] 4/11 root [1] 185/15 roots [2] 71/12 150/12 roughly [3] 50/23 118/25 220/3 routinely [2] 118/21 215/23 RPR [2] 1/22 241/11 rubber [1] 148/5 rule [18] 9/7 10/11 11/10 17/7 17/18 22/1 26/19 27/15 27/24 105/15 145/9 145/14 145/22 145/24 175/3 175/4 206/10 206/11 rules [4] 9/7 17/8 27/24 206/10 ruling [2] 6/11 6/13 run [6] 108/18 108/19 108/20 108/22 120/14 126/5 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter running [1] 192/20 S sacrosanct [1] 221/9 safe [1] 87/25 safeguards [1] 78/3 safety [15] 26/7 32/1 97/14 99/13 120/11 125/25 175/1 175/6 176/5 180/14 190/25 231/14 231/21 231/25 237/23 salutary [1] 170/24 satellite [3] 230/9 230/11 235/20 satellite-based [2] 230/9 230/11 satisfaction [1] 114/16 satisfied [1] 198/5 satisfies [1] 182/22 satisfy [3] 92/14 95/24 228/11 satisfying [1] 131/19 savvy [1] 8/8 saw [3] 131/12 150/8 150/9 saying [15] 35/19 39/19 42/1 97/9 129/15 143/12 147/21 150/19 152/16 171/7 171/11 173/9 178/19 182/1 223/7 says [33] 4/14 38/17 39/4 40/7 42/17 59/25 68/7 68/22 98/24 99/19 101/12 101/19 129/19 129/23 135/4 138/20 140/5 143/22 148/25 154/7 163/10 164/23 169/5 170/18 176/7 177/16 178/1 179/2 191/2 208/20 210/1 222/9 235/24 scheduling [2] 49/15 49/17 scheme [20] 54/21 54/24 55/12 55/19 56/2 56/8 60/24 81/5 81/10 82/11 82/15 82/19 86/23 103/6 137/13 155/20 199/21 223/16 233/21 233/23 schemes [1] 54/13 scholarship [4] 12/22 25/2 25/2 61/5 SCHOLER [1] 2/5 school [8] 72/24 90/14 184/25 216/20 218/9 218/11 218/13 (35) respond - school {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} S school... [1] 218/14 schooling [1] 75/15 schools [5] 51/1 217/16 218/4 218/8 218/10 science [18] 12/13 12/16 12/18 12/19 12/20 14/13 14/19 32/10 32/13 32/20 33/6 33/8 33/11 33/15 33/16 33/18 34/1 212/21 scientific [3] 20/14 20/21 22/7 scientist [7] 14/17 16/5 16/13 32/13 33/17 35/20 42/9 scientists [3] 16/4 16/7 33/23 scope [2] 55/3 236/1 score [1] 173/16 Scotland [1] 140/21 scratch [2] 82/6 223/20 screen [5] 4/13 134/8 141/16 222/24 233/2 screening [1] 33/12 scroll [1] 175/16 scrutiny [62] 70/10 70/11 78/20 78/21 79/1 79/3 85/8 85/12 85/20 86/14 86/22 88/9 89/20 89/21 89/24 90/2 90/3 90/5 90/8 90/19 90/21 90/25 91/1 91/8 91/17 91/19 92/14 124/12 124/17 128/7 128/13 131/10 132/21 132/21 154/24 156/19 156/20 157/22 157/25 162/22 163/4 163/18 163/18 164/23 165/15 165/16 166/14 173/24 174/3 174/4 203/9 208/4 224/20 228/3 228/5 228/5 228/7 228/11 228/15 234/9 234/11 234/13 se [1] 168/9 seats [1] 165/7 second [24] 10/3 28/18 29/24 35/13 55/5 57/11 59/25 61/7 79/6 82/15 87/19 94/3 100/25 140/4 169/18 175/22 176/3 181/23 190/13 199/10 200/3 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 205/23 231/19 233/6 Secondly [1] 32/17 secret [1] 209/6 section [66] 11/2 14/4 17/18 18/1 20/25 21/2 21/4 22/9 22/10 22/21 23/24 24/1 24/10 25/23 26/1 26/19 26/24 32/24 40/4 42/19 65/23 67/9 71/11 76/9 78/18 87/10 89/14 91/25 101/6 105/5 105/18 109/22 109/23 114/19 114/24 117/1 118/6 121/22 122/3 124/2 124/12 128/8 132/19 134/16 134/17 134/17 134/21 134/22 135/13 137/18 140/2 140/4 140/5 161/24 175/10 193/12 194/24 195/7 195/13 196/12 201/6 201/8 202/3 202/18 204/9 212/24 sections [17] 9/5 9/7 11/6 11/13 11/14 11/17 13/1 13/2 17/4 17/6 17/10 17/10 17/17 17/22 27/23 134/14 140/5 Sections II [1] 11/13 seeing [2] 62/19 217/6 seek [7] 56/15 105/4 127/8 142/9 143/19 196/1 204/7 seeking [4] 34/25 49/16 132/2 167/13 seeks [4] 13/20 14/5 18/2 233/9 seem [5] 79/18 79/21 130/20 208/11 223/18 seen [6] 21/17 106/21 181/22 217/2 217/7 218/24 segments [1] 73/13 segregation [1] 154/4 segue [1] 184/17 segues [1] 118/4 selected [1] 14/24 selection [1] 169/20 self [4] 66/6 67/10 161/23 240/7 self-executing [2] 66/6 67/10 self-imposed [1] 240/7 semantics [1] 222/9 seminal [2] 123/18 164/18 Senate [3] 165/7 193/22 216/19 senator [30] 58/15 58/19 59/7 59/14 59/20 59/23 60/6 60/11 60/13 60/17 137/4 138/17 138/18 141/13 144/15 153/4 165/9 165/9 165/10 170/9 196/17 196/23 197/1 209/24 210/1 210/23 222/25 223/3 223/11 234/18 send [19] 50/25 62/23 62/24 72/23 96/18 97/5 97/9 98/17 171/3 171/10 171/13 171/14 178/12 178/20 181/19 231/17 237/11 237/13 238/10 sends [8] 96/24 97/15 171/1 171/6 180/19 219/7 238/4 238/9 sense [9] 70/16 83/20 99/8 108/7 116/8 139/8 160/2 188/3 229/6 sensitive [1] 7/9 sent [2] 32/2 240/2 sentence [64] 26/11 53/25 57/12 57/18 57/23 57/25 58/11 59/6 59/25 65/17 99/2 100/2 100/22 101/2 112/7 121/12 138/10 138/13 138/22 138/23 139/2 139/12 139/16 140/17 141/11 143/8 144/22 144/25 146/4 152/21 167/9 169/7 169/8 170/20 172/2 176/18 176/24 181/9 183/22 184/14 186/2 186/3 186/6 186/7 186/8 187/14 187/17 187/24 187/25 188/10 191/2 191/11 191/22 211/11 213/12 222/20 227/5 231/23 232/6 232/6 232/18 232/19 238/14 238/15 sentenced [2] 45/24 53/22 sentences [10] 99/9 99/17 135/11 185/6 185/14 185/23 186/20 196/13 206/9 232/2 sentencing [20] 100/13 118/7 131/25 143/13 184/1 184/19 184/22 184/23 185/1 185/3 185/5 185/9 185/9 185/11 185/11 185/16 185/24 186/17 186/18 187/7 sentiments [3] 150/23 150/24 239/20 separate [3] 15/10 47/9 84/13 separating [1] 208/12 separation [1] 143/24 September [4] 7/15 7/20 240/8 241/9 September 4th [1] 240/8 sequence [2] 193/24 194/1 series [1] 145/2 serious [8] 27/4 32/5 39/11 55/2 157/4 157/5 157/9 216/1 seriously [1] 30/11 seriousness [1] 157/1 serve [3] 14/25 91/21 93/8 served [24] 1/4 15/5 33/7 33/9 34/2 34/4 34/5 34/7 58/11 92/9 92/20 92/24 93/13 93/14 102/23 140/16 184/14 190/5 190/9 206/8 233/5 233/10 233/14 234/19 serves [6] 92/2 92/4 94/25 219/5 227/17 228/14 Service [1] 207/10 serving [13] 34/7 87/20 121/12 139/12 141/11 169/7 169/8 181/8 191/1 191/21 231/14 232/6 232/18 session [5] 1/16 54/20 69/4 137/21 241/3 set [6] 47/12 57/4 142/1 149/8 185/6 200/10 sets [1] 222/6 setting [1] 213/13 settled [3] 20/13 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 84/15 89/6 sever [2] 105/18 144/7 severability [4] 105/13 105/15 142/24 146/10 severable [1] 144/5 several [9] 15/6 30/18 32/5 33/14 34/2 58/25 101/8 197/21 224/7 severely [1] 89/16 shackles [1] 147/23 Shakita [1] 218/2 shall [12] 67/23 68/7 68/23 71/12 115/1 121/9 134/19 135/1 135/2 135/5 135/20 138/9 shape [1] 219/3 share [10] 20/5 53/2 72/18 72/21 72/21 72/25 83/19 118/20 134/8 233/1 sharing [2] 141/16 175/1 she [23] 21/15 98/24 99/19 99/19 101/14 107/11 129/20 151/22 190/2 190/19 190/20 190/21 191/2 191/3 191/4 191/11 191/14 207/23 218/4 218/8 218/11 218/24 219/18 she's [1] 218/6 sheer [1] 38/13 Shelby [2] 192/9 192/10 shift [2] 185/8 185/10 shifts [1] 84/9 shock [1] 73/24 shook [1] 223/19 short [3] 44/14 44/15 194/16 shortly [1] 51/8 shot [1] 57/25 should [64] 6/22 7/16 7/17 11/10 12/9 16/5 17/7 17/11 21/1 29/22 29/25 30/1 30/22 35/11 45/1 50/4 53/6 53/8 67/4 70/22 73/24 74/23 75/10 85/25 89/24 90/3 91/1 99/6 115/23 127/3 138/17 139/1 148/19 148/23 153/1 153/8 154/1 154/2 154/3 154/6 156/21 162/11 163/3 (36) school... - should {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} S should... [21] 172/10 190/17 194/9 198/14 206/17 207/5 207/6 207/13 207/16 210/9 210/17 211/6 218/14 221/21 223/4 228/5 230/20 232/9 235/5 235/6 235/7 shouldn't [1] 155/11 show [32] 22/5 38/11 57/21 61/22 64/19 80/3 84/10 90/13 91/9 91/13 91/21 93/7 100/15 100/17 101/10 101/21 132/1 137/21 142/7 142/19 154/17 157/22 174/17 175/22 176/3 198/5 198/8 202/3 205/8 233/1 236/11 237/13 showed [7] 40/19 63/7 95/12 179/2 220/2 222/24 226/12 showing [14] 5/8 5/15 25/3 84/3 84/12 94/8 131/16 141/20 141/23 160/20 170/5 185/12 195/20 197/12 shown [9] 91/13 91/17 144/4 156/18 195/13 196/11 202/7 217/25 224/24 shows [17] 22/14 38/4 42/19 45/15 61/24 62/8 62/9 63/10 63/17 65/1 111/14 113/9 113/13 113/19 128/21 131/23 185/22 shrinking [1] 76/23 sic [1] 153/3 side [9] 29/10 53/17 58/8 66/10 108/15 108/17 222/9 223/9 233/1 side's [1] 16/10 sidestep [1] 202/1 sign [4] 147/20 181/6 181/7 192/1 significant [14] 21/17 22/14 23/5 42/4 42/4 65/16 112/12 124/1 131/13 132/18 196/10 197/10 208/9 209/23 significantly [2] 199/5 236/2 silent [4] 215/18 215/19 218/16 219/5 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} similar [6] 16/10 33/20 77/17 120/18 219/21 233/21 similarly [15] 85/5 85/13 85/22 86/25 87/8 87/12 87/23 97/4 99/2 108/11 108/12 112/20 124/19 125/2 131/8 simple [3] 21/5 125/7 142/21 simplest [1] 224/13 simplifies [2] 95/15 103/8 simplifying [1] 96/8 simply [32] 15/13 20/22 22/2 24/25 31/5 42/12 42/21 77/6 81/8 90/5 94/13 103/15 105/12 108/3 116/24 148/14 166/15 191/4 201/1 201/23 202/17 205/15 207/23 208/19 208/20 210/24 222/9 223/16 226/1 227/21 233/9 236/4 Sims [2] 164/18 168/1 since [8] 6/2 26/18 194/2 199/14 199/14 217/2 217/7 236/21 Singh [1] 199/18 single [5] 20/22 63/14 218/2 228/6 228/9 sir [6] 8/1 109/14 119/9 119/13 129/3 184/18 sitting [3] 53/20 209/17 209/18 situated [12] 85/5 85/14 85/23 86/25 87/9 87/12 87/23 108/11 108/12 124/19 125/2 131/9 situation [9] 98/11 119/16 156/20 158/12 192/17 209/3 209/16 210/23 215/13 situations [1] 159/13 sketch [1] 223/19 skill [1] 11/25 Skinner [4] 148/20 148/25 149/6 152/2 slice [1] 51/9 slide [8] 52/23 57/14 57/17 59/22 60/6 61/23 96/21 97/7 slides [1] 53/4 slightly [1] 77/17 small [4] 56/21 63/24 114/4 214/24 smaller [2] 74/14 74/20 so-called [1] 102/13 social [7] 12/5 12/20 33/23 212/21 217/6 219/16 219/20 societal [2] 45/19 219/6 society [5] 13/16 16/17 88/1 219/10 219/11 society's [2] 169/19 219/17 sole [4] 80/4 229/9 229/20 229/22 solely [7] 21/23 28/25 124/14 127/3 128/15 131/9 235/21 somebody [3] 103/21 191/10 211/17 somebody's [1] 191/24 somehow [9] 68/12 103/7 155/21 189/22 189/23 190/16 225/23 226/1 227/25 someone [20] 39/9 53/2 60/9 120/8 126/7 139/2 170/10 171/25 174/19 181/13 186/4 191/12 196/9 206/11 208/12 215/1 232/4 232/11 232/16 237/19 something [16] 38/16 41/15 41/16 41/24 106/5 117/14 120/13 120/18 137/25 146/16 147/25 159/15 187/3 204/24 210/10 210/18 sometimes [3] 120/16 219/1 226/6 somewhere [1] 235/11 soon [4] 60/9 167/9 177/16 188/5 sordid [1] 193/10 sorry [13] 12/21 53/1 75/8 77/19 98/12 101/4 107/18 118/12 125/16 175/7 230/2 238/7 239/23 sort [19] 14/3 104/12 105/2 105/11 108/7 117/4 119/15 138/22 139/13 144/8 155/8 155/24 168/18 183/4 187/8 224/12 226/25 229/9 230/13 sorts [1] 149/18 sought [5] 43/19 116/13 137/14 196/5 198/2 sound [1] 90/18 source [1] 111/17 South [2] 13/14 13/15 Southern [1] 13/13 spare [1] 115/13 speak [8] 10/23 44/6 44/19 118/12 122/10 201/13 221/13 239/2 SPEAKER [1] 1/8 speaking [3] 8/4 64/10 126/4 Spearman [2] 220/9 220/16 special [3] 2/16 68/13 241/3 specialization [1] 12/22 specialize [1] 32/20 specialized [4] 15/23 16/15 16/19 16/20 specializes [3] 9/16 16/10 32/17 specializing [1] 33/10 specialties [1] 15/4 specialty [1] 16/10 specific [13] 10/1 15/19 16/1 22/12 22/17 50/21 89/12 104/2 123/3 159/12 188/8 188/12 189/3 specifically [33] 9/5 11/1 13/19 26/5 26/8 27/7 31/22 55/3 56/9 58/20 71/15 71/20 76/20 80/14 81/20 82/4 101/17 105/4 109/21 116/19 126/5 151/17 161/21 161/25 190/19 191/12 199/11 201/21 202/14 202/24 208/24 225/9 233/9 specificity [1] 227/11 specifics [1] 120/7 specified [1] 111/5 speculate [1] 191/3 speculating [1] 58/25 speech [19] 88/12 88/14 88/23 89/7 89/8 89/15 89/20 90/1 91/5 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 115/6 115/8 200/20 200/21 201/8 201/17 201/25 201/25 202/12 202/20 spending [1] 111/10 spent [1] 12/4 split [4] 24/13 24/21 24/22 76/4 splits [1] 25/15 splitting [2] 49/14 133/21 spoke [2] 11/24 74/8 sponsors [1] 140/11 spontaneously [1] 211/25 spot [1] 108/16 square [1] 201/14 St [3] 1/22 2/3 241/11 stack [1] 98/7 staggering [2] 61/15 64/16 stagnant [1] 111/7 stain [1] 82/24 stake [3] 219/1 219/1 219/19 stand [6] 15/15 31/5 79/24 236/3 236/4 239/14 standard [16] 9/25 10/5 10/8 16/12 17/20 118/8 127/14 128/7 131/7 154/24 156/21 192/23 203/7 213/4 228/19 236/14 standards [4] 17/18 22/2 69/22 70/6 standing [7] 85/15 123/11 136/2 142/10 142/10 142/14 146/8 stands [2] 85/11 88/18 Stanton [2] 2/5 4/20 stark [1] 65/5 start [4] 11/7 79/8 92/18 223/20 started [2] 8/15 80/20 starting [3] 52/3 223/21 233/6 starts [3] 58/6 63/19 163/7 state [217] 1/5 2/19 9/13 10/25 16/3 16/25 23/11 23/14 24/5 25/21 37/1 41/12 44/6 44/11 44/14 48/25 53/19 53/24 64/11 65/6 65/8 65/21 66/20 66/23 67/1 67/3 68/1 (37) should... - state {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} S state... [190] 68/5 68/6 69/16 70/9 70/20 71/7 73/19 73/20 74/22 74/24 76/6 76/14 76/17 76/22 77/2 77/6 77/13 77/16 78/6 81/25 84/25 86/14 86/16 87/1 87/25 90/17 90/24 91/21 91/24 92/15 92/19 93/12 93/16 94/3 94/7 94/8 94/12 94/18 94/19 94/21 94/24 95/9 96/1 96/13 96/15 96/16 96/23 97/4 97/9 97/13 97/14 97/15 97/18 97/25 98/4 98/10 98/14 98/16 98/19 98/20 99/4 99/15 99/24 100/7 101/5 101/17 101/22 101/23 104/7 104/10 104/17 106/19 108/23 110/14 111/20 115/12 115/22 118/8 121/1 121/2 121/3 121/15 122/4 122/7 122/10 122/20 127/2 127/19 128/13 128/22 131/5 131/20 133/20 134/1 134/1 134/24 134/25 135/1 141/25 151/24 158/24 159/15 163/2 163/19 165/17 165/18 165/21 166/15 166/19 166/22 167/4 167/5 169/11 169/14 171/1 171/6 171/17 171/19 171/24 171/25 178/10 178/12 178/19 178/23 179/17 180/19 181/4 181/16 181/18 182/3 182/10 183/2 183/4 186/21 186/22 189/21 190/3 190/20 191/9 191/15 191/17 191/18 191/23 193/22 194/4 194/18 199/2 199/19 205/18 206/19 213/12 213/21 215/6 215/8 215/11 216/19 216/25 217/19 219/20 220/3 220/9 221/3 221/9 222/6 226/8 226/16 226/22 227/3 227/7 227/11 227/20 228/22 231/13 231/21 232/9 232/10 232/23 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 233/7 233/11 233/12 233/19 233/21 235/17 235/19 236/7 236/8 236/9 237/22 238/4 238/9 state's [7] 65/14 65/18 73/5 99/23 166/16 166/18 217/17 stated [6] 30/25 56/18 78/16 94/23 133/12 150/13 statement [5] 36/24 59/2 208/5 222/18 223/10 states [42] 13/15 13/18 18/8 22/13 27/4 41/17 53/18 54/11 54/12 58/8 67/22 71/1 71/20 71/21 99/2 121/5 134/18 134/24 134/24 145/11 147/16 151/16 163/7 163/13 165/20 166/20 166/23 167/3 167/7 167/7 167/10 167/14 167/14 167/15 167/17 185/10 192/13 197/16 205/19 213/14 225/15 232/4 states' [2] 151/16 168/17 States's [1] 122/18 Statesman [2] 115/5 115/9 statewide [6] 24/3 24/14 62/3 113/22 119/3 119/5 stations [1] 34/11 statistical [10] 11/20 12/10 14/1 14/2 14/6 14/7 14/9 16/21 27/20 27/20 statistics [10] 13/24 27/10 51/8 51/24 61/16 61/20 61/20 83/4 156/3 237/12 status [12] 203/16 203/17 203/20 203/21 204/1 204/7 204/13 204/18 204/21 204/22 215/16 235/21 statute [149] 49/20 51/6 52/4 57/5 60/16 60/18 70/17 70/19 70/23 71/1 76/10 79/5 79/6 79/12 81/7 81/9 82/5 82/10 82/19 82/25 83/12 83/16 83/17 83/18 84/14 87/13 87/19 89/18 93/4 93/9 94/10 96/3 103/13 103/18 103/19 104/3 105/16 106/6 106/12 107/12 108/10 109/8 110/21 116/14 120/5 121/5 121/13 122/9 122/22 123/16 123/24 124/9 124/15 124/19 129/12 135/19 135/25 136/19 136/21 139/5 139/10 140/1 141/19 141/20 142/21 142/23 143/3 143/6 143/9 143/15 143/18 144/7 144/9 144/10 145/4 145/6 145/14 145/16 145/19 145/21 146/1 146/2 150/9 151/9 152/22 153/23 153/24 153/25 154/17 155/2 157/15 158/2 168/25 171/10 173/13 173/14 173/15 173/17 182/21 190/10 195/2 195/21 196/18 196/19 196/22 197/7 199/6 199/8 199/8 199/10 200/11 201/6 202/21 203/17 203/19 204/10 204/11 205/10 205/11 205/13 207/25 208/24 209/25 210/6 210/10 210/17 210/21 211/3 211/4 212/3 214/1 222/7 222/8 222/9 222/11 222/13 229/13 229/16 230/15 230/21 231/12 231/19 231/20 232/4 237/10 237/12 237/16 237/17 238/3 statute's [1] 116/19 statutes [9] 81/16 83/14 122/11 122/15 159/7 168/22 195/10 214/10 214/12 statutory [21] 54/21 54/24 55/12 55/19 56/2 56/8 60/24 79/22 81/5 81/10 82/11 82/15 82/19 113/5 113/17 121/11 121/12 136/6 136/16 223/15 231/9 Stead [1] 5/8 Steele [4] 6/1 8/3 134/8 240/3 Stein [1] 2/15 step [1] 31/8 Stephanie [2] 2/12 104/13 105/2 143/22 5/4 145/18 154/3 158/15 Stephenson [13] 230/13 66/22 67/18 67/19 69/17 69/24 84/19 strike-through [3] 85/10 159/18 159/24 104/13 105/2 230/13 160/1 160/3 160/10 strikes [1] 73/14 160/18 striking [1] 142/21 stripped [1] 221/18 sticking [1] 239/6 still [59] 18/8 18/17 strong [3] 68/19 210/5 224/16 21/22 28/11 43/17 43/20 54/18 55/4 strongly [2] 50/6 87/3 61/11 70/5 82/15 97/23 101/8 101/9 struck [8] 34/12 34/15 34/17 34/23 103/1 105/3 107/20 117/11 117/22 118/1 123/20 127/21 143/9 225/9 118/1 120/8 129/21 129/22 130/3 153/9 structured [4] 100/13 153/14 153/17 153/20 184/22 186/17 187/7 153/21 154/8 156/4 struggling [1] 8/7 167/3 169/7 172/16 stubbornly [1] 111/7 173/7 173/12 176/20 stuck [2] 154/6 156/4 177/4 177/8 177/8 student [1] 86/12 180/10 181/8 182/2 students [4] 86/15 183/16 183/25 184/24 86/17 90/15 90/17 190/23 192/7 207/25 studied [2] 14/13 209/4 209/16 211/15 41/4 211/16 211/17 212/2 study [11] 12/7 14/21 14/23 20/23 24/14 225/4 228/8 238/12 27/12 27/13 41/8 stole [2] 156/9 132/3 132/3 236/19 156/10 stop [5] 56/7 101/11 study's [1] 27/7 141/15 176/22 221/20 studying [1] 12/4 subcategories [1] stored [1] 118/3 12/21 story [1] 55/22 straightforward [1] subclasses [1] 144/13 89/2 subject [16] 12/25 strange [1] 189/15 strategy [2] 54/6 54/8 13/20 14/20 14/25 16/20 20/6 20/20 streamlines [2] 27/18 69/20 69/22 95/16 103/7 79/1 85/8 89/20 122/2 streamlining [1] 162/9 188/10 96/10 street [3] 2/9 55/24 subjected [3] 11/18 17/24 46/6 55/24 submissions [1] strength [1] 11/4 7/13 stress [1] 126/11 submit [4] 66/13 stricken [3] 15/9 221/21 224/11 230/21 42/25 143/3 submitted [8] 59/24 strict [24] 70/11 102/17 102/18 121/20 78/20 78/21 89/24 90/2 90/5 90/25 91/16 123/25 132/18 219/12 124/12 128/7 131/10 219/21 132/21 156/19 156/20 subpoena [2] 174/24 157/22 157/25 163/18 175/4 164/23 165/15 173/24 subpopulation [1] 154/13 174/3 174/3 208/4 228/4 subsection [10] 65/20 105/6 121/5 strictly [1] 67/25 strike [9] 42/20 104/2 121/14 134/22 175/23 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (38) state... - subsection {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} S subsection... [4] 231/11 231/16 231/20 237/18 subsequent [2] 193/13 237/20 subset [3] 55/1 56/22 229/11 substantial [3] 85/1 124/20 131/8 substantially [14] 57/1 84/23 85/4 85/7 85/13 86/7 87/6 87/11 87/17 88/5 88/7 95/11 124/16 194/6 substantiation [1] 92/14 substantive [3] 9/20 10/12 14/8 substantively [2] 9/23 151/10 substitute [1] 58/1 subtopics [2] 15/3 16/15 succeed [3] 50/6 110/2 203/11 success [3] 1/4 203/8 215/16 successful [3] 57/8 59/13 117/6 successfully [1] 224/24 such [26] 22/7 22/16 27/22 45/19 52/8 56/13 70/19 70/25 73/12 74/1 85/6 99/13 99/20 99/20 99/25 115/13 121/4 126/14 127/7 135/21 138/9 158/2 160/12 162/4 165/6 201/16 suffer [2] 203/9 218/1 suffered [2] 218/18 220/18 suffice [1] 15/3 suffices [1] 75/23 sufficient [9] 11/15 11/23 17/21 23/18 26/20 121/16 125/5 149/14 229/9 sufficiently [1] 63/15 suffrage [6] 54/3 115/8 134/12 159/19 161/18 162/10 suggest [7] 36/23 47/10 103/25 104/14 105/3 228/12 230/14 suggesting [5] 6/5 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 34/15 37/13 58/16 186/11 suggestion [5] 70/13 103/6 190/19 225/19 225/24 suggests [3] 138/12 138/12 177/14 Suite [1] 2/3 sum [4] 121/20 123/25 132/10 217/13 summary [21] 6/15 9/14 11/1 48/6 48/7 48/24 49/13 50/3 56/11 124/5 197/18 206/24 206/24 207/2 207/5 207/14 207/16 221/21 236/24 236/25 237/3 superior [8] 1/1 1/16 44/24 70/4 114/9 136/25 147/4 241/4 supervised [2] 106/7 106/16 supervisees [1] 175/12 supervision [131] 18/6 23/8 24/3 25/9 26/9 26/12 50/24 51/6 51/11 51/20 60/21 61/17 62/3 62/5 62/11 63/12 64/4 64/13 64/25 65/8 65/10 73/6 73/11 73/14 73/21 74/5 74/11 74/22 75/4 75/10 75/17 77/20 77/23 78/11 78/12 78/25 83/7 83/13 87/15 87/21 87/22 88/4 88/6 89/13 89/18 91/14 92/1 95/7 96/5 97/13 97/16 98/22 99/12 100/4 100/10 100/11 100/14 100/24 101/3 101/4 101/7 101/9 101/13 101/15 101/20 102/2 103/14 103/22 103/24 105/10 105/21 105/24 110/12 110/18 110/19 112/15 112/20 112/22 113/1 113/3 114/17 117/19 120/4 120/7 121/11 121/11 122/17 122/24 124/22 124/24 125/8 126/1 126/22 126/23 128/2 128/25 131/14 131/19 132/16 138/14 142/5 154/13 154/15 172/6 172/7 175/13 175/15 176/6 177/5 177/15 190/6 195/9 195/15 195/25 196/5 197/13 201/12 201/13 201/18 202/21 222/16 224/3 226/11 226/15 226/20 226/21 226/25 228/13 229/18 232/5 237/24 supervisions [2] 72/20 96/8 supervisory [1] 172/21 supplanted [1] 100/12 supplement [1] 226/13 supplied [1] 197/17 supplies [1] 87/11 support [11] 9/12 50/6 89/5 94/10 94/15 147/21 170/2 188/19 197/17 234/2 234/3 supported [4] 84/3 141/12 141/13 189/6 supporter [2] 55/20 81/1 supporting [2] 96/3 108/13 suppose [1] 181/3 supposed [4] 72/17 98/2 101/24 226/17 suppress [3] 54/6 80/12 80/15 suppressing [1] 51/18 suppression [2] 13/14 61/7 supremacists [1] 51/17 Supremacy [2] 158/22 160/21 Supreme [38] 20/6 66/19 67/20 72/15 81/20 82/2 82/3 84/18 84/24 85/2 85/17 86/1 86/2 86/5 86/11 88/17 90/7 90/13 91/6 104/5 104/11 116/1 123/21 127/10 127/21 145/2 145/11 163/7 164/19 169/15 192/10 194/4 205/19 213/14 225/8 225/15 228/23 236/4 sure [41] 4/4 4/8 8/4 14/20 62/21 63/1 75/19 100/11 102/12 107/4 107/8 109/4 117/16 118/14 125/23 129/5 130/3 141/8 152/9 155/16 158/20 167/2 167/5 171/8 172/20 174/16 178/23 179/11 181/17 182/13 183/21 184/25 187/10 209/6 209/13 231/22 236/19 237/15 237/23 238/9 240/4 surely [2] 76/11 89/8 surprise [1] 189/10 surrounding [1] 75/24 Surry [2] 161/8 161/11 survive [1] 132/21 suspect [3] 85/9 162/25 200/7 suspended [3] 86/12 86/15 90/15 sustain [1] 215/23 sworn [1] 223/11 system [18] 12/12 13/15 16/25 26/4 26/23 32/22 41/16 45/20 46/4 111/17 114/11 127/14 184/1 184/5 185/12 187/10 225/22 225/25 T table [1] 74/17 taint [2] 75/23 82/2 take [31] 6/10 6/12 6/19 12/9 31/8 41/11 49/1 49/2 77/17 97/19 129/15 130/2 136/24 143/25 144/2 152/22 153/12 153/14 160/25 162/25 171/18 187/18 206/20 212/14 213/5 217/2 222/4 231/7 231/13 238/19 238/22 taken [11] 126/7 159/21 172/1 182/12 210/9 231/10 231/18 237/19 238/10 241/3 241/5 takes [1] 104/2 taking [2] 48/21 140/23 talk [14] 35/13 61/5 65/15 70/11 142/16 143/5 144/5 153/18 184/4 189/12 191/17 192/23 200/19 205/23 talked [6] 40/4 159/3 164/22 170/4 185/19 215/16 talking [18] 28/10 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 35/6 40/16 93/12 140/17 141/4 141/4 151/4 155/23 157/1 170/9 174/21 182/23 183/6 190/14 197/5 207/24 230/1 talks [6] 140/20 164/9 166/13 175/19 185/3 185/8 tangible [1] 116/7 tantamount [1] 129/12 targeted [1] 202/14 taught [7] 13/10 13/12 14/1 14/13 19/19 33/2 33/3 tax [12] 14/22 93/10 93/11 93/13 127/21 127/21 127/24 127/25 199/3 199/5 214/17 217/14 taxes [2] 50/25 72/23 taxpayers [1] 111/22 teaches [1] 33/2 techniques [1] 11/17 technological [1] 8/6 technologically [1] 8/8 tell [8] 171/5 171/13 172/8 172/11 179/17 182/4 209/15 209/17 telling [16] 97/23 98/18 171/1 171/15 173/11 178/12 178/13 178/21 180/4 180/19 180/23 181/18 232/16 237/14 238/9 238/11 tells [5] 98/17 99/11 181/16 191/21 226/20 template [2] 96/23 97/8 tenfold [1] 170/22 tens [1] 50/7 tension [3] 66/21 67/6 68/1 term [13] 42/7 57/23 110/20 113/6 116/6 170/11 175/15 185/7 186/4 195/14 196/8 197/19 206/12 termed [1] 116/17 terminate [2] 117/9 119/19 terminated [10] 119/22 119/25 120/8 120/16 176/1 177/2 177/4 177/6 177/21 215/2 termination [2] 120/2 (39) subsection... - termination {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} T termination... [1] 120/18 terms [21] 57/19 64/11 65/17 66/7 67/22 68/22 106/8 118/22 128/24 167/8 168/10 168/12 175/13 186/5 186/6 195/18 195/23 224/9 224/13 226/6 227/19 territory [1] 234/12 test [11] 17/14 19/20 19/22 23/16 27/14 29/1 56/13 93/10 93/15 192/24 192/25 testified [7] 58/21 99/14 101/14 170/9 191/12 191/14 196/17 testifies [1] 144/20 testify [2] 14/18 190/18 testifying [3] 15/14 15/18 144/22 testimony [39] 9/4 9/6 9/10 9/11 9/22 10/1 10/2 11/10 12/1 13/20 15/15 15/21 15/22 15/25 16/9 17/16 20/13 25/12 29/6 30/2 30/3 30/10 30/16 30/19 30/23 31/4 31/9 31/11 35/15 43/14 141/13 189/25 191/18 198/6 209/24 210/2 223/4 223/11 234/18 tests [4] 19/15 19/17 20/2 93/12 tethering [3] 122/20 124/3 214/14 tethers [4] 49/25 109/19 110/4 121/23 Texas [2] 167/24 168/7 text [14] 53/17 58/7 58/19 72/1 134/5 139/9 143/6 145/4 145/6 164/2 166/6 174/16 232/20 232/21 Texvy [1] 72/16 than [46] 7/15 7/17 8/8 15/17 37/2 43/10 54/10 55/25 63/17 64/11 64/14 64/16 70/11 73/9 73/22 74/15 74/20 76/2 76/8 76/9 78/1 84/17 88/15 91/10 92/22 93/2 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 97/24 107/18 111/12 132/1 132/5 153/16 186/25 187/11 202/20 204/11 205/7 206/17 209/18 214/7 216/16 220/5 220/7 220/8 225/23 240/7 thank [50] 4/17 4/21 4/25 5/6 7/24 7/25 8/2 8/3 8/25 10/22 23/23 28/1 29/8 29/11 29/14 29/17 44/9 46/20 47/1 53/10 63/5 104/21 107/6 109/13 109/15 119/9 133/9 133/13 133/19 134/3 178/8 179/23 183/11 184/18 194/12 204/4 204/6 212/17 222/3 230/4 230/7 230/24 231/6 235/12 235/13 237/5 238/16 239/16 240/6 240/13 that said [1] 109/11 that still [1] 172/16 that's [146] 4/16 5/4 5/10 5/11 6/7 28/17 30/16 36/13 37/9 37/17 41/14 41/18 42/12 43/13 43/19 47/22 48/15 60/11 61/10 61/11 61/25 62/12 62/20 63/11 64/24 65/1 70/16 78/16 81/8 83/8 90/5 92/10 98/2 98/2 103/9 103/15 104/5 104/17 105/14 105/18 107/13 107/22 108/1 108/8 109/8 111/9 113/6 113/18 117/13 120/1 121/4 125/6 125/10 126/4 130/6 139/19 140/18 143/8 146/5 146/19 148/20 149/3 150/15 151/1 153/5 153/12 153/15 155/20 156/6 156/9 156/15 157/21 158/20 158/25 159/13 161/11 163/9 164/12 164/13 164/17 166/11 170/17 171/11 171/16 172/19 173/12 175/21 176/4 176/14 178/1 178/1 180/4 180/7 180/13 180/20 180/25 181/3 181/18 182/20 183/9 187/2 188/1 190/24 192/19 193/5 195/4 197/10 198/18 201/20 203/17 203/18 203/25 205/10 205/13 206/13 206/13 206/25 207/9 208/5 208/5 209/10 210/9 210/17 210/18 211/3 211/25 215/6 217/24 222/4 222/9 223/5 223/16 223/20 225/4 226/1 226/10 230/8 230/17 231/12 231/24 233/23 234/4 236/17 237/18 238/6 239/11 their [234] 5/8 6/17 15/21 23/9 33/12 39/5 39/8 39/13 50/25 51/1 51/1 51/3 52/13 55/6 55/9 55/14 56/15 56/19 57/7 57/12 57/12 58/14 59/12 59/16 60/18 65/17 68/12 70/18 70/24 72/23 72/24 73/1 74/3 74/8 76/14 77/7 77/14 78/5 78/7 78/14 83/19 86/22 87/22 88/1 88/15 89/16 92/3 92/5 92/7 92/8 92/10 92/16 92/19 93/17 95/24 95/24 96/20 97/1 97/3 97/16 98/1 98/1 98/8 99/1 99/8 99/12 99/17 99/17 99/17 99/21 100/1 100/9 100/22 101/2 102/10 102/25 103/25 105/21 107/2 110/11 111/14 112/5 112/7 112/23 112/24 113/1 113/14 115/5 116/24 118/3 118/3 120/4 120/5 121/7 121/17 122/1 122/24 123/3 123/4 123/11 123/13 125/9 125/18 126/21 126/23 127/1 127/5 127/8 128/4 128/24 128/25 131/17 131/21 132/3 135/6 136/23 137/3 137/6 139/2 139/8 139/16 139/16 139/18 140/22 141/2 143/3 143/8 143/13 144/13 145/1 146/2 146/4 149/4 149/13 153/18 153/22 154/6 154/22 166/6 166/10 170/11 170/20 170/21 170/23 171/23 172/1 172/8 172/23 172/23 175/13 177/20 178/4 178/5 178/24 179/16 179/19 180/5 180/10 181/14 181/21 183/20 186/6 187/21 188/1 188/20 189/24 190/1 191/11 192/13 193/10 195/23 196/13 196/21 196/25 197/4 197/13 197/15 197/17 197/20 198/15 198/18 199/24 200/22 201/13 202/10 202/14 202/22 203/20 206/8 206/9 206/12 206/12 206/25 208/18 210/5 211/18 212/6 213/11 213/22 213/25 214/2 214/22 215/2 215/12 217/20 217/22 218/20 219/8 219/9 221/14 222/20 222/20 223/5 224/7 226/18 226/21 226/24 227/22 228/14 231/10 231/22 231/23 232/6 232/7 233/4 233/16 235/7 235/8 235/21 236/2 237/1 237/14 237/24 237/25 them [65] 36/20 37/4 37/4 37/22 52/13 52/21 60/15 78/10 78/13 80/21 83/4 87/3 92/3 92/12 94/12 94/14 94/15 96/25 97/5 97/23 98/18 99/11 110/16 111/1 112/16 118/2 121/19 122/13 126/9 131/18 136/24 147/24 152/14 171/5 171/13 171/13 171/14 171/15 172/8 173/11 174/11 178/21 179/15 180/4 180/23 181/8 186/7 189/4 191/21 191/25 191/25 209/7 209/8 210/4 211/2 211/19 213/20 219/10 221/14 224/11 226/17 226/18 240/2 240/3 240/5 themselves [1] 74/9 then [96] 6/10 6/12 6/14 6/18 6/20 7/2 11/8 24/21 26/14 29/14 41/12 42/25 43/1 45/25 47/13 48/23 49/8 49/24 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 51/25 53/24 60/3 63/19 68/18 68/20 77/15 78/20 89/8 90/2 96/23 97/3 97/5 98/16 102/3 102/4 104/3 105/6 105/6 107/23 109/22 119/22 120/8 126/2 133/12 135/22 136/11 139/18 141/2 141/4 143/4 143/5 146/25 147/2 148/2 149/16 150/25 153/12 158/13 158/24 160/23 163/11 164/7 168/5 168/24 170/4 171/1 171/10 172/4 174/25 175/21 175/25 176/7 176/13 177/9 177/15 180/8 181/9 181/15 186/1 191/3 209/2 209/3 209/17 212/3 212/14 214/25 219/19 227/14 228/5 230/10 230/14 231/5 231/10 231/15 232/19 234/9 235/7 theoretical [1] 38/12 theoretically [1] 38/2 theories [2] 11/17 32/21 theorist [2] 12/5 32/7 theorists [1] 12/10 theory [11] 9/16 12/3 12/7 12/23 16/14 32/18 33/3 77/6 77/8 77/14 77/16 there [170] 4/19 4/19 4/22 4/23 6/2 7/14 8/12 19/5 19/21 28/20 36/25 38/1 38/11 39/11 40/10 40/13 42/14 42/17 43/22 43/24 51/18 53/20 54/23 57/2 61/5 61/21 62/18 65/6 65/9 65/11 65/16 71/5 73/11 74/13 75/5 75/8 76/1 76/3 79/2 79/10 81/22 81/23 83/12 84/6 86/2 103/19 106/5 106/17 112/10 112/21 117/20 118/11 119/15 119/17 119/20 124/6 130/3 132/23 136/19 137/8 137/10 138/2 138/11 139/13 140/6 141/4 141/7 143/4 144/21 145/8 145/15 146/24 147/8 148/7 149/18 (40) termination... - there {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} T there... [95] 149/24 150/9 150/16 150/16 150/17 151/13 151/14 151/15 154/11 156/24 157/18 159/10 160/10 160/16 162/6 162/21 165/5 165/23 166/14 166/20 166/23 167/14 167/15 167/25 168/10 168/11 168/21 169/2 169/10 170/17 173/19 176/23 176/23 178/15 178/18 178/22 178/22 181/20 182/19 183/13 183/16 183/17 183/25 185/20 187/19 187/20 190/14 191/8 191/18 193/7 195/9 195/11 195/17 195/20 196/8 197/21 198/23 199/18 200/15 201/16 202/13 202/15 202/16 206/10 207/8 207/17 210/7 213/17 214/19 216/4 217/10 217/16 220/22 222/18 223/5 223/21 224/9 225/11 225/19 225/24 227/8 228/17 229/11 230/12 232/3 232/7 234/1 234/15 234/20 234/25 235/1 235/24 236/2 236/20 236/24 there's [62] 6/8 20/3 22/4 24/11 28/10 30/25 31/7 34/24 40/20 41/19 41/24 42/5 42/10 44/18 57/19 62/21 67/6 75/3 85/10 90/7 92/10 92/23 100/23 101/24 102/11 102/11 103/14 105/21 106/11 117/24 118/20 142/24 153/7 153/25 156/19 159/9 159/13 160/20 163/8 172/20 173/1 180/15 180/24 181/20 181/21 182/2 182/24 183/24 195/16 199/18 203/13 207/1 208/11 216/4 224/19 225/12 228/4 229/18 234/3 234/6 235/2 238/4 thereby [4] 110/5 131/18 131/21 191/13 therefore [8] 39/20 60/22 84/9 107/24 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 152/13 197/22 198/14 198/19 thereof [2] 27/14 165/1 these [71] 11/14 12/2 13/2 14/8 16/19 17/2 17/10 17/10 20/25 26/14 26/15 26/18 27/7 29/25 33/2 36/25 37/6 37/13 38/14 38/20 50/25 54/1 59/9 59/15 61/20 64/19 64/21 70/12 72/15 72/23 75/11 75/13 75/16 75/20 90/8 90/20 92/23 94/10 94/13 94/17 94/20 100/16 100/17 102/5 111/4 111/6 119/3 121/24 125/17 125/25 130/24 148/8 165/25 168/12 168/14 175/2 179/12 180/16 185/5 186/13 186/22 188/18 195/5 196/25 201/18 218/13 225/12 226/24 229/10 230/16 234/21 they [280] they'd [1] 147/20 they're [10] 40/16 66/21 96/25 97/6 102/10 139/17 166/4 171/12 172/1 191/1 they've [17] 17/23 32/4 100/20 101/1 102/24 106/14 107/11 107/13 151/8 166/9 173/9 178/13 195/2 203/2 206/8 208/22 227/4 thing [18] 35/25 100/12 117/5 129/11 129/18 129/25 139/25 156/3 159/17 160/1 193/5 196/14 222/22 224/4 228/17 229/15 239/7 239/11 things [7] 8/7 32/8 44/18 188/16 189/13 197/21 227/9 think [72] 7/8 7/23 8/7 10/10 10/12 28/17 31/10 35/8 37/5 37/7 37/18 37/24 38/24 38/25 39/2 39/9 39/17 39/21 39/25 41/14 43/20 44/3 44/16 45/4 46/15 47/16 81/7 100/16 102/9 109/3 129/13 130/6 138/1 149/1 153/3 155/5 173/1 173/14 174/8 178/15 181/13 183/13 184/7 184/8 186/10 189/10 189/16 189/24 193/24 194/9 194/21 195/3 196/15 201/15 205/15 205/24 207/17 208/22 209/14 209/22 209/23 210/15 211/6 213/6 222/4 224/16 232/25 235/6 236/2 237/17 238/20 239/8 thinks [1] 31/5 third [11] 10/6 55/12 82/18 86/9 94/7 170/4 191/7 200/8 217/10 220/20 232/22 thirty [1] 55/25 this [418] thorough [1] 71/23 those [148] 6/9 7/6 8/6 9/7 11/6 15/8 20/16 28/11 30/9 30/12 30/20 32/7 32/20 33/10 35/10 35/17 35/25 36/12 36/15 36/18 36/19 36/21 37/21 38/2 39/2 41/1 44/3 58/18 62/1 65/19 67/5 70/8 71/6 71/9 73/24 75/13 75/23 78/12 79/7 84/21 87/22 89/2 91/7 91/11 91/16 92/11 92/16 92/25 93/7 95/21 98/17 99/16 99/23 101/25 102/19 107/25 110/25 113/12 117/8 118/18 119/6 119/25 120/19 124/25 125/20 126/9 126/19 126/25 127/15 127/15 127/17 130/8 131/5 135/12 142/13 145/20 146/2 149/20 150/3 150/23 151/23 151/24 153/14 154/24 156/8 156/15 156/25 157/8 159/12 161/12 162/25 165/20 167/13 167/14 169/8 172/9 173/20 176/13 177/7 177/10 183/20 184/6 187/23 188/15 189/12 190/22 195/18 195/24 196/5 196/6 198/9 198/25 199/7 200/12 200/14 200/16 200/24 201/4 201/5 201/6 201/16 201/17 201/17 201/21 202/2 202/25 203/13 206/3 208/25 210/9 213/1 213/6 213/11 213/19 214/12 216/11 217/22 219/2 226/14 226/15 227/2 227/17 231/11 232/24 239/9 239/10 239/24 239/25 though [12] 58/18 61/24 68/21 117/22 123/14 151/9 153/17 156/2 162/8 208/14 232/15 236/3 thought [3] 32/25 211/8 211/24 thought that [1] 211/8 thousands [1] 50/7 threaten [1] 216/10 three years [1] 82/16 three-judge [17] 5/21 29/5 43/16 43/20 44/22 48/5 48/7 48/8 71/24 84/20 88/16 147/3 148/4 150/8 164/6 236/5 236/17 three-part [1] 142/11 three-prong [1] 23/16 through [53] 9/5 11/13 11/18 13/1 17/4 17/6 17/17 17/22 27/23 38/18 38/18 39/1 39/22 39/24 40/3 49/17 51/19 51/25 52/16 54/21 61/19 78/21 78/22 81/18 83/3 89/22 92/16 92/18 92/19 98/1 104/2 104/13 105/2 110/7 114/16 135/12 150/18 175/16 184/9 188/14 189/19 193/8 197/4 198/5 200/13 204/13 210/10 223/24 224/11 225/1 230/13 231/25 240/10 throughout [5] 41/17 105/5 157/23 189/9 195/4 thus [11] 19/22 27/21 69/7 110/21 123/4 126/13 126/24 127/19 128/23 217/19 218/25 tie [1] 67/7 tight [1] 158/2 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter timekeeping [1] 49/2 times [10] 20/11 62/5 63/21 64/4 83/9 144/14 220/5 220/7 220/8 223/14 timing [1] 212/15 TIMOTHY [1] 1/8 today [38] 5/24 7/2 9/21 21/23 22/5 22/8 22/18 24/13 27/17 44/25 51/20 51/25 53/4 54/19 55/4 55/8 61/4 62/25 82/25 83/15 91/22 92/2 93/8 117/14 134/7 166/22 177/1 183/25 190/2 192/4 192/8 195/16 224/2 225/23 228/14 230/24 234/25 236/17 today's [2] 111/9 192/17 together [3] 89/12 194/21 238/21 told [5] 58/8 133/1 172/10 191/9 209/15 tomorrow [6] 7/7 7/8 106/5 117/15 212/15 239/12 too [7] 10/19 21/4 22/13 25/25 115/11 139/4 220/19 took [6] 26/16 36/23 119/6 147/18 185/15 223/18 tool [2] 51/17 80/15 top [8] 12/18 63/19 64/21 64/23 65/4 100/20 101/6 118/13 topic [2] 14/24 93/22 topics [4] 9/20 14/8 15/1 16/19 total [10] 65/11 73/9 73/19 73/22 76/1 76/7 112/9 116/22 155/12 219/14 totality [1] 194/8 touch [1] 240/12 tough [2] 185/14 187/8 toward [1] 186/20 towards [1] 67/7 town [1] 201/14 toxicity [1] 15/24 toxicologist [1] 15/23 trace [1] 81/11 traceable [1] 142/12 traced [1] 81/14 traces [4] 51/16 (41) there... - traces {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} T traces... [3] 71/12 81/5 81/10 Traci [2] 21/9 131/22 tradition [1] 33/4 trained [1] 32/13 training [7] 11/25 15/23 16/1 32/14 32/16 33/24 35/3 transcribed [1] 241/5 transcript [6] 1/12 1/15 227/1 241/1 241/2 241/4 transcripts [1] 213/19 transfer [1] 111/21 transposed [1] 23/13 treat [1] 118/18 treating [1] 235/25 treatment [4] 68/13 158/9 158/18 159/13 treats [1] 193/3 tremendous [1] 169/4 trend [3] 113/22 130/24 130/25 trial [4] 30/5 43/2 43/4 44/16 tried [2] 37/19 82/23 trier [6] 30/3 35/5 39/1 39/22 45/1 46/17 tries [1] 97/3 triggered [2] 79/3 128/13 triggering [1] 131/9 triggers [2] 88/9 124/12 Trop [1] 169/17 trouble [1] 62/19 true [15] 26/14 26/15 26/18 76/9 128/18 144/3 165/11 186/17 187/24 191/10 213/24 232/3 232/7 234/10 241/4 truthfully [3] 72/5 102/3 149/2 try [11] 40/18 41/22 44/19 74/7 120/14 120/21 126/5 165/23 194/15 201/24 212/10 trying [19] 35/20 35/21 38/10 38/11 38/15 129/25 130/9 138/4 138/5 138/5 160/25 167/18 168/13 171/7 173/17 173/25 183/18 196/19 213/4 Tuesday [1] 1/13 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} turn [16] 38/12 65/22 78/24 84/13 88/9 89/21 97/7 106/1 137/15 171/24 174/25 194/10 206/16 215/3 219/17 234/23 turned [2] 36/5 37/14 turning [4] 52/1 81/4 93/16 159/3 turnout [13] 13/3 13/4 16/16 21/4 21/7 21/11 21/16 21/22 21/25 22/11 22/13 22/14 23/2 turnouts [2] 21/14 21/21 turns [1] 77/4 TV [3] 156/10 156/10 156/13 tweak [2] 153/24 153/25 tweaks [2] 150/17 153/7 two hours [1] 49/1 two-prong [1] 29/1 two-year [1] 141/6 type [7] 30/15 68/25 104/9 106/17 112/17 174/5 205/20 types [1] 61/7 typically [2] 146/18 181/14 typo [1] 56/18 U U.S [15] 20/6 81/20 98/15 104/5 134/18 145/2 145/11 163/23 164/19 165/9 169/15 191/10 192/10 192/12 216/18 ubiquitous [1] 112/2 ultimate [1] 232/15 ultimately [10] 43/2 44/25 46/13 168/21 170/1 171/20 193/14 234/1 234/23 235/9 unable [15] 19/22 19/22 19/23 20/1 80/21 111/4 113/14 127/8 127/15 127/20 128/3 131/16 191/25 199/24 200/13 unambiguous [1] 59/5 unavailing [1] 168/21 unaware [4] 26/3 26/6 26/8 99/24 unchanged [1] 55/10 unclear [1] 107/25 unconditional [40] 65/14 93/6 102/22 102/25 103/24 105/5 106/14 114/6 114/16 116/20 117/10 118/2 120/3 120/6 120/9 121/3 121/6 121/18 121/25 122/23 123/1 124/22 125/1 125/4 125/6 128/2 130/13 131/20 135/22 138/11 143/2 143/3 143/10 154/8 174/11 177/10 177/22 177/23 215/4 222/15 unconditionally [5] 60/20 107/3 129/24 180/5 182/2 unconstitutional [23] 49/20 49/25 103/13 109/19 122/5 123/17 123/20 123/24 125/10 127/16 132/20 143/1 154/18 155/2 199/4 200/12 221/8 228/20 229/8 229/15 229/21 230/21 236/12 uncontested [5] 61/21 110/8 110/23 112/1 203/21 uncontroverted [1] 178/7 undeniable [2] 51/10 83/3 undeniably [1] 23/15 under [124] 9/7 10/4 10/8 10/11 11/10 19/23 20/12 20/19 23/17 26/19 27/15 45/9 46/14 49/21 51/6 65/20 69/21 69/22 70/6 70/7 70/15 77/4 77/7 77/9 77/14 79/1 79/4 80/2 81/11 82/17 82/18 84/4 84/9 84/22 84/22 87/7 89/25 90/24 91/4 91/16 103/2 110/21 112/13 115/18 115/21 115/23 117/24 120/3 124/12 124/23 126/15 127/12 127/22 128/16 131/11 135/24 136/17 142/1 142/23 145/5 145/15 146/16 146/21 149/10 150/21 154/23 156/7 156/19 157/21 157/22 158/23 160/20 162/7 162/11 162/22 165/6 168/2 168/7 168/23 169/23 170/2 170/18 172/13 173/15 173/20 173/23 174/3 174/4 175/3 175/3 177/15 181/12 182/9 182/17 184/21 185/5 186/17 187/22 188/20 188/24 190/10 194/22 194/24 195/20 199/3 199/4 199/12 200/25 201/22 202/25 206/2 208/25 210/8 211/16 211/22 213/10 223/17 231/25 232/5 232/19 233/10 233/25 234/4 234/5 underlying [1] 36/7 undermine [1] 40/18 undermines [2] 76/11 96/6 understand [16] 18/15 37/11 45/4 109/3 118/14 138/1 154/10 167/22 171/8 182/13 207/25 207/25 208/8 208/10 215/12 227/2 understanding [15] 14/21 43/10 43/16 46/16 69/2 106/25 108/24 117/16 120/2 152/10 174/8 174/21 215/6 237/15 239/13 understood [4] 69/7 156/16 156/16 204/2 undertones [1] 226/6 Underwood [4] 20/8 81/21 83/25 225/7 undisclosed [1] 94/20 undisputed [5] 56/10 80/11 80/14 223/12 224/25 undisputedly [1] 82/11 undo [1] 130/9 uneducated [2] 43/6 43/6 Unemployment [2] 219/5 221/12 unequal [4] 85/13 86/7 159/13 161/10 unexplained [1] 27/13 unfair [2] 94/16 220/12 unfettered [2] 155/10 155/11 unfounded [1] 25/13 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter unfriendly [1] 188/9 uniform [1] 34/10 United [11] 13/15 13/18 41/17 71/21 134/24 134/24 145/11 163/7 205/19 213/14 225/15 universally [1] 203/25 universities [1] 33/5 University [1] 88/18 unknown [1] 65/12 unless [14] 105/25 107/11 120/2 120/3 120/6 135/2 135/5 155/12 158/21 160/20 218/5 218/9 230/23 236/24 unlike [2] 51/3 98/19 unlikely [1] 203/11 unlocks [2] 118/3 130/13 unpaid [1] 126/24 unqualified [2] 166/4 166/8 unreasonable [1] 157/20 unrebutted [7] 112/1 113/18 114/4 121/21 124/1 128/20 223/5 unreliable [15] 9/23 10/8 11/14 18/3 20/19 21/4 24/10 25/25 26/1 26/19 27/1 35/17 41/19 42/5 42/20 unsatisfied [1] 198/24 unsuccessful [2] 82/24 120/17 unsuccessfully [1] 23/7 unsupervised [3] 106/7 106/9 106/13 unsure [2] 102/21 102/24 unsurprisingly [1] 25/1 untested [1] 27/13 until [30] 14/14 31/21 47/4 56/25 57/1 93/6 100/8 106/5 107/2 107/13 119/25 121/2 121/7 121/9 129/12 133/11 136/22 138/12 138/14 146/25 170/5 179/15 180/11 180/23 201/5 206/8 208/18 222/10 222/11 222/14 untrue [1] 42/1 (42) traces... - untrue {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} uses [2] 20/23 185/23 up [47] 5/8 6/7 6/23 ushering [1] 57/22 47/12 49/14 52/22 22/19 39/12 using [8] 52/22 52/25 53/17 52/13 80/6 107/9 55/7 57/14 58/7 59/22 130/24 224/5 225/9 62/7 62/18 74/17 82/16 83/10 92/11 V 94/19 96/21 106/2 vagaries [1] 117/23 113/16 125/22 132/12 vague [2] 27/12 136/21 137/20 137/21 233/8 158/8 171/18 177/24 valid [2] 142/2 179/9 184/18 190/24 160/25 197/20 205/19 206/13 validity [1] 27/12 211/20 213/13 214/10 value [2] 108/2 215/1 223/19 231/7 207/23 235/11 236/22 239/8 vanishingly [1] 38/3 239/24 variable [1] 27/4 upcoming [2] 50/8 variables [2] 27/5 218/8 27/7 update [1] 98/20 various [3] 87/1 updated [1] 101/15 92/20 228/18 upheaval [1] 217/6 vast [2] 78/9 132/14 upheld [2] 156/25 venture [1] 109/9 165/6 verboten [1] 115/4 upon [32] 24/6 25/12 verifies [1] 178/4 26/20 31/25 45/11 Vermont [1] 167/17 57/18 58/4 58/15 59/1 Vernon [3] 52/14 59/6 59/16 67/15 52/17 226/2 78/19 98/8 99/17 version [7] 137/19 115/3 130/22 135/21 137/22 203/19 204/8 138/10 139/8 140/23 204/11 204/12 210/1 143/12 151/1 162/24 version -- my [1] 175/13 175/14 176/17 137/19 176/24 177/12 187/23 versus [8] 30/23 232/16 232/17 106/7 158/8 165/10 urgent [1] 205/9 199/14 205/3 207/8 us [27] 6/23 6/23 207/9 6/24 6/25 8/20 8/21 very [50] 5/6 15/19 14/10 47/12 48/2 20/6 22/5 24/15 30/8 62/24 100/19 108/7 35/19 38/14 38/14 114/9 117/3 118/5 44/15 54/20 56/21 118/6 130/8 174/19 57/17 58/5 64/6 67/22 175/2 179/2 179/20 69/4 79/9 104/8 188/25 205/24 212/14 115/14 130/14 155/23 215/7 221/21 240/5 159/12 189/17 191/17 use [16] 6/6 7/5 8/22 192/16 192/19 192/22 10/13 23/17 23/20 200/19 208/25 210/5 25/14 35/22 38/7 210/16 210/23 214/9 76/12 159/24 161/6 214/19 214/24 217/21 186/1 186/7 207/21 218/11 219/2 220/21 208/3 225/10 227/16 228/6 used [18] 24/22 228/21 230/22 230/24 35/17 38/8 39/8 39/20 231/8 235/14 236/16 42/7 51/17 54/6 57/24 240/4 80/15 80/18 113/19 vestige [1] 51/21 116/8 147/4 148/22 VI [14] 25/23 26/19 159/22 190/21 191/5 65/23 66/13 67/9 69/2 user [2] 89/13 130/24 69/9 69/12 69/18 users [1] 4/3 134/11 150/22 162/10 U 199/12 233/18 via [1] 1/17 vice [2] 2/7 2/10 victims [1] 54/1 victory [7] 37/1 74/14 74/19 75/2 75/5 75/8 76/3 video [1] 47/11 view [6] 31/12 39/22 71/3 127/23 194/9 201/14 viewpoint [4] 202/5 202/6 202/8 202/16 views [2] 89/4 89/16 VII [10] 9/5 11/13 11/18 13/1 17/4 17/6 17/17 17/22 26/24 27/23 violate [15] 70/20 71/1 77/12 122/8 159/8 159/23 160/13 160/14 160/15 161/2 162/3 201/8 201/17 205/20 213/23 violated [1] 68/19 violates [13] 109/21 109/23 114/19 114/22 116/14 121/22 124/2 124/11 128/8 132/19 146/12 147/23 202/19 violating [4] 110/5 161/4 169/19 211/18 violation [9] 117/1 119/17 120/24 160/24 162/20 199/17 202/13 202/22 212/23 violations [2] 103/11 216/1 Virginia [6] 123/18 191/24 199/2 199/4 199/6 199/15 Virginia's [1] 214/17 virtual [1] 218/15 virtue [5] 62/10 64/13 64/25 73/21 75/9 voice [3] 218/6 218/15 221/13 voiceless [1] 219/6 voices [3] 217/18 217/19 217/21 vote [247] voted [3] 37/4 37/5 38/17 voter [48] 12/11 13/3 13/4 13/14 16/16 20/15 21/3 21/16 21/25 22/11 23/2 34/4 34/6 61/7 68/6 68/6 68/15 68/17 68/19 68/21 68/25 70/2 77/9 78/2 81/13 81/14 81/15 93/24 95/16 96/10 100/18 100/20 127/13 131/6 147/19 148/1 170/14 170/24 171/9 175/14 175/25 175/25 176/13 181/5 189/23 190/18 205/12 231/12 voter's [1] 101/24 voters [27] 68/7 68/22 77/11 77/13 97/9 100/7 101/11 131/4 147/24 149/3 149/8 152/1 152/4 163/5 163/5 166/4 172/11 190/15 191/19 199/6 199/11 199/11 202/13 216/5 220/25 221/5 221/6 votes [5] 75/3 75/5 75/8 76/2 76/4 voting [128] 13/17 15/7 16/16 16/24 18/7 19/15 20/18 24/17 24/21 24/22 25/4 25/7 32/19 32/19 34/3 34/9 38/8 40/13 45/13 49/23 49/25 51/14 56/7 56/13 59/5 59/16 60/8 61/25 62/10 62/13 64/12 64/15 64/18 67/4 67/6 67/8 71/2 73/9 73/20 73/23 80/12 80/20 83/5 84/17 84/23 85/1 85/4 85/7 85/13 85/22 86/6 86/7 86/24 87/6 87/8 87/12 87/17 87/17 88/5 88/7 88/20 88/24 89/3 89/9 89/14 94/9 95/16 101/11 102/15 103/4 103/20 105/6 105/19 107/2 115/19 116/24 120/5 121/19 122/21 123/13 124/3 124/13 124/16 124/21 125/9 127/17 128/6 130/14 131/8 136/14 148/14 148/14 148/15 152/14 157/14 160/13 160/14 163/6 163/20 163/22 164/10 164/11 165/9 165/10 169/16 170/21 172/19 174/5 175/12 190/23 191/13 192/11 192/15 196/13 197/25 198/8 206/1 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 211/13 213/11 213/14 214/2 215/7 215/12 215/24 215/25 216/3 216/17 220/10 voting-age [9] 18/7 40/13 61/25 62/10 62/13 73/9 73/20 73/23 83/5 vulnerable [1] 131/18 Vysotskaya [2] 2/17 133/25 W wage [2] 111/9 111/9 wages [1] 111/7 wait [7] 55/13 152/17 152/25 153/18 181/23 181/25 224/6 waiting [10] 5/17 47/24 56/14 56/18 56/19 56/21 56/23 138/12 141/7 224/1 waive [8] 128/17 128/18 129/7 129/19 129/21 129/23 130/7 130/21 waived [9] 92/17 94/12 114/2 114/3 130/12 196/2 196/4 196/6 198/3 waiver [6] 113/19 113/21 113/22 114/4 196/5 214/22 waivers [3] 113/24 114/1 129/10 waiving [4] 128/22 129/5 130/19 130/22 wake [11] 1/2 1/16 64/5 85/23 147/4 217/5 218/6 218/8 218/10 220/7 241/3 walk [2] 61/19 110/7 walked [2] 83/3 89/22 walking [1] 78/22 want [45] 7/5 29/3 35/13 40/2 40/21 40/22 44/5 44/6 45/3 107/8 108/2 109/9 110/7 115/16 116/4 120/19 129/5 130/21 152/8 152/9 152/20 153/13 153/21 159/6 171/4 171/9 173/5 176/22 179/10 183/11 184/24 194/20 200/19 203/4 209/12 213/5 213/8 214/20 220/21 221/12 222/12 226/9 237/15 239/1 239/16 (43) up - want {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} W wanted [19] 42/7 44/4 45/17 46/15 57/6 59/15 60/1 108/6 109/12 139/6 141/5 153/5 209/11 210/13 210/14 223/1 235/16 236/20 238/8 wants [2] 142/23 238/22 War [4] 51/16 52/4 52/9 80/18 warning [1] 44/2 warranted [1] 90/2 Warren [1] 168/15 was [338] Wash [2] 219/4 221/11 Washington [2] 2/7 199/19 Washington's [1] 199/20 wasn't [13] 39/19 41/18 85/19 102/20 139/20 140/4 161/4 161/13 173/13 184/25 190/20 197/8 209/21 way [51] 24/12 34/13 36/15 37/4 37/15 37/23 38/4 38/6 39/7 39/12 39/20 43/14 62/18 62/21 67/5 68/3 76/3 88/3 108/9 115/23 126/17 132/1 135/12 136/21 139/3 143/4 143/9 144/20 149/22 158/7 166/19 167/3 172/4 181/12 184/8 186/11 187/22 187/24 195/24 197/3 201/8 213/13 213/13 213/20 217/2 223/17 230/20 233/3 233/12 235/1 235/2 ways [5] 33/19 40/9 79/3 102/7 173/19 we [233] 4/20 5/16 5/19 5/23 6/9 6/14 6/18 7/2 7/4 7/4 7/5 7/6 7/10 7/11 7/12 8/5 8/7 8/8 8/15 8/16 11/2 11/8 11/8 14/5 19/19 24/11 27/22 28/1 29/9 29/16 31/21 32/22 35/23 35/24 36/1 38/16 38/20 39/10 41/23 47/4 47/5 47/7 48/3 48/10 48/12 48/23 49/14 52/22 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 56/17 56/18 56/20 57/14 58/13 58/16 59/22 60/1 61/10 62/7 66/13 70/22 75/13 75/18 75/20 75/21 79/7 85/24 85/25 87/3 90/6 91/20 94/16 95/13 95/22 96/21 97/7 97/23 98/18 104/18 105/4 106/5 106/5 106/11 113/16 113/18 113/23 116/1 116/17 117/7 120/10 120/12 120/21 122/13 125/23 126/5 128/20 130/3 130/10 130/17 131/12 131/14 133/5 133/6 136/9 138/16 141/5 141/16 141/25 142/8 142/16 142/19 143/19 144/5 144/20 145/20 146/8 147/1 148/25 150/21 151/19 152/10 152/14 152/17 152/22 153/7 153/17 154/5 156/17 157/22 158/21 159/3 161/24 162/21 164/4 165/22 167/24 169/17 169/18 170/4 170/6 170/16 173/23 174/3 176/11 177/18 179/15 183/15 184/11 184/21 184/22 188/18 189/1 189/2 189/5 189/6 189/10 189/12 192/3 192/24 193/1 193/23 194/8 194/18 196/16 198/22 199/8 200/3 201/15 202/17 205/10 205/11 206/23 206/24 210/19 210/19 211/6 211/10 211/15 212/12 212/13 212/15 213/2 214/13 215/4 215/5 215/9 215/17 216/7 217/1 217/2 217/7 217/17 220/20 221/16 221/20 223/1 223/9 223/19 223/22 224/16 224/16 224/25 225/3 226/2 226/19 227/15 227/15 227/17 227/23 229/15 230/14 230/18 230/21 230/24 231/6 232/14 234/16 235/17 236/9 236/23 237/16 238/19 238/19 239/3 239/7 239/10 239/12 239/14 240/6 240/8 240/10 240/11 240/12 240/12 we'll [19] 6/10 6/12 8/9 8/21 8/22 11/7 48/25 74/16 133/5 133/11 133/12 133/13 133/16 133/21 134/17 162/25 231/4 238/23 240/10 we're [44] 5/17 7/14 8/19 11/6 35/6 47/24 92/25 93/4 110/2 129/15 130/14 132/11 133/3 133/10 134/6 142/13 145/22 145/24 151/4 153/17 155/23 157/21 157/22 162/13 163/17 168/11 171/3 174/21 182/1 183/6 188/24 207/24 209/4 211/14 212/7 214/12 214/12 217/6 217/9 228/18 229/16 238/22 239/11 240/6 we've [20] 6/3 7/5 22/21 44/13 47/3 48/20 53/16 58/7 106/21 165/21 168/24 169/8 188/14 188/15 192/21 195/25 203/12 214/6 214/20 239/7 wealth [24] 109/24 115/17 124/15 125/6 127/16 128/5 128/10 128/15 131/11 132/20 154/16 194/22 194/25 195/5 195/12 196/12 199/8 199/16 199/21 200/2 200/5 200/6 212/23 213/9 wealth-based [12] 124/15 125/6 128/10 131/11 132/20 195/12 199/16 199/21 200/5 200/6 212/23 213/9 WebEx [5] 1/17 5/25 47/9 238/22 240/11 Webster's [1] 211/22 week [1] 7/11 Weekly [2] 52/23 53/16 weeks [1] 5/19 weigh [2] 113/17 218/11 weighed [1] 227/9 weighing [3] 30/20 42/18 89/23 weighs [1] 220/23 weight [8] 30/13 30/22 35/11 44/25 48/12 161/10 165/8 220/4 weighted [1] 217/14 weighty [1] 218/13 welcome [2] 5/18 10/15 well [66] 11/6 16/4 27/1 29/2 29/6 32/9 37/8 38/8 38/17 43/8 47/2 48/22 80/11 83/17 84/21 89/9 100/15 102/12 118/19 120/21 126/7 129/16 129/17 129/24 130/2 134/17 137/1 138/16 139/3 143/5 146/17 149/16 153/1 153/16 153/23 154/25 157/6 159/9 161/3 171/11 171/12 176/4 180/17 181/23 183/15 184/3 189/15 203/7 203/18 203/19 207/20 209/2 209/5 209/17 209/20 209/22 214/17 214/24 215/15 219/10 219/24 224/2 225/12 234/5 236/8 238/1 well-developed [1] 146/17 well-documented [1] 80/11 well-known [1] 38/8 well-regarded [1] 32/9 well-resourced [1] 189/15 Welsh [2] 145/10 145/23 went [6] 113/25 113/25 152/10 152/14 152/17 225/11 were [124] 7/14 8/7 14/22 19/9 19/19 19/21 19/22 20/1 20/2 20/11 23/1 23/3 23/9 24/4 24/9 24/9 24/23 26/14 27/6 34/18 34/19 36/5 43/15 53/22 54/3 55/7 55/16 55/23 56/12 57/2 57/7 57/8 57/13 59/10 59/13 74/20 75/20 81/23 82/23 86/20 91/8 94/17 94/23 95/13 95/22 100/14 100/17 102/14 102/16 110/17 111/20 113/10 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 113/10 113/11 114/1 114/2 114/3 114/5 127/20 129/15 129/25 130/9 132/5 135/17 137/3 137/6 139/15 139/22 144/3 144/18 144/19 144/20 144/23 147/3 150/21 152/11 158/5 158/10 158/21 161/24 170/14 170/20 177/10 179/15 183/18 183/19 185/13 185/20 185/22 186/1 186/24 186/24 188/23 189/16 190/23 190/23 192/14 193/2 193/4 196/4 196/6 196/19 198/4 198/23 200/13 201/16 202/13 203/23 204/6 210/4 210/4 210/24 223/15 227/14 228/15 229/3 229/4 229/7 230/1 230/9 230/10 233/22 234/19 234/19 weren't [6] 60/4 161/12 185/1 225/24 227/20 227/23 what [181] 5/10 12/8 14/12 21/7 28/7 30/11 30/13 30/22 34/25 34/25 35/11 35/19 35/21 35/22 35/24 36/21 37/12 37/20 38/7 38/10 38/19 38/23 39/4 40/6 40/6 40/6 40/11 40/12 40/20 41/20 41/24 42/17 42/18 45/16 46/11 49/16 54/14 58/8 61/23 62/9 62/17 63/17 67/20 80/6 83/11 98/9 104/15 106/20 106/23 108/5 109/10 112/15 116/2 116/17 122/17 122/20 125/23 126/22 134/15 135/6 135/24 136/9 136/11 137/20 137/21 138/3 138/4 139/6 139/11 140/6 140/14 141/3 141/8 141/24 142/17 142/18 142/19 142/25 143/1 143/8 143/11 144/17 145/13 145/25 146/4 146/24 147/7 147/13 147/22 149/17 149/21 150/6 150/19 150/22 150/23 151/1 151/2 151/6 (44) wanted - what {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} W what... [83] 151/7 151/8 152/8 152/12 153/5 153/10 153/12 153/15 153/16 155/6 155/8 155/15 155/17 156/20 157/21 158/14 160/4 160/9 160/17 160/23 160/25 164/12 166/17 167/1 168/10 168/11 168/15 171/21 173/13 174/16 174/17 174/17 174/19 174/21 177/16 181/13 182/20 182/23 183/7 183/14 184/6 184/8 184/9 184/25 190/1 190/4 190/7 190/9 190/21 191/4 193/1 193/6 193/15 194/9 198/18 199/8 201/24 208/19 209/5 209/12 209/18 211/13 214/13 215/18 218/23 223/5 223/8 223/20 224/11 224/12 226/3 228/15 228/25 228/25 229/5 232/21 232/23 233/2 233/17 233/22 233/23 234/18 234/24 what Dr [1] 36/21 what's [13] 61/6 91/23 99/9 134/21 143/14 153/21 156/7 156/14 157/15 166/11 193/5 223/12 236/15 whatever [5] 119/17 119/18 150/19 177/3 177/6 whatsoever [3] 58/22 182/25 241/7 when [115] 6/23 10/2 12/9 12/20 14/7 14/24 20/9 22/3 22/24 35/15 35/20 40/7 40/23 45/11 45/16 45/24 45/25 46/12 51/16 52/9 56/12 56/25 57/12 58/10 66/20 67/3 67/6 73/12 74/1 81/23 82/21 84/8 97/12 98/21 98/25 99/11 102/15 103/18 111/9 112/22 117/17 118/7 120/19 128/7 128/13 133/5 136/20 137/24 138/20 139/20 140/16 141/5 141/6 143/5 143/7 143/21 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 150/13 151/22 153/6 155/6 156/8 157/6 161/23 162/2 162/15 162/23 162/24 164/10 170/10 171/1 171/3 171/10 171/23 171/25 172/1 173/24 174/19 175/4 175/19 181/6 181/20 182/11 182/12 183/22 184/7 186/3 186/13 188/1 189/10 190/20 191/10 196/9 198/11 203/23 206/11 206/20 209/3 209/25 213/23 214/3 216/24 218/19 219/1 219/8 222/19 225/1 226/20 228/7 231/10 231/22 232/6 233/22 234/19 237/19 237/25 whenever [8] 11/21 49/7 124/18 127/12 131/6 133/17 183/12 191/19 where [80] 25/12 35/18 39/13 56/18 58/6 69/18 74/14 74/19 75/16 83/24 85/12 86/5 86/14 90/4 90/9 98/23 99/18 101/5 104/2 104/12 105/8 106/2 113/4 115/7 118/8 119/16 122/25 129/13 130/1 130/9 130/11 130/24 139/17 140/5 142/16 145/3 145/14 147/9 148/5 148/5 148/6 150/7 152/11 152/14 152/17 152/23 152/23 152/25 154/7 156/15 158/12 158/22 159/13 161/6 163/8 164/2 164/7 165/14 173/8 176/23 179/24 192/17 195/1 195/17 196/16 197/18 205/25 206/4 206/15 208/10 209/3 210/24 211/15 213/16 216/7 217/17 236/10 237/10 239/14 240/11 Whereas [3] 204/25 221/8 223/9 whereby [2] 135/20 138/8 wherewithal [1] 196/24 whether [60] 18/17 20/17 21/3 21/21 30/2 30/6 30/7 31/5 35/4 42/10 42/17 45/10 60/10 69/12 75/19 79/13 85/9 85/9 85/14 98/5 99/15 99/19 99/24 101/14 102/21 102/24 114/15 114/19 120/7 123/22 126/20 128/8 139/6 139/11 141/10 142/3 142/17 142/25 144/7 153/11 155/9 160/23 163/1 182/14 182/15 190/22 190/23 192/3 195/17 197/23 197/24 198/2 198/3 206/4 215/12 225/3 227/9 232/8 234/1 234/3 which [122] 7/4 7/13 12/18 13/8 18/16 20/15 30/11 32/1 34/4 34/6 34/9 36/9 37/1 38/8 38/16 38/16 39/7 39/24 41/25 42/1 43/6 45/1 54/9 54/18 58/9 63/14 65/19 65/20 66/10 71/10 71/13 74/19 76/10 76/20 77/15 78/3 79/3 80/7 83/20 84/1 84/24 88/9 96/2 98/4 100/25 102/7 108/9 110/16 114/17 116/9 118/2 118/4 126/1 127/14 130/12 130/13 131/19 134/15 137/9 137/25 140/15 142/2 146/22 147/1 147/2 148/21 150/22 150/22 151/20 157/14 162/22 164/11 165/25 167/24 168/24 175/3 176/15 177/25 177/25 182/10 182/17 185/14 189/6 190/10 192/24 193/9 195/20 196/9 197/17 198/5 198/16 198/21 199/18 200/3 201/20 202/10 202/17 203/22 210/3 210/23 212/22 213/9 213/19 215/17 216/1 216/18 217/1 219/10 222/23 224/6 225/8 226/5 228/3 228/14 228/15 228/22 233/4 233/15 235/17 235/18 236/15 239/23 while [19] 17/20 37/25 37/25 39/17 53/19 62/2 79/14 86/25 87/3 100/1 103/19 108/21 111/7 125/5 127/19 128/18 148/2 157/18 220/10 whipped [2] 53/23 152/11 whipping [9] 52/8 52/11 52/15 52/19 53/21 53/25 80/20 153/17 181/24 white [20] 19/21 20/12 51/16 55/25 62/5 62/12 62/15 63/13 63/14 64/4 64/24 77/13 77/15 83/9 111/19 137/9 150/1 168/5 186/1 210/24 whites [10] 62/17 63/17 63/22 113/12 114/25 132/1 132/4 220/5 220/7 220/8 Whitley [2] 2/2 3/2 Whitney [1] 9/1 who [153] 5/3 5/15 8/4 9/15 12/4 12/6 16/13 18/5 18/23 18/25 19/4 19/21 20/1 20/10 23/8 24/23 25/19 33/23 35/7 49/22 50/24 52/7 55/9 55/20 55/23 56/1 57/21 59/3 61/13 62/1 65/12 65/13 65/17 70/24 71/18 72/13 72/18 72/19 72/20 73/3 73/18 74/20 77/8 78/4 78/9 81/1 83/6 83/16 83/17 86/20 86/21 87/20 87/22 94/4 94/5 97/5 97/15 98/17 99/8 99/23 100/15 102/7 102/13 102/14 103/21 108/12 111/23 112/6 112/8 114/5 114/9 114/11 115/6 123/3 123/18 125/3 125/3 125/19 126/8 126/20 127/4 127/8 127/15 127/17 128/3 128/23 129/16 131/5 134/19 135/10 135/17 139/15 139/16 139/22 141/11 144/13 145/20 146/2 149/10 149/12 149/13 149/19 151/3 151/8 152/19 154/13 154/22 157/16 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter 157/24 159/20 163/5 163/14 163/17 163/19 163/22 164/7 169/7 169/8 169/13 169/21 170/14 170/20 170/22 178/24 183/18 183/20 190/17 190/23 190/25 195/8 196/13 199/11 206/2 208/25 209/12 211/1 213/11 214/2 215/21 217/11 218/3 218/10 218/12 219/3 223/23 224/6 226/10 231/14 232/4 235/3 235/4 235/6 237/24 who's [13] 5/5 36/10 44/5 76/16 83/15 102/2 102/18 107/1 121/15 125/17 133/23 158/12 208/12 whole [18] 18/22 67/21 68/2 84/14 137/17 160/3 160/4 160/6 160/7 160/11 160/16 160/22 160/24 161/1 161/4 161/6 162/8 194/8 wholesale [4] 137/14 151/12 194/3 223/15 wholly [1] 18/3 whom [1] 67/17 whose [3] 5/14 78/14 237/21 why [28] 10/3 10/6 14/24 17/12 45/5 45/19 46/6 46/7 46/16 53/5 84/8 94/19 130/18 130/19 140/18 144/6 153/22 154/5 160/2 169/9 171/2 171/10 178/10 188/2 209/11 209/17 212/2 235/2 wide [2] 110/24 185/5 wiling [1] 153/2 will [104] 5/18 6/8 6/11 6/14 6/18 6/20 6/21 6/22 7/10 8/4 9/24 10/3 10/6 15/2 24/18 24/20 29/16 30/18 31/4 31/11 35/7 35/24 43/9 43/22 43/25 47/4 47/5 47/17 48/6 48/8 48/12 49/12 49/18 49/24 50/2 51/11 68/21 72/5 72/6 72/12 72/17 73/7 73/12 73/25 76/11 (45) what... - will {PLAINTIFF} v. {DEFENDANT} W will... [59] 78/5 78/14 78/15 78/20 96/17 96/18 96/20 97/4 97/5 97/22 102/18 106/1 109/18 109/18 109/21 109/22 109/25 117/7 117/22 125/4 126/21 133/24 147/25 147/25 149/2 152/3 153/10 154/16 172/6 175/24 188/16 194/10 196/9 198/19 203/9 212/7 212/12 212/13 212/14 212/14 216/12 216/16 216/22 217/13 218/6 218/15 219/18 219/23 221/12 221/13 221/14 226/13 227/2 233/13 236/19 236/20 239/20 240/6 240/12 Willard [1] 78/17 willing [4] 152/21 171/4 171/14 184/14 Wilson [1] 116/4 win [1] 224/25 wish [1] 7/21 withheld [2] 201/21 202/25 withholding [2] 105/19 170/5 within [8] 14/12 14/18 15/4 86/7 111/4 158/21 166/16 166/17 without [22] 4/3 19/16 22/18 32/8 69/10 82/6 84/11 92/13 100/9 101/13 101/19 108/13 125/5 125/17 132/8 144/9 177/7 180/9 188/17 197/4 211/24 215/2 witness [12] 11/23 15/6 21/9 33/20 34/2 39/10 94/18 112/10 113/8 118/24 119/2 131/22 witnessed [1] 185/10 witnesses [4] 57/10 92/3 93/3 136/24 witnessing [1] 53/21 won't [10] 104/7 133/6 133/6 163/12 188/13 203/12 203/12 208/6 218/11 231/7 wondering [1] 133/2 word [9] 105/5 142/22 143/9 159/18 185/23 186/1 186/8 {WITNESSNAME} {DATE} 228/6 228/9 wording [1] 233/8 words [15] 35/17 58/18 60/15 67/6 79/14 83/15 91/5 101/7 103/22 104/3 157/9 165/1 192/4 213/7 224/5 work [11] 13/23 33/5 33/12 43/9 50/25 72/24 88/1 178/23 231/21 237/22 240/10 workers [2] 101/22 101/23 workings [1] 12/11 works [2] 13/8 238/3 world [1] 33/19 worse [3] 98/11 132/1 204/11 worst [1] 132/9 wrap [2] 6/22 132/11 write [2] 142/20 143/12 writing [2] 144/9 151/21 written [6] 14/14 32/21 96/2 167/4 197/7 208/17 wrong [7] 20/22 23/15 43/17 66/9 76/17 77/22 191/16 wrongfully [1] 50/8 158/25 166/18 173/14 174/8 177/23 178/1 178/6 179/22 181/14 183/17 183/17 212/9 212/9 238/6 238/13 238/17 yesterday [4] 5/25 8/7 48/3 117/4 yet [6] 11/4 18/8 20/11 101/18 108/4 194/4 yields [1] 218/25 York [1] 233/21 you would [1] 181/13 you'd [1] 133/8 you'll [1] 240/4 you're [12] 10/15 14/17 108/17 118/15 129/21 150/20 150/20 156/25 166/3 176/16 186/11 238/13 you've [7] 7/23 23/21 129/10 154/17 222/1 230/25 231/5 your [313] Z Zellers' [1] 15/22 zoom [1] 62/22 Y y'all [1] 215/18 yea [2] 158/17 166/7 year [14] 21/24 56/22 71/25 104/20 110/20 110/21 118/21 118/21 131/24 136/12 138/19 141/6 147/3 216/23 years [40] 21/14 21/22 22/4 22/10 33/4 46/4 55/7 55/13 56/16 56/16 56/22 56/24 56/24 56/25 61/2 82/1 82/16 86/20 111/11 111/13 111/19 113/6 113/23 113/23 134/19 141/1 150/18 155/9 155/9 155/12 168/6 203/18 203/19 205/11 209/9 211/12 224/2 224/4 224/7 225/13 yes [34] 4/16 4/21 8/13 8/18 50/16 50/18 53/13 53/14 108/8 118/19 119/13 125/12 129/3 132/13 138/20 140/13 152/16 152/20 Denise St. Clair, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Court Reporter (46) will... - zoom