Merged PDF - StrictLiability Lawsuit - Mitch - Final PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH

INSTITUTE and ACTION NC,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 20-cv-876
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF

ELECTIONS; DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official
capacity as CHAIR OF THE STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; STELLA ANDERSON, in her
official capacity as SECRETARY OF THE STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON III, in PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
his official capacity as MEMBER OF THE STATE FOR A PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; KAREN BRINSON INJUNCTION
BELL, in her official capacity as EXECUTIVE AND REQUEST TO
DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BOARD OF EXPEDITE
ELECTIONS; and JOSH STEIN, in his official
capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendants.
Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 2 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 6

Plaintiffs the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute (“NC APRI”) and
Action NC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby respectfully request, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1), that the Court issue a preliminary injunction enjoining
Defendants from enforcing N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(5) (the “Strict Liability Voting
Law”).
As set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Strict Liability Voting Law is a racially
discriminatory relic of the nineteenth century that imposes stringent criminal penalties on
voting by North Carolina residents who are on parole, probation or post-release
supervision for a felony conviction—even if those individuals mistakenly believe they are
eligible to vote. Violating the vague Strict Liability Voting Law is a Class I felony that
carries a penalty of up two years in prison. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-1340.17. While
virtually every other election crime punishable as a Class I felony in North Carolina
requires fraudulent intent, see, e.g., id. §§ 163-275(1, 3–4, 7–9), the Strict Liability
Voting Law has no mens rea requirement whatsoever.
Recent high-profile prosecutions of individuals who mistakenly voted before
sentence completion have had a far-reaching chilling effect. Eligible North Carolina
residents with criminal convictions are now too scared to cast a ballot, for fear of
unintentionally violating the Strict Liability Voting Law and facing felony charges. This
chilling effect has been particularly pronounced in the State’s Black communities, as the
overwhelming majority of individuals prosecuted for violating the Strict Liability Voting
Law are Black.

The Strict Liability Voting Law has substantially impeded Plaintiffs’ efforts to
carry out their core missions of increasing political participation by individuals in Black
and low-income communities. Plaintiffs are particularly concerned that the Strict
Liability Voting Law will deter voting by individuals who have completed all aspects of
their sentences but for the payment of fines, fees and/or restitution. These individuals are
now eligible to vote under the Wake County Superior Court’s decisions in Comm.
Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 4, 2020) (Exhibits
13–14). Yet many are nevertheless afraid to vote in the upcoming election for fear of
criminal prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law.
Preliminary injunctive relief is warranted because (1) Plaintiffs are “likely to
succeed on the merits” of their claims that the Strict Liability Voting Law violates the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; (2) Plaintiffs “will likely suffer irreparable harm absent an
injunction; (3) the balance of hardships weighs in their favor; and (4) the injunction is in
the public interest.” League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224,
236 (4th Cir. 2014). Absent timely injunctive relief from this Court, Plaintiffs will suffer
irreparable harm because the Strict Liability Voting Law will make it substantially more
difficult for them to mobilize eligible voters with past criminal convictions to vote in the
upcoming election.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court preliminarily enjoin
Defendants from enforcing the Strict Liability Voting Law. Plaintiffs also respectfully

request expedited briefing and consideration of this motion in view of the upcoming
election. Specifically, Plaintiffs ask that the Court shorten the requirements of Local Civil
Rule 7.3 to require Defendants’ response within fourteen days of service of this Motion
and Plaintiffs’ reply within five days of service of the response. Plaintiffs conferred with
opposing counsel and at this time they are unable to give consent to our request for
expedited consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Finally,
Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to present oral argument in support of this Motion.
This Motion is supported by the contemporaneously filed Memorandum of Law,
and accompanying declarations and exhibits, and any additional submissions that may be
considered by the Court.

Dated: September 24, 2020
By: /s/ Allison J. Riggs
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL

LLP JUSTICE
Jonathan K. Youngwood (special Allison J. Riggs (State Bar No. 40028)
appearance forthcoming) 1415 West Highway 54, Suite 101
Nihara K. Choudhri (special appearance Durham, NC 27707
forthcoming) Tel: (919) 323-3380
Andrew B. Garber (special appearance Fax: (919) 323-3942
forthcoming) allisonriggs@southerncoalition.org
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 455-2000
Fax: (212) 455-2502
jyoungwood@stblaw.com
nchoudhri@stblaw.com
andrew.garber@stblaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 24th day of September, 2020, the foregoing Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction and Request to Expedite was served by electronic mail to
Defendants’ Counsel, Alec McC. Peters, Chief Deputy Attorney General at the address
apeters@ncdoj.gov, and Katelyn Love, General Counsel for the North Carolina State
Board of Elections, at the address Katelyn.Love@ncsbe.gov, with consent of counsel to
accept service in this manner.
/s/ Allison J. Riggs

Allison J. Riggs


Plaintiffs,

official capacity as SECRETARY OF THE STATE PLAINTIFFS’
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON III, in MEMORANDUM OF
his official capacity as MEMBER OF THE STATE LAW IN SUPPORT OF
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; KAREN BRINSON THEIR MOTION FOR A
BELL, in her official capacity as EXECUTIVE PRELIMINARY
DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BOARD OF INJUNCTION AND
ELECTIONS; and JOSH STEIN, in his official REQUEST TO
capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE EXPEDITE
Defendants.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 3
I. North Carolina’s Strict Liability Voting Law was enacted for the specific
purpose of deterring Black individuals from attempting to vote. ............................ 3
A. In 1899, the North Carolina General Assembly reenacted the Strict

Liability Voting Law with discriminatory intent. ........................................ 4
B. The key features of the Strict Liability Voting Law have remained
intact since 1899. ........................................................................................ 6
II. North Carolina’s Strict Liability Voting Law disproportionately impacts

Black individuals. .................................................................................................. 7
III. The Strict Liability Voting Law fails to provide fair notice of criminal
liability. ................................................................................................................. 8
IV. The Strict Liability Voting Law deters eligible individuals from registering
to vote and voting. ............................................................................................... 10
QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................................... 11
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................. 11
I. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims........... 11
A. The Strict Liability Voting Law is void for vagueness under the Due
Process Clause. ......................................................................................... 12
B. The Strict Liability Voting Law violates the Equal Protection

Clause. ...................................................................................................... 15
II. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in the
November 3, 2020 presidential election. .............................................................. 18
III. The balance of hardships tips heavily in favor of granting a preliminary

injunction. ........................................................................................................... 21

IV. The public interest strongly favors granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction. ........................................................................................ 23
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abbott v. Perez,
138 S.Ct. 2305 (2018) ............................................................................................... 16
Action NC v. Strach,
216 F. Supp. 3d 597 (M.D.N.C. 2016) ................................................................ 18, 23
Chen v. City of Houston,

206 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................... 16
City of Chicago v. Morales,

527 U.S. 41 (1999).................................................................................................... 14
Colautti v. Franklin,
439 U.S. 379 (1979)............................................................................................ 12, 13
Cotton v. Fordice,
157 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 1998). .................................................................................... 16
Fish v. Kobach,
309 F. Supp. 3d 1048 (D. Kan. 2018), aff’d, 309 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (10th Cir.
2020) ........................................................................................................................ 21
Georgia Coal. for People’s Agenda v. Kemp,

347 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (N.D. Ga. 2018) ...................................................................... 20
Gingles v. Edmisten,
590 F. Supp. 345 (E.D.N.C. 1984), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom,
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) ..................................................................5
Grayned v. City of Rockford,

408 U.S. 104 (1972 ................................................................................................... 14
Greidinger v. Davis,
988 F.2d 1344 (4th Cir. 1993) ................................................................................... 21
Hayden v. Paterson,
594 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................... 16
Hunter v. Underwood,
471 U.S. 222 (1985).................................................................................................. 15
iii

Johnson v. U.S.,
576 U.S. 591 (2015).................................................................................................. 12
Jones v. Governor of Florida,

No. 20-12003, 2020 WL 5493770 (11th Cir. Sept. 11, 2020 ..................................... 13
Kolender v. Lawson,
461 U.S. 352 (1983).................................................................................................. 12
League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina,

769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 11, 18, 23
League of Women Voters of U.S. v. Newby,

838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 18, 19
Manning v. Caldwell for City of Roanoke,

930 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................... 12, 14
Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albemarle Cty Sch. Bd.,

354 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................... 23
North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. Cooper,

430 F. Supp. 3d 15 (M.D.N.C. 2019) ........................................................................ 18
North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory,

831 F.3d 204, 220 (4th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................. 15
Peoples Rights Org., Inc. v. City of Columbus,

152 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................... 13
Project Vote v. Blackwell,

455 F. Supp. 2d 694 (N.D. Oh. 2006)........................................................................ 19
Ramos v. Louisiana,
140 S. Ct. 1390, (2020) (Gorsuch, J.) .................................................................. 16, 17
Smith v. Meese,
821 F.2d 1484 (11th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................. 19
Stahl v. City of St. Louis, Mo.,

687 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 14
State v. Taylor,
713 S.E.2d 82 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).................................................................... 10, 23
iv

U.S. v. McLeod,
385 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1967) ..................................................................................... 19
Veasey v. Abbott,
888 F.3d 792 (5th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................... 16
Village of Hoffman Ests. v. Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc.,

455 U.S. 489 (1982).................................................................................................. 13
Whatley v. Zatecky,
833 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2016 ...................................................................................... 13
Statutes
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 13-1 ....................................................................................................8
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-1340.1 ........................................................................................1
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-22(d) ...........................................................................................7
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(13) ..................................................................................... 20
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(5) ........................................................................... 1, 6, 8, 11
N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 163-275 ............................................................................................1
N.C. GEN. STAT. ch. 15A, art. 81B ...................................................................................9
N.Y. Penal Law § 65.20 ................................................................................................. 14
Constitution
N.C. CONST., art. I, Section 3, § 3 (1835) .........................................................................3
N.C. CONST., art. VI, § 1 (1868).......................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(5) (the “Strict Liability Voting Law”) is a racially
discriminatory relic of the nineteenth century that imposes stringent criminal penalties on
voting by North Carolina residents who are on parole, probation or post-release
supervision for a felony conviction—even if those individuals mistakenly believe they are
eligible to vote. Violating the vague Strict Liability Voting Law is a Class I felony that
carries a penalty of up two years in prison. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-1340.17; Ex. 1 at
127:4–9. While virtually every other election crime punishable as a Class I felony in
North Carolina requires fraudulent intent, see, e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 163-275(1, 3–4,
7–9), the Strict Liability Voting Law has no mens rea requirement whatsoever.
Recent high-profile prosecutions of individuals who mistakenly voted before
completion of their felony sentences have had a far-reaching chilling effect. Eligible
North Carolina residents with criminal convictions are now too scared to vote, for fear of
unintentionally violating the Strict Liability Voting Law and facing felony charges. This
chilling effect has been particularly pronounced in the State’s Black communities, as the
overwhelming majority of individuals prosecuted for violating the Strict Liability Voting
Law are Black.
The Strict Liability Voting Law has substantially impeded the efforts of the
organizational plaintiffs in this action—the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute
(“NC APRI”) and Action NC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)—to carry out their core
missions. NC APRI is a state affiliate of the National A. Philip Randolph Institute, the

senior constituency group of the AFL-CIO. Montford Dec. at ¶¶ 4–5. NC APRI’s core
mission is to increase the political participation of Black workers in the state. Id. at ¶ 6.
Action NC works to reduce the root causes of poverty and inequality in North Carolina.
McCoy Dec. at ¶ 3. Its core mission is to build grassroots political power by increasing
the number of individuals who vote in minority and low-income communities. Id. at ¶ 4.
Plaintiffs are particularly concerned that the Strict Liability Voting Law will
improperly deter voting by individuals who have completed all aspects of their sentences
but for the payment of fines, fees and/or restitution. McCoy Dec. at ¶¶ 11–12; Montford
Dec. at ¶ 12. These individuals are now eligible to vote under the Wake County Superior
Court’s decisions in Comm. Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super.
Ct. Sept. 4, 2020) (Exhibits 13–14). Yet many are nevertheless afraid to vote in the
upcoming election for fear of criminal prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law.
McCoy Dec. at ¶¶ 11–12; Montford Dec. at ¶ 12.
Absent timely injunctive relief from this Court, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable
harm because the Strict Liability Voting Law will make it substantially more difficult for
them to mobilize eligible voters with past criminal convictions to vote in the upcoming
2020 presidential election. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to preliminarily enjoin the
enforcement of the Strict Liability Voting Law in time for prospective voters to register
to vote for the 2020 election. Such relief is plainly in the public interest, as it will ensure
that every eligible voter with a past criminal conviction has the opportunity to cast a
ballot, free from the crippling fear of prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law.
2

Defendants will in no way be harmed if this Court pauses enforcement of this unjust law
because there are numerous alternative methods for ensuring that ineligible individuals
with felony convictions do not vote in the 2020 election, as detailed in the Post-Election
Audit Report: General Election 2016 published by the North Carolina State Board of
Elections (“NCSBE”). Ex. 2 at 3–4.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. North Carolina’s Strict Liability Voting Law was enacted for the specific
purpose of deterring Black individuals from attempting to vote.
Before the Civil War, the North Carolina Constitution explicitly denied voting
rights in state elections to free Black men. N.C. CONST. art. I, Section 3, § 3 (1835). But
in 1868, North Carolina adopted a new constitution that removed racial restrictions on the
right to vote. N.C. CONST., art. VI, § 1 (1868). This enabled Black individuals to
participate in the State’s government in previously unprecedented numbers and roles.1
In 1875, North Carolina amended its constitution to frustrate and impede the
influence of Black citizens. The 1875 amendments included a provision disenfranchising
individuals convicted of felonies or infamous crimes “unless such person shall be
restored to citizenship in a mode prescribed by law.” Ex. 16 at art. VI, § 1. It was widely
understood that this provision would disproportionately impact Black individuals.2 The
1
See generally William Mabry, White Supremacy and the North Carolina Suffrage
Amendment, 13 N.C. Hist. Rev. 1 (1936).
2
Ex. 15 (1876 newspaper article noting that “the great majority of the criminals are
negroes”).
3

following year, the North Carolina General Assembly (“General Assembly”) adopted the
first iteration of the Strict Liability Voting Law, which provided:
If a person be challenged as being convicted of any crime

which excludes him from the right of suffrage, he shall be
required to answer any questions in relation to such alleged
conviction; but his answer to such questions shall not be used
against him in any criminal prosecution, but if any person so
convicted shall vote at any election, without having been
legally restored to the rights of citizenship, he shall be
deemed guilty of an infamous crime, and, on conviction
thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars, or imprisonment at hard labor not exceeding
two years, or both.
Ex. 17 at § 62 (emphasis added). The law did not include an intent requirement. Rather,
criminal liability attached even if the individual was not aware that he was ineligible to
vote due to his criminal conviction.
A. In 1899, the North Carolina General Assembly reenacted the Strict Liability
Voting Law with discriminatory intent.
During the 1880s and 1890s, Black individuals in North Carolina slowly amassed
political power through the exercise of their right to vote. In 1898, the State Democratic
Executive Committee of North Carolina (the “Committee”) cautioned that “the negroes
have been given dominion over many of our towns, and unless the white people unite to
stop it, they will obtain control over every town in the State.” Ex. 18 at 48. The
Committee claimed that Black individuals engaged in widespread voting fraud, and
specifically highlighted purported voting by Black individuals with felony convictions.
See id. at 88 (“Under the election law of 1895, … negro ex-convicts and negro repeaters

were registered and voted galore. The doors of fraud were thrown wide open to these
irresponsible and ignorant voters and no protection whatsoever was afforded to the honest
voters of the State.”); see also id. at 84, 86. The Committee asserted that it would “rescue
the white people of the east from the curse of negro domination,” and promised “to enact
such laws as will give security and protection to the property and people of every town
and community in the State.” Id. at 38, 118-19. In the November 1898 election, the
Democrats took control of the General Assembly.
In 1899, the General Assembly enacted An Act to Regulate Elections (“1899
Election Act”). Consistent with the 1876 constitutional amendment, the 1899 Election
Act provided that individuals convicted of felonies or infamous crimes “shall not be
allowed to register or vote in this state … unless they shall have been legally restored to
the rights of citizenship.” Ex. 19 at Ch. 507, § 18. The 1899 Election Act reenacted the
1877 version of the Strict Liability Voting Law almost verbatim. Id. at § 72. While the
1899 Act imposed felony-level criminal penalties on individuals with felony convictions
who voted without any fraudulent intent, that same Act established only misdemeanor-
level penalties for active interference with elections through violence or intimidation. See
id. at §§ 52, 54.
A year later, the General Assembly approved an amendment to the state
constitution that established a poll tax, a literacy test, and a grandfather clause. Ex. 20 at
art. VI, § 4. That amendment was “specifically designed to disenfranchise [B]lack
voters.” Gingles v. Edmisten, 590 F. Supp. 345, 359 (E.D.N.C. 1984), aff’d in part, rev’d
5

in part sub nom, Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
intact since 1899.
In 1931, the General Assembly reenacted many of the voting crimes included in
the 1899 Act, including the Strict Liability Voting Law and the misdemeanor-level
penalties for active interference with elections through violence or intimidation. Ex. 21 at
Ch. 348, §§ 9(3, 4, 6) & § 10(5). The 1931 law provided uniform penalties for felony-
level election crimes, including the Strict Liability Voting Law. Id. at § 10. The 1931 Act
also streamlined the language of the 1899 version of the Strict Liability Voting Law, and
specified that the law applied with equal force to primary elections. Id. at § 10(5). But the
key features of the 1931 version of the Strict Liability Voting Law—strict felony-level
criminal liability for voting after a felony conviction before restoration to citizenship—
remained unchanged.
Since 1931, the General Assembly has changed just one single word in the Strict
Liability Voting Law:
It shall be unlawful: … For any person convicted of a crime

which excludes him the person from the right of suffrage, to
vote at any primary or election without having been restored
to the right of citizenship in due course and by the method
provided by law.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(5) (edited to reflect changes from the 1931 version). The
Strict Liability Voting Law has otherwise remained completely intact. The General
Assembly has also left largely intact the 1899 laws imposing misdemeanor-level

penalties for active interference with elections through violence or intimidation. N.C.
GEN. STAT. §§ 163-274(4–5, 7).
Virtually every other election crime punishable as a Class I felony in North
Carolina requires fraudulent intent. See, e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 163-275(1, 3–4, 7–9).
But as the NCSBE has explained, “[t]he language contained in the felon voting statute
does not include an element of intent, such that violating the statute does not require
evidence that the statute was knowingly violated for a possible violation to have
occurred.” Ex. 3 at 1.
II. North Carolina’s Strict Liability Voting Law disproportionately impacts

Black individuals.
Black individuals constitute an outsized percentage of individuals in North
Carolina who are no longer incarcerated but are still serving some aspect of a sentence
for a felony conviction—the category of ineligible voters the Strict Liability Voting Law
targets. Ex. 9 at 3–4. In the course of an audit of the 2016 presidential election, the
NCSBE determined that 441 individuals with felony convictions may have voted before
their sentences were completed. Ex. 2 at 3. 66% of these individuals were Black. Ex. 4.
The NCSBE referred these cases to the state’s District Attorneys, as required
under state law. See N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-22(d); Ex. 2 at 3. “[S]ome [D]istrict
[A]ttorneys express[ed] understandable concern that a felon who has voted may not have
been aware of the unlawfulness of his actions.” Ex. 2 at Appendix 7. Several District
Attorneys “summarily declined” to bring charges because they determined that “there

was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was ever notified of his or her
ineligibility to vote.” Ex. 5 at 1, 4–8.
But in 2018, the Alamance County District Attorney charged twelve individuals
(“the Alamance 12”) with violating the Strict Liability Voting Law. Ex. 1 at 129:24–
131:2. Nine members of the Alamance 12 were Black. Id. In 2019, the District Attorney
of Hoke County charged four individuals with violating the Strict Liability Voting Law.
Id. All four were Black. Id. Many of these defendants have expressed a deep-seated fear
of ever voting again. Ex. 12 at 2–4 & Haith Aff. at ¶¶ 9–10.
III. The Strict Liability Voting Law fails to provide fair notice of criminal
liability.
The Strict Liability Voting Law renders it a Class I felony “[f]or any person
convicted of a crime which excludes the person from the right of suffrage, to vote at any
primary or election without having been restored to the right of citizenship in due course
and by the method provided by law.” N.C. Gen Stat.§ 163-275(5). To determine how to
be “restored to the rights of citizenship,” a prospective voter must look outside the state’s
election laws to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 13-1 (the “Citizenship Restoration Law”), which does
not specifically mention the restoration of voting rights. The Citizenship Restoration Law
provides in relevant part:
Any person convicted of a crime, whereby the rights

of citizenship are forfeited, shall have such rights
automatically restored upon the occurrence of any one of the
following conditions:

(1) The unconditional discharge of an inmate, of a
probationer, or of a parolee by the agency of the State having
jurisdiction of that person or of a defendant under a
suspended sentence by the court …
(4) With regard to any person convicted of a crime against the

United States, the unconditional discharge of such person by
the agency of the United States having jurisdiction of such
person …
(5) With regard to any person convicted of a crime in another

state, the unconditional discharge of such person by the
agency of that state having jurisdiction of such person ….
Id. (emphasis added). Neither the Citizenship Restoration Law nor any other North
Carolina statute defines the term “unconditional discharge.” No published North Carolina
state court decision has expressly defined the term.
The State has construed the Citizenship Restoration Law as “preclud[ing] the
restoration of citizenship rights until the completion of the sentence, including any period
of parole, post-release supervision or probation.” Ex. 13 at 5. In 1994, North Carolina’s
Structured Sentencing Act abolished parole and required post-release supervision for
felony convictions. See N.C. GEN. STAT. ch. 15A, art. 81B. Yet until recently, many of
the State’s voting materials did not mention the completion of post-release supervision as
a requirement for the restoration of voting rights. Ex. 1 at 82:22–86:9, 94:14–96:4, 98:3–
100:17, 105:12–106:5, 112:1–23; Ex. 6–7.
The NCSBE has acknowledged that when individuals violate the Strict Liability
Voting Law, “education and understanding of the law appear to be the primary problem.”
Ex. 2 at 5. The NCSBE has also recognized that numerous deficiencies in the processes
9

for notifying individuals convicted of felonies of the loss of their voting rights, and
removing such individuals from the voter registration rolls, have contributed to violations
of the Strict Liability Voting Law. Ex. 2 at 3–4 & Appendix 7; Ex. 3 at 2; Ex. 5 at 1.
Some of these problems have since been addressed, Ex. 2 at 3–4 and Ex. 5 at 2, but
individuals who mistakenly voted before felony sentence completion in the 2016 election
remain subject to potential criminal charges under the State’s boundless statute of
limitations for felony prosecutions. See State v. Taylor, 713 S.E.2d 82, 90 (N.C. Ct. App.
2011) (“no statute of limitations bars the prosecution of a felony” in North Carolina).
IV. The Strict Liability Voting Law deters eligible individuals from registering to
vote and voting.
The vagueness of the Strict Liability Voting Law, coupled with the recent
prosecutions, have instilled a fear of voting in eligible individuals with past criminal
convictions because of the possibility of unintentionally violating the law and triggering
criminal charges. Montford Dec. at ¶¶ 10–11; McCoy Dec. at ¶¶ 9–10; Zimmer Dec. at
¶¶ 7–9; Ex. 10 at ¶¶ 20–21; Ex. 11 at ¶ 23; Ex. 12.
This chilling effect has substantially impeded Plaintiffs from carrying out their
missions of increasing political participation among Black and low-income voters; and
Plaintiffs have consequently had to expend additional time and resources to educate and
mobilize potential voters. Montford Dec. at ¶¶ 10–11; McCoy Dec. at ¶¶ 9–10. Even with
these additional efforts, Plaintiffs are very concerned that the Strict Liability Voting Law
will deter voting by eligible individuals, including individuals who are now eligible to
10

vote under the Wake County Superior Court’s September 4, 2020 decision in Comm.
Success Initiative v. Moore. Montford Dec. at ¶ 12; McCoy Dec. at ¶¶ 11–12.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the Strict Liability Voting Law (N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(5))
violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution; and
2. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
ARGUMENT
A court may grant a preliminary injunction if plaintiffs “demonstrate that (1) they
are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they will likely suffer irreparable harm absent an
injunction; (3) the balance of hardships weighs in their favor; and (4) the injunction is in
the public interest.” League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224,
236 (4th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs easily satisfy each of these requirements.3
I. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims.
As demonstrated below, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their due
process and equal protection claims challenging the constitutionality of the Strict
Liability Voting Law.
3
Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, alterations and citations are omitted
throughout.
11

A. The Strict Liability Voting Law is void for vagueness under the Due
Process Clause.
“[T]he question of a statute’s vagueness is a purely legal issue.” Manning v.
Caldwell for City of Roanoke, 930 F.3d 264, 272 (4th Cir. 2019). “To survive a
vagueness challenge” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “a
statute must give a person of ordinary intelligence adequate notice of what conduct is
prohibited and must include sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement.” Id. “[T]he standard of certainty is higher” for criminal statutes. Kolender v.
Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 n.8. (1983); see also Manning, 930 F.3d at 272-73 (a “stricter
standard” of clarity applies to criminal laws). This is because a law may not “consign a
person to the risk of significant penal consequences without first providing sufficiently
definite notice of prohibited activities.” Manning, 930 F.3d at 276-77; see also Johnson v.
U.S., 576 U.S. 591, 595 (2015) (“The prohibition of vagueness in criminal statutes is a
well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the
settled rules of law, and a statute that flouts it violates the first essential of due process.”).
A criminal statute may be unconstitutionally vague even if it is not vague in all its
applications. See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358 n.8; Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 602
“[T]he constitutionality of a vague statutory standard is closely related to whether
the standard incorporates a requirement of mens rea.” Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379,
395 (1979). “[A] scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness, especially with
respect to the adequacy of the notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed.”
12

Village of Hoffman Ests. v. Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498-99 (1982).
For example, in Jones v. Governor of Florida, the en banc Eleventh Circuit found the
scienter requirement dispositive in rejecting a vagueness challenge to Florida laws
criminalizing registering to vote and voting before felony sentence completion. No. 20-
12003, 2020 WL 5493770, at *19–20 (11th Cir. Sept. 11, 2020). The Eleventh Circuit
emphasized that “no felon who honestly believes he has completed the terms of his
sentence commits a crime by registering and voting.” Id. at *20.
Where a vague criminal statute has no scienter requirement, however, the law acts
as “a trap for those who act in good faith.” Colautti, 439 U.S. at 395. Such statutes
require “a relatively stringent review.” Peoples Rights Org., Inc. v. City of Columbus, 152
F.3d 522, 534, 536 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding a criminal ordinance “unconstitutionally
vague” were the defendant could be held liable despite his “complete lack of
knowledge”); see also Whatley v. Zatecky, 833 F.3d 762, 780 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[H]olding
defendants strictly liable for indeterminate offenses would be contrary to every Supreme
Court vagueness case[.]”).4
“[T]he most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of
a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.”
Village of Hoffman Ests., 455 U.S. at 499. Vague laws “inevitably lead citizens to steer
4
In general, criminal statutes “that require no mens rea are disfavored,” particularly if the
offenses are punishable by imprisonment. Staples v. U.S., 511 U.S. 600, 617 (1994)
(Thomas, J.).
13

far wider of the unlawful zone than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly
marked.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 109 (1972). A vague criminal law
that both (1) “contains no mens rea requirement,” and (2) “infringes on constitutionally
protected rights” cannot stand. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 55 (1999); see
also, e.g., Stahl v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 687 F.3d 1038, 1042 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding
unconstitutionally vague a strict liability ordinance criminalizing participation in
demonstrations that obstruct traffic, and finding “especially problematic … the
ordinance’s resulting chilling effect on core First Amendment speech”).
The Strict Liability Voting Law—a criminal statute with no scienter requirement
punishable by up to two years in prison—is unconstitutionally vague by any standard.
While the law criminalizes voting before an individual has “been restored to the right of
citizenship,” the law provides no guidance on when an individual regains his or her
citizenship rights. The Strict Liability Voting Law instead implicitly incorporates by
reference the Citizenship Restoration Law, which in turn provides that citizenship is
restored upon an individual’s “unconditional discharge.” See generally Manning, 930
F.3d at 273, 276-77 (finding a criminal statute unconstitutionally vague based on the
vagueness of a term incorporated by reference). Nowhere in the State’s statutes or the
case law is the term “unconditional discharge” expressly defined.5
Because the Strict Liability Voting Law carries serious criminal penalties even for
5
In other states, the term “unconditional discharge” references a sentence in which no
punishment is imposed. See, e.g., N.Y. Penal Law § 65.20.
14

inadvertent violations, it inevitably chills the constitutionally-protected act of voting by
eligible individuals with criminal convictions. Thus, this law does not pass constitutional
muster under the Due Process Clause.
B. The Strict Liability Voting Law violates the Equal Protection Clause.
When “a facially neutral law, like the one at issue here,” was “motivated by
invidious racial discrimination,” that law is “just as abhorrent, and just as
unconstitutional, as laws that expressly discriminate on the basis of race.” North Carolina
State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, 220 (4th Cir. 2016).
A law that was originally enacted with racial animus violates the Equal Protection
Clause if (i) the law was never purged of its original discriminatory taint, and (ii) the law
continues to have present-day disproportionate effects. See Hunter v. Underwood, 471
U.S. 222, 233 (1985) (holding that a criminal disenfranchisement law “violate[d] [E]qual
[P]rotection” where “its original enactment was motivated by a desire to discriminate
against [B]lacks on account of race and the section continues to this day to have that
effect”). The Strict Liability Voting Law meets each of Hunter’s prongs for an equal
protection violation.
First, the Strict Liability Voting Law was originally enacted in 1877 and reenacted
in 1899 with a specific intent to disenfranchise Black voters. In 1931, the General
Assembly reenacted the Strict Liability Voting Law with minor modifications that left the
substance of the law intact.
Second, the Strict Liability Voting Law has never been purged of its original
15

discriminatory taint because the key provisions of the Strict Liability Voting Law—strict
felony-level liability for voting after a felony conviction before restoration to
citizenship—have remained unchanged since 1899.
Neither the “mere passage of time,” Chen v. City of Houston, 206 F.3d 502, 518
(5th Cir. 2000), nor a “reenact[ment] … without significant change,” Hayden v. Paterson,
594 F.3d 150, 167 (2d Cir. 2010), is sufficient to purge a discriminatory law of its
original taint. Rather, only “substantial, race-neutral alterations in an old unconstitutional
law may remove the discriminatory taint.” Veasey v. Abbott, 888 F.3d 792, 802 (5th Cir.
2018).
The taint is removed if the revised version of the law does not “use criteria that
arguably carr[y] forward the effects of any discriminatory intent on the part of the [prior]
[l]egislature.” Abbott v. Perez, 138 S.Ct. 2305, 2325 (2018). For example, in Cotton v.
Fordice, the Fifth Circuit held that amendments to the racially-motivated selection of
crimes in Mississippi’s criminal disenfranchisement provision “removed the
discriminatory taint associated with the original version.” 157 F.3d 388, 391 (5th Cir.
1998). The court found it significant that one of the amendments “broadened” the
provision by “adding … crimes historically excluded from the list because they were not
considered ‘[B]lack’ crimes.” Id.
When a racially-motivated law is reenacted with its key discriminatory features
intact, however, that law retains its original discriminatory taint. The Supreme Court
recently made this commonsense principle clear in Ramos v. Louisiana, which struck
16

down a racially-motivated Louisiana law permitting nonunanimous verdicts for the
convictions of serious crimes.6 Louisiana originally adopted the law following its 1898
constitutional convention, which aimed “to ‘establish the supremacy of the white race.’”
140 S. Ct. 1390, 1394 (2020) (Gorsuch, J.). There was no dispute that “race was a
motivating factor” in the law’s original enactment. Id. Although Louisiana revised and
“eventually recodified” the law “in new proceedings untainted by racism,” id. at 1401
n.44, the law’s key features—nonunanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses—remained
unchanged. The Ramos Court placed great weight on the law’s “racist history” in its
constitutional analysis. Id.; see also id. at 1418 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (explaining
that although “Louisiana’s modern policy decision to retain nonunanimous juries … may
have been motivated by neutral principles (or just by inertia),” “the Jim Crow origins and
racially discriminatory effects (and the perception thereof) of non-unanimous juries in
Louisiana … should matter and should count heavily in favor” of striking down the law).
As in Ramos, there is no reasonable dispute that “race was a motivating factor” in
the original enactment of the Strict Liability Voting Law, id. at 1394, and the law’s key
discriminatory features have remained unchanged since.
Third, the Strict Liability Voting Law bears more heavily on the Black
community. Black individuals were disproportionately flagged by the NCSBE for
violating the Strict Liability Voting Law in the 2016 election, and they have been
6
The Court considered a challenge under the Sixth Amendment, not the Equal Protection
Clause, but its reasoning is nonetheless relevant here.
17

disproportionately prosecuted for those violations. The Strict Liability Voting Law thus
violates the Equal Protection Clause.
II. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in the
November 3, 2020 presidential election.
“[T]o demonstrate irreparable harm, a party must establish that the harm is
(1) certain and great, actual and not theoretical, and so imminent that there is a clear and
present need for equitable relief; and (2) that, once occurred, the threatened harm would
be beyond remediation.” North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. Cooper, 430 F. Supp.
3d 15, 51 (M.D.N.C. 2019) (“NC NAACP”) (quoting League of Women Voters of U.S. v.
Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 7-8 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“LWVUS”)). “By their very nature, laws
impacting the right to vote create the potential for irreparable harm; once an election
occurs, ‘there can be no do-over and no redress.’” Id. (quoting League of Women Voters
of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014)) (“LWVNC”). Courts
therefore “routinely deem restrictions on fundamental voting rights irreparable injury.”
LWVNC at 247. “[D]iscriminatory voting procedures in particular are the kind of serious
violation of the Constitution … for which courts have granted immediate relief.” Id.
“Organizations with core voter-advocacy missions … are irreparably harmed
when the defendant’s actions perceptibly impair the organization’s programs, making it
more difficult to carry out [their] mission” of registering voters and getting out the vote.
NC NAACP at 51; see also Action NC v. Strach, 216 F. Supp. 3d 597, 643 (M.D.N.C.
2016) (voting rights organizations demonstrated irreparable harm by showing that
18

defendants’ actions “perceptibly impair[ed] [their] ability to mobilize and educate voters
before the General Election, a key piece of their missions”); LWVUS, 838 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C.
Cir. 2016) (voting rights organizations demonstrated irreparable harm by showing that
that the challenged laws “unquestionably make it more difficult for the [organizations] to
accomplish their primary mission of registering voters”).
The Strict Liability Voting Law has significantly impaired Plaintiffs’ core
missions of encouraging broad political participation by members of Black and low-
income communities in North Carolina. Montford Dec. at ¶¶ 9–17; McCoy Dec. at ¶¶ 9–
15. The threat of prosecution for voting law violations inevitably has a chilling effect on
political participation. See, e.g., Smith v. Meese, 821 F.2d 1484, 1494 (11th Cir. 1987)
(finding plaintiffs adequately alleged that a policy of discriminatory voter fraud
prosecutions resulted in “the chilling of the plaintiffs’ right to vote”); U.S. v. McLeod,
385 F.2d 734, 747, 749-50 (5th Cir. 1967) (recognizing that “the mental anguish and
nuisance of having to defend baseless prosecutions could well deter [black individuals]
from participating in the registration process,” and observing that “[h]arassment in the
form of baseless arrests and prosecutions is one of the most effective means of putting a
halt to a voter registration drive.”). Strict liability criminal statutes have a particularly
powerful chilling effect. See, e.g., Project Vote v. Blackwell, 455 F. Supp. 2d 694, 705
(N.D. Oh. 2006) (enjoining enforcement of a strict liability criminal statute applicable to
voter registration organizations, and reasoning that “the prospect of being labeled a felon
for mere inadvertence, confusion, or innocent mistake weighs heavily upon anyone . …
19

Indeed, it is logical to conclude that anyone would be chilled in these circumstances.”).
To combat the chilling effect of the Strict Liability Voting Law, Plaintiffs have
diverted substantial time and resources from their broad-based voter registration and get-
out-the-vote efforts to educate eligible individuals with criminal convictions that they
may safely vote without fear of prosecution. Montford Dec. at ¶ 11; McCoy Dec. at ¶ 10.
“Such mobilization opportunities cannot be remedied once lost.” Georgia Coal. for
People’s Agenda v. Kemp, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (N.D. Ga. 2018).
Plaintiffs have also been forced to decline requests for voting assistance from
individuals who are unsure of their sentence completion status, both because of the
possibility that these individuals might inadvertently vote when they are not eligible to do
so, and because of the potential that Plaintiffs themselves might face criminal liability
under N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(13) for registering an ineligible individual to vote.
Montford Dec. at ¶¶ 13–15; McCoy Dec. at ¶¶ 13–14. If the Strict Liability Voting Law
included a scienter requirement, then Plaintiffs would do their best to assist these
individuals in good faith, consistent with their missions of encouraging broad political
participation. Montford Dec. at ¶ 16; McCoy Dec. at ¶ 14.
Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm unless this Court enjoins the enforcement of
the Strict Liability Voting Law before the registration window closes for the November 3,
2020 general election. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiffs may not be able to mobilize
eligible voters with criminal convictions to vote in the 2020 election, because of the
pervasive fear of inadvertently violating the Strict Liability Voting Law and facing
20

felony-level prosecution. This chilling effect will significantly impede Plaintiffs’ core
missions.
III. The balance of hardships tips heavily in favor of granting a preliminary

injunction.
While Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the Strict Liability Voting Law is
not preliminarily enjoined, Defendants will incur no hardship if this Court issues an
injunction.
To the extent Defendants wish to ensure that individuals who are still serving
sentences for felony convictions do not vote in the November 3, 2020 election,
Defendants have many other mechanisms available for doing so. See generally,
Greidinger v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344, 1354 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that Virginia could not
require voter registration applicants to provide their Social Security Numbers, and
reasoning that “Virginia’s interest in preventing voter fraud … could easily be met” using
other methods).
The District of Kansas’s decision in Fish v. Kobach is instructive. There, the court
held unconstitutional a Kansas law requiring individuals to provide documentary proof of
citizenship in order to register to vote. 309 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1103 (D. Kan. 2018), aff’d,
309 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2020). While the court acknowledged that Kansas had
“legitimate interests” in ensuring that noncitizens do not register to vote, id. at 1108, the
court noted that “the law has acted as a deterrent to registration and voting for
substantially more eligible Kansans than it has prevented ineligible voters from
21

registering to vote,” id. at 1113. The court found that “many confirmed instances of
noncitizen registration or attempted registration in Kansas were due to either applicant
confusion or mistake, or errors by [state] and county employees, not intentional voter
fraud.” Id. at 1103. The court determined that this “[l]ack of intent matters” because “it
frames the acceptable alternative approaches that would allow [the Kansas Secretary of
State] to better enforce the State’s citizenship requirement while imposing a less
burdensome process on Kansans who apply to register to vote.” Id. For instance, the court
pointed to “better, more meaningful efforts toward training” state employees who register
voters, to ensure that “noncitizens do not inadvertently end up on the voter rolls.” Id.
Here, the NCSBE has already identified changes to the State’s “registration and
list maintenance processes” and other procedures that would substantially reduce the
possibility that an ineligible individual with a felony conviction might vote. Ex. 2 at 3–4.
These changes include:
• “Working with public safety officials and the court system to ensure that
convicted felons are expressly notified that they lose their voting rights upon
conviction, and regain them only after completing their sentence, including
probation and parole”;
• “Increasing data-sharing between local election officials to ensure a felon

removed in one county does not re-register in another country, unless his or her
sentence is complete”;
• “Updating elections software to check felon status at the time of registration”;

and
• “Educating the public about voting requirements through [the] NCSBE

website, outreach events, news releases, social media and other means.”
22

Id. at 4. Some of these changes have already been implemented. Id. at 3–4; Ex. 3 at 2.
The Conference of District Attorneys of North Carolina has recommended additional
changes, including amending the standard plea transcript form to notify individuals of the
loss of their voting rights. Ex. 8.
Adopting procedural safeguards—rather than imposing strict criminal liability—is
the fairest and most effective way to prevent erroneous voting by individuals with felony
convictions. In any event, Defendants will not be prejudiced in their ability to bring
criminal charges under the Strict Liability Voting Law, as no statute of limitations applies
to felony prosecutions under North Carolina law. See Taylor, 713 S.E.2d at 90.
IV. The public interest strongly favors granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction.
“By definition, the public interest . . . favors permitting as many qualified voters to
vote as possible.” LWVNC, 769 F.3d at 247–48 (quoting Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697
F.3d 423, 437 (6th Cir. 2012)); see also Action NC, 216 F. Supp. 3d at 648 (“Favoring
enfranchisement and ensuring that qualified voters exercise their right to vote is always in
the public interest.”). Enforcing the requirements of the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses is also in the public interest. See Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albemarle
Cty Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249, 261 (4th Cir. 2003) (“Surely, upholding constitutional rights
serves the public interest.”).
Granting a preliminary injunction here is plainly in the public interest, because it
will ensure that eligible voters with criminal convictions are not deterred from casting a
23

ballot due to the threat of prosecution under a racially discriminatory and
unconstitutionally vague criminal statute.
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
In light of the upcoming election, Plaintiffs respectfully request expedited briefing
and consideration of this Motion. There is good cause to expedite briefing and
consideration here, as the last day to register to vote by mail is October 9, 2020 and the
last day to register in-person during the early voting period is October 31, 2020. Plaintiffs
respectfully request that the Court shorten the requirements of Local Civil Rule 7.3(f) to
require Defendants’ response within fourteen days of service of this Motion and
Plaintiffs’ reply within five days of service of the response. Plaintiffs further request that
the Court provide expedited consideration of a hearing date and decision on Plaintiffs’
Motion.
24


LLP JUSTICE
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 455-2000
Fax: (212) 455-2502
25

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.3(d)(1), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that the
foregoing Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction and to Expedite contains 6120 words (including headings and footnotes) as
measured by Microsoft Word.

Allison J. Riggs
26

I certify that on the 24th day of September, 2020, the foregoing Memorandum of
Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Request to Expedite
was served by electronic mail to Defendants’ Counsel, Alec McC. Peters, Chief Deputy
Attorney General at the address apeters@ncdoj.gov, and Katelyn Love, General Counsel
for the North Carolina State Board of Elections, at the address Katelyn.Love@ncsbe.gov,
with consent of counsel to accept service in this manner.

Allison J. Riggs
27


Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 20-cv-876
v.

official capacity as SECRETARY OF THE STATE COMPLAINT FOR
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON III, in DECLARATORY AND
his official capacity as MEMBER OF THE STATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; KAREN BRINSON
BELL, in her official capacity as EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BOARD OF
Defendants.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
JURISDICTION & VENUE ............................................................................................ 5
PARTIES ......................................................................................................................... 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. 10
I. North Carolina’s Strict Liability Voting Law Was Enacted for the Specific
Purpose of Deterring Black Individuals From Attempting to Vote. ...................... 10

Liability Voting Law with unequivocal discriminatory intent. .................. 14
intact since 1899. ...................................................................................... 19
II. North Carolina’s Strict Liability Voting Law Disproportionately Impacts

Black Individuals................................................................................................. 27
III. The Strict Liability Voting Law Fails to Provide Fair Notice of Criminal
Liability. .............................................................................................................. 33
IV. The Strict Liability Voting Law Deters Eligible Individuals From Voting. .......... 43
V. The Strict Liability Voting Law Impedes Plaintiffs’ Efforts to Carry Out
Their Missions. .................................................................................................... 51
VI. Expedited Relief Is Necessary to Ensure That Eligible Individuals With

Criminal Convictions Do Not Refrain From Voting in the Presidential
Election. .............................................................................................................. 52
CLAIMS ........................................................................................................................ 53
COUNT ONE ...................................................................................................... 53
COUNT TWO ..................................................................................................... 56
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................. 58

INTRODUCTION
1. This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-
275(5) (the “Strict Liability Voting Law”), a racially discriminatory relic of the
nineteenth century that imposes stringent criminal penalties on voting by North Carolina
residents who are on parole, probation or post-release supervision for a felony
conviction—even if those individuals mistakenly believe they are eligible to vote.
Violating the Strict Liability Voting Law is a Class I felony that carries a penalty of up
two years in prison. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-1340.17.1 Under this vague and confusing
law, and with grossly inadequate efforts by Defendants in this matter to provide
constitutionally-adequate notice to voters of potential violations of the law, mistakenly
voting in North Carolina can and does result in criminal prosecution.
2. The Strict Liability Voting Law was originally enacted in 1877 with an
intent to disenfranchise Black voters. See 1876–77 N.C. Sess. Laws 537. In 1899, the
North Carolina General Assembly (the “General Assembly”) reenacted the Strict
Liability Voting Law almost verbatim in a broad legislative initiative to suppress the
Black vote and reinstate white control throughout the state. See 1899 N.C. Sess. Laws
681. Despite the law’s racist roots, the General Assembly has never amended the key
1
See also Deposition of Karen Brinson Bell, Executive Director of the North Carolina
State Board of Elections (“Bell Dep.”), Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-
CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 16, 2020) (“CSI”), (Exhibit 1), at 127:4–9 (Q: “Ms.
Bell, do you understand that under the current law, if a person votes while on felony
probation or post-release supervision, that’s a crime for which a person can face up to
two years in prison? A: That is my understanding, yes.”).
1

features of the Strict Liability Voting Law. It has remained on the books meaningfully
unchanged since 1899.
3. Virtually every other election crime punishable as a Class I felony in North
Carolina requires intent. See, e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 163-275(1, 3, 4, 7–9). But “felon
voting is a strict liability offense, and thus a felon may be convicted of a crime even if he
or she does not know that voting while serving an active sentence is wrongful.”2 The
North Carolina State Board of Elections (“NCSBE”) has recognized that violations of the
Strict Liability Voting Law are almost always unintentional, and “education and
understanding of state law appear to be the primary problem.”3
4. Nevertheless, District Attorneys in North Carolina have and are prosecuting
voters for violations of the Strict Liability Voting Law. In Alamance and Hoke Counties,
as just two examples, District Attorneys have prosecuted sixteen North Carolina
residents, thirteen of whom are Black, for violating the State’s draconian Strict Liability
Law.4 These high-profile criminal cases, as well as the vague wording of the Strict
2
Post-Election Audit Report: General Election 2016, North Carolina State Board of
Elections (Apr. 21, 2017) (“Post-Election Audit Report”), (Exhibit 2), at 3.
3
Id. at 5.
4
See Bell Dep. (Exhibit 1) at 129:24-131:2; Jack Healy, “Arrested, Jailed and Charged
with a Felony. For Voting,” N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 2, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/us/arrested-voting-north-carolina.html; Gilbert
Braez, “Convicted felons charged with illegally voting in Hoke,” WRAL.com (Aug. 1,
2019), https://www.wral.com/convicted-felons-charged-with-illegally-voting-in-
hoke/18545541/.
2

Liability Law, have chilled countless eligible voters with criminal convictions from
exercising their right to cast a ballot. Leaders of nonprofit organizations that serve
individuals transitioning out of the criminal justice system have attested to this de facto
disenfranchisement. For example, Diana Powell, the Executive Director of Justice Served
N.C., has testified that “[m]any of [the organization’s] clients have expressed to [her] that
they are afraid to be prosecuted for inadvertently voting before they have completed their
full probation or post-release sentence. . . . These men and women remain incredibly
fearful of casting a ballot even after their voting rights have been restored.”5
5. Justice Served N.C., together with the Community Success Initiative and
the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, recently brought suit in Wake
County Superior Court challenging the State’s post-incarceration criminal
disenfranchisement scheme under various provisions of the North Carolina State
Constitution. On September 4, 2020, the Wake County Superior Court issued a decision
enjoining the NCSBE and other State defendants “from preventing a person convicted of
a felony from registering to vote and exercising their right to vote if that person’s only
remaining barrier to” sentence completion “is the payment of a monetary amount.”6
5
Affidavit of Diana Powell (“Powell Aff.”), CSI (May 6, 2020) at ¶ 21,
https://forwardjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Jacobson-Decl.-and-
Exhibits_US_167801403_2-1.pdf.
6
Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, CSI (Sept. 4, 2020), at 10,
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7202706/19-CVS-15941-Order-on-Plt-
MPI.pdf.
3

North Carolina residents who have completed all aspects of their sentences except for the
full payment of fines, fees and restitution are now eligible to vote in the 2020 presidential
election and beyond. Despite this injunction, however, individuals with only outstanding
financial obligations in connection with a felony conviction might and indeed will opt not
to vote because of the fear of criminal prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law.
6. The Strict Liability Voting Law not only harms voters, but it also impedes
the essential work of organizations such as the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph
Institute and Action NC, the plaintiffs in this action (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). These
organizations are dedicated to increasing political participation by residents of North
Carolina through voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts. However, the
specter of prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law has substantially impeded
Plaintiffs’ efforts to carry out their missions.
7. “As Election Day approaches, it’s essential to remember that consequences
of [unjust voting-related] prosecutions . . . radiate far beyond the defendant, making
entire communities question whether it’s worth the risk to engage in one of the most
sacred rights in a democratic society.”7 Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to expedite
adjudication of this case in light of the upcoming presidential election.
7
Josie Duffy Rice, “How to Punish Voters,” N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 31, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/opinion/election-voting-rights-fraud-
prosecutions.html.
4

8. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Strict Liability Voting Law violates the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of
the Strict Liability Voting Law; and such other and further relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
9. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
10. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights
jurisdiction) because this case arises under the United States Constitution and seeks
equitable and other relief for the deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state
law.
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all of the Defendants, as each is
either a state government entity or a state government official in North Carolina.
12. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
13. This Court is authorized to award attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
14. Venue is properly set within the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

PARTIES
Plaintiffs
15. Plaintiff NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE (“NC
APRI”) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization and is the North Carolina division of the
national A. Philip Randolph Institute, the senior constituency group of the AFL-CIO
dedicated to advancing racial equality and economic justice. APRI grew out of the legacy
of African-American trade unionists’ advocacy for civil rights and the passage of the
federal Voting Rights Act and continues to advocate for social, political and economic
justice for all working Americans. NC APRI is a statewide organization with local
chapters across the state. Its chapters are located in Durham, Greensboro, the Piedmont,
Raleigh, Roanoke Rapids and Fayetteville. NC APRI has members who are registered
voters across North Carolina. To advance its core mission of advancing racial equality,
NC APRI works to increase access to the polls, voter registration and voter education,
particularly among working class African Americans. It distributes nonpartisan voter
guides and hosts phone banks to encourage voter participation. APRI also organizes
transportation to the polls throughout the early voting period, concentrating its efforts in
predominantly African-American neighborhoods, and encourages first-time registration
during the early voting period using same-day registration. NC APRI engaged in these
efforts in 36 North Carolina counties in 2012. The Strict Liability Voting Law has
substantially impeded the NC APRI’s ability to carry out its mission with respect to
Black community members with criminal convictions. NC-APRI has had difficulty

persuading eligible Black individuals with criminal convictions to register to vote and
vote, because of their fear of prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law. That is,
the law has rendered it practically impossible for the organization to accomplish a central
component of its mission – registering these individuals to vote and encouraging them to
then vote. Moreover, in certain cases, NC APRI has been forced to decline requests from
Black community members with felony convictions for guidance on voter eligibility
requirements and assistance with registering to vote and voting, due to the risk of
inadvertent violations of the Strict Liability Voting Law. NC APRI has instead forwarded
those requests along to organizations with expertise in the laws governing voting after a
felony conviction. NC APRI has also been forced to divert time, money and resources
from its voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities to educate volunteers on the
potential risks of registering an individual with a felony conviction, and to caution
community members on the potential risks of voting after a felony conviction before
sentence completion.
16. Plaintiff ACTION NC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization focused on
reducing the root causes of poverty, underdevelopment, and social and economic
inequality in North Carolina. Action NC operates through three regional offices in
Charlotte, Durham, and Raleigh. Issues that Action NC works on include voter
participation, education, immigration, health care, fair and affordable housing, and
neighborhood organizing. As part of its mission of community engagement and
empowerment, Action NC is committed to increasing voter participation in North

7

Carolina’s low-income communities, by, among other activities, conducting voter
registration drives in neighborhoods and at public sites, generating and distributing issue-
based materials in low-income neighborhoods, and hosting public presentations on issues
related to elections and voting in these neighborhoods. The Strict Liability Voting Law
has substantially impeded the Action NC’s ability to carry out its mission with respect to
community members with criminal convictions. Action NC has had difficulty persuading
eligible North Carolina residents with criminal convictions to register to vote and vote,
because of their fear of prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law. Moreover,
Action NC fears violating N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(13), which imposes criminal
penalties on third-party voter registration groups for violations of North Carolina’s
election laws, should they register voters who might ultimately be liable for voting in
violation of the Strict Liability Voting Law.
Defendants
17. Defendant the NCSBE is the agency responsible for the administration of
the election laws of the State of North Carolina. The NCSBE oversees the county boards
of elections. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-22(c). The NCSBE is also responsible for
maintaining the State’s “official list of registered voters,” and ensuring that only
individuals who are eligible to vote are on that list. Id. § 163-82.11(a, c). The NCSBE
drafts the State’s voter registration and other voting-related materials. Id. §§ 163-22(e),
163-82.3(a). The NCSBE is statutorily obligated to “investigate when necessary or

advisable, the administration of election laws, frauds and irregularities in elections in any
county and municipality and special district[.]” Id. § 163-22(d).
18. Defendant DAMON CIRCOSTA is the Chair of the NCSBE. Mr. Circosta
is sued in his official capacity.
19. Defendant STELLA ANDERSON is the Secretary of the NCSBE. Ms.
Anderson is sued in her official capacity.
20. Defendant JEFF CARMON III is a Member of the NCSBE. Mr. Carmon is
sued in his official capacity.
21. Defendant KAREN BRINSON BELL is the Executive Director of the
NCSBE. Ms. Brinson is sued in her official capacity.
22. Defendant JOSH STEIN is the Attorney General of the State of North
Carolina (“Attorney General”). He is sued in his official capacity. The Attorney General
is statutorily authorized to receive reports of “violations of the election laws” from the
NCSBE “for further investigation and prosecution.” N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-22(d). The
Attorney General is also statutorily obligated to advise the NCSBE on the preparation of
the State’s Voter Registration Application and other voting and election-related forms,
upon request by the NCSBE.8 The Attorney General is also statutorily required “[t]o
8
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-22(e) (“In the preparation of ballots, pollbooks, abstract and
return forms, and all other forms [including the State’s Voter Registration Application],
the State Board of Elections may call to its aid the Attorney General of the State, and it
shall be the duty of the Attorney General to advise and aid in the preparation of these
books, ballots and forms.”).
9

consult with and advise” the State’s District Attorneys “when requested by them, in all
matters pertaining to the duties of their office.” Id. § 114-2(4). Moreover, the Attorney
General may authorize attorneys in the Special Prosecution Division of the Office of the
Attorney General “to prosecute or assist in the prosecution of criminal cases when
requested to do so by a district attorney.” Id. § 114-11.6.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. North Carolina’s Strict Liability Voting Law Was Enacted for the Specific
Purpose of Deterring Black Individuals From Attempting to Vote.
23. Before the Civil War, the North Carolina Constitution explicitly denied
voting rights in State elections to free Black men. See N.C. CONST. art. I, Section 3, § 3
(1835) (“No free negro, free mulatto, or free person of mixed blood, descended from
negro ancestors to the fourth generation inclusive, (though one ancestor of each
generation may have been a white person,) shall vote for members of the Senate or House
of Commons.”).9
24. Because Black individuals had no right to vote, North Carolina’s pre-Civil
War criminal disenfranchisement law applied only to white individuals. That law did not
disenfranchise individuals convicted of all felonies. Rather, only individuals convicted of
9
The complete text of North Carolina’s 1835 Constitution is included in “North Carolina
Constitutional Convention, Journal of the Convention, Called by the Freemen of North-
Carolina, to Amend the Constitution of the State, Which Assembled in the City of
Raleigh, on the 4th of June, 1835, and Continued in Session Until the 11th Day of July
Thereafter” (Raleigh: J. Gales and Son, 1835),
https://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/conv1835/conv1835.html.
10

“infamous crimes” were disenfranchised in North Carolina.10 Disenfranchised individuals
could regain their right to vote by petitioning the Superior Court of Law to restore their
rights of citizenship.11
25. After the Civil War, North Carolinians seized on the State’s criminal
disenfranchisement law to limit Black suffrage. In 1867, during the debates on the
Reconstruction Act, Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania reported that he
had “received information from gentlemen connected with the Freedmen’s Bureau . . .
that in North Carolina and other States where punishment at the whipping-post deprives
the person of the right to vote, they are now every day whipping negroes for a thousand
and one trivial offenses.”12 Representative Stevens stated that “in one county . . . they had
whipped every adult male negro who they knew of. They were all convicted and
sentenced at once . . . for the purpose of preventing these negroes from voting under the
bills which have been passed.”13
26. In 1868, North Carolina adopted a new constitution (“1868 Constitution”)
that granted the right to vote, without regard to race, to “[e]very male person born in the
10
See 1840-41 N.C. Sess. Laws 68–69,
https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p249901coll22/id/166374.
11
Id.
12
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 2d Sess. 324 (Jan. 7, 1867), http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=075/llcg075.db&recNum=3377, 1987) .
13
Id.
11

United States, and every male person who has been naturalized, twenty-one years old or
upward” who had resided in the State for twelve months and the county for thirty days.14
The 1868 Constitution did not include a criminal disenfranchisement provision. During
the years that followed the adoption of the 1868 Constitution, Black citizens participated
in government in previously unprecedented numbers and roles.15
27. In 1875, North Carolina amended its constitution to frustrate and impede
the influence of Black citizens.16 The 1875 constitutional amendments included a
criminal disenfranchisement provision, which read as follows: “[N]o person, who, upon
conviction or confession in open Court, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, or any other
crime infamous by the laws of this State, and hereafter committed, shall be deemed an
elector, unless such person shall be restored to the rights of citizenship in a manner
14
N.C. CONST., art. VI, § 1 (1868),
https://www.carolana.com/NC/Documents/NC_Constitution_1868.pdf.
15
See generally William Mabry, White Supremacy and the North Carolina Suffrage
Amendment, 13 N.C. Hist. Rev. 1 (1936).
16
For example, the 1868 Constitution was amended to permit the General Assembly to
enact legislation to change local government positions from elected offices to
appointments. N.C. CONST., amend. XXV (as amended in 1875). “The purpose of this
amendment, as was well understood, was to block control of local government in the
eastern counties by [B]lacks who were in the majority there.” John V. Orth, North
Carolina Constitutional History, 70 N.C. L. Rev. 1759, 1783 (1992). The 1875
constitutional amendments also included provisions establishing segregated education in
public schools and prohibiting interracial marriage. See N.C. CONST., art. IX § 2, art. XIV
§ 8 (as amended in 1875),
https://www.carolana.com/NC/Documents/NC_Constitution_as_Amended_by_1875_Co
nvention.pdf.
12

prescribed by law.”17 It was widely understood that this provision would
disproportionately impact Black North Carolinians.18
28. In 1877, the North Carolina Legislature enacted a new law imposing strict
criminal liability on individuals convicted of disenfranchising offenses who voted before
they were restored to the rights of citizenship:
If a person be challenged as being convicted of any crime

conviction; but his answer to such questions shall not be used
against him in any criminal prosecution, but if any person so
convicted shall vote at any election, without having been
legally restored to the rights of citizenship, he shall be
deemed guilty of an infamous crime, and, on conviction
thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars, or imprisonment at hard labor not exceeding
two years, or both.19
The law did not include an intent requirement. Rather, criminal liability attached even if
the individual was not aware that he was ineligible to vote due to his criminal conviction.
This racially discriminatory criminal law remains on the books today, virtually
unchanged since 1877.
17
N.C. CONST. (1868), art. VI § 1 (as amended in 1875).
18
See, e.g., The Centennial (Warrenton, N.C. Aug. 25, 1876), at 2 (“[T]he great majority
of the criminals are negroes . . . .”).
19
1876–77 N.C. Sess. Laws 537 (emphasis added),
13

Liability Voting Law with unequivocal discriminatory intent.
29. During the 1880s and 1890s, Black individuals in North Carolina slowly
amassed political power through the exercise of their right to vote. In 1898, the State
Democratic Executive Committee of North Carolina (the “Committee”) enumerated a list
of Black elected officials in counties around the state, and asserted that “any one can see
how the negro is progressing as a ruler of white men.”20 The Committee warned that
“[g]radually, step by step, the negroes have been given dominion over many of our
towns, and unless the white people unite to stop it, they will obtain control over every
town in the State.”21 The Committee posited that “negro rule is a curse to both races.”22
30. The Committee reported that Black voters accounted for “fully one-third”
of all votes cast “in any general election in the State.”23 According to the Democratic
Committee’s calculations, there were “at least 120,000 negro voters in the State; and it is
rare that one of them fails to vote.”24
31. The Committee claimed that Black individuals engaged in widespread
20
Democratic Executive Committee of North Carolina, The Democratic Hand Book 145
(1898), https://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/dem1898/dem1898.html.
21
Id. at 48; see also id. at 145 (“[I]f the negro progresses in office-holding in the future as
in the last two or three years, it will not be long before he is in absolute control.”).
22
Id. at 32.
23
Id. at 37.
24
Id.
14

voting fraud, and specifically highlighted purported voting by Black individuals with
felony convictions. The Committee asserted that “[u]nder the election law of 1895, . . .
negro boys under twenty-one years of age, negroes imported from beyond the borders of
the State, negro ex-convicts and negro repeaters were registered and voted galore. The
doors of fraud were thrown wide open to these irresponsible and ignorant voters and no
protection whatsoever was afforded to the honest voters of the State.”25 The Committee
contended that Black individuals “were of a roving disposition, moved from place to
place, and could readily conceal their identity. For the same reason it was easy to import
them from other communities and to register ex-convicts and boys under twenty-one
years of age. These facts . . . made it easy for them, with little danger of detection, to
register and vote at several different places”26
32. The Committee argued that “this is a white man's country and white men
must control and govern it. They must govern it not only because they are white men, but
because they can do it better than the negro. The negro has, whenever tried, demonstrated
his unfitness and inability to rule. It is better for the negro, as well as for the white man,
that the white man should make and administer the laws.”27 The Committee stated that it
25
Id. at 88; see also id. at 86 (“There are instances . . . in many of the negro counties,
where negro election officers have been shown to have persuaded negroes to register,
knowing them to be ex-convicts or under age . . . .”).
26
Id. at 84.
27
Id. at 38.
15

is “the special mission of the Democratic Party to rescue the white people of the east
from the curse of negro domination,” and promised that “[t]here is one thing the
Democratic Party never has done and never will do—and that is to set the negro up to
rule over white men.”28 The Committee “denounce[d] all enactments of the last two
Legislatures by which cities and towns in the State have been turned over to negro
domination,” and “pledge[d] . . . to enact such laws as will give security and protection to
the property and people of every town and community in the State.”29
33. The Committee represented that “the white men of the State . . . do not
practice carrying elections by fraud.”30 But in the November 1898 election, the
Democratic Party “resorted to the threat of violence,” and held rallies at which “large
groups of men . . . openly brandishing weapons rode through predominantly African
American neighborhoods in an effort to scare away potential Republican voters from the
polls.”31 The Democrats “won a majority of the seats in the legislature and quickly began
work on legislation that would effectively disenfranchise African American voters for
28
Id.
29
Id. at 189.
30
Id. at 92.
31
The North Carolina Election of 1898: An Introduction, The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, https://exhibits.lib.unc.edu/exhibits/show/1898/history (last
visited Sept. 24, 2020).
16

decades to come.”32
34. In 1899, the General Assembly enacted An Act to Regulate Elections (the
“1899 Election Act”).33 Consistent with the 1875 constitutional amendment, the 1899
Election Act provided that “persons who upon conviction or confession in open court
shall have been adjudged guilty of felony or other crime infamous by the laws of this
state” after January 1, 1867 “shall not be allowed to register or vote in this state . . .
unless they shall have been legally restored to the rights of citizenship.”34
35. The 1899 Election Act reenacted the Strict Liability Voting Law almost
verbatim:
If any person be challenged as being convicted of any crime

convictions; but his answer to such questions shall not be
used against him in any criminal prosecution, but if any
person so convicted shall vote at the election, without having
been restored to the rights of citizenship he shall be guilty of
an infamous crime, and punished by a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars or imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding
two years or both.35
Like the original version enacted in 1877, the 1899 version of the Strict Liability Voting
32
Id.
33
See 1899 N.C. Sess. Laws 658,
https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p249901coll22/id/229909/rec/1.
34
Id. at 665, https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p249901coll22/id/229916/rec/1.
35
Id. at 681 (emphasis added),
17

Law included no intent requirement.
36. While the 1899 Act imposed felony-level criminal penalties on individuals
with felony convictions who voted without any fraudulent intent, that same Act
established only misdemeanor-level penalties for active interference with elections
through violence or intimidation. For example, the 1899 Act provided that:
• “Any person who by force and violence shall break up or stay any election
by assaulting the officers thereof or depriving them of the ballot boxes or
by any other means, his aiders and abettors, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and imprisoned not more than three months and pay such fine
as the court shall adjudge, not exceeding one hundred dollars.36
• “Any person who shall discharge from employment, withdraw patronage

from or otherwise injure, threaten, oppress or attempt to intimidate any
qualified voter of this state because of the vote such voter may or may not
have cast in any election shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”37
• “If any person shall interrupt or disturb the registrar while actually engaged
in the registration of voters or the registrar or judges of election while
holding the election or in counting and adding up the result thereof, or the
board of county canvassers or the state board of canvassers while engaged
in the discharge of their official duties, or behave in a disorderly or
boisterous manner in the presence of said officers while so engaged in the
legal discharge of the duties of their several positions, such person shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or
imprisoned not more than thirty days.”38
37. In 1900, the North Carolina General Assembly approved an amendment to
36
Id. at 676, https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p249901coll22/id/229927.
37
38
Id. at 676–77, https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p249901coll22/id/229927.
18

the state constitution (the “Suffrage Amendment”) that broadened the scope of the state’s
criminal disenfranchisement exception as follows:
No person who has been convicted, or who has confessed his

guilt in open court upon indictment, of any crime, the
punishment of which is now, or may hereafter be,
imprisonment in the State’s prison, shall be permitted to vote,
unless the said person shall be first restored to citizenship in
the manner prescribed by law.39
The Suffrage Amendment also established a poll tax, a literacy test and a grandfather
clause.40 The Suffrage Amendment was “specifically designed to disenfranchise [B]lack
voters.” Gingles v. Edmisten, 590 F. Supp. 345, 359 (E.D.N.C. 1984), aff’d in part, rev’d
in part sub nom, Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
intact since 1899.
38. In 1931, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted An Act to Make
More Effective the Control of the State Over Corrupt Practices in Primaries and
Elections (“1931 Act”).41 The 1931 Act reenacted many of the voting crimes included in
39
1900 N.C. Sess. Laws 55, amending N.C. CONST., art. VI, § 2,
40
Id.
41
See 1931 N.C. Sess. Laws 438,
19

the 1899 Act, including the Strict Liability Voting Law.42 There were some differences
between the 1899 Act and the 1931 Act. For instance, the 1931 Act grouped together
misdemeanor-level election crimes and felony-level election crimes.43 The 1931 Act also
provided uniform penalties for felony-level election crimes: any individual convicted of a
felony-level election crime, including a violation of the Strict Liability Voting Law,
would “be imprisoned in the State’s prison not less than four months or fined not less
than one thousand dollars or both, in the discretion of the Court.”44
39. The 1931 Act streamlined the language of the 1899 version of the Strict
Liability Voting Law, and specified that the law applied with equal force to primary
elections. But the key features of the 1931 version of the Strict Liability Voting Law were
identical to the 1899 Act version—that is, voting while ineligible because of a prior
felony conviction was itself a felony under North Carolina law, and one for which no
intent element was required to prove culpability.
42
See id. at 441-445,
43
See id.
44
20

1899 Act 1931 Act
Statutory “[I]f any person . . . convicted of “It shall be unlawful: . . . [f]or any
language any crime which excludes him person, convicted of a crime which
from the right of suffrage excludes him from the right of
. . . shall vote at the election suffrage, to vote at any primary or
without having been restored to election without having been
the rights of citizenship he shall restored to the right of citizenship in
be deemed guilty of an infamous due course and by the method
crime . . . ” 45 provided by law”46
Applies to Any person convicted of a “crime Any person convicted of a “crime

which excludes him from the which excludes him from the right
right of suffrage” of suffrage”
Offending To “vote at the election without To “vote at any primary or election

conduct having been restored to the rights without having been restored to the
of citizenship” right of citizenship in due course
and by the method provided by
law”
Scienter No scienter requirement No scienter requirement

requirement?
Offense Felony47 Felony

level?
45
1899 N.C. Sess. Laws 681,
46
1931 N.C. Sess. Laws 444,
47
Any crime punishable by imprisonment was a felony at the time of the 1899 Act. See
State v. Bryan, 16 S.E. 909, 909 n.1 (N.C. 1893) (“Act 1891, c. 205 declares ‘that a
felony is a crime which may be punishable by either death or imprisonment. Any other
crime is a misdemeanor.’”).
21

40. The 1931 Act also reenacted the misdemeanor-level penalties codified in
the 1899 Act for active interference with elections through violence or intimidation.
1899 Act—Misdemeanors 1931 Act—Misdemeanors
“Any person who by force and violence “It shall be unlawful: . . . For any person
shall break up or stay any election by to break up or by force or violence to stay
assaulting the officers thereof or depriving or to interfere with the holding of any
them of the ballot boxes or by any other primary or election, to interfere with the
means, his aiders and abettors, shall be possession of any ballot box, election
guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .”48 book, ticket or return sheet by those
entitled to possession of the same under
the law . . . .”49
“Any person who shall discharge from “It shall be unlawful: . . . For any person,
employment, withdraw patronage from, or directly or indirectly, to discharge or
otherwise injure, threaten, oppress or threaten to discharge from employment, or
attempt to intimidate any qualified voter otherwise intimidate or oppress any
of this state because of the vote such voter legally qualified voter on account of any
may or may not have cast in any election vote such voter may cast or consider or
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”50 intend to cast, or not to cast, or which he
may have failed to cast;”51
“If any person shall interrupt or disturb the “It shall be unlawful: . . . For any person
registrar while actually engaged in the to be guilty of any boisterous conduct so
registration of voters or the registrar or as to disturb any member of any election
judges of election while engaged in or canvassing board or any registrar or
holding the election or in counting and judge of elections in the performance of
adding up the result thereof, or the board
of county canvassers or the state board of
48
1899 N.C. Sess. Laws 676 (emphasis added), supra note 36.
49
1931 N.C. Sess. Laws 441 (emphasis added),
50
51
22

1899 Act—Misdemeanors 1931 Act—Misdemeanors
canvassers while engaged in the discharge his duties as imposed by law.”53

of their official duties, or behave in a
disorderly or boisterous manner in the
presence of said officers while so engaged
in the discharge of their official duties, or
obstruct such officers in the legal
discharge of the duties of their several
positions, such person shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor . . . .”52
41. Since 1931, the General Assembly has changed just one single word (and
removed one comma) in the Strict Liability Voting Law, as noted below:
It shall be unlawful: . . . For any person, convicted of a crime

which excludes him the person from the right of suffrage, to
vote at any primary or election without having been restored
to the right of citizenship in due course and by the method
provided by law.54
The Strict Liability Voting Law has otherwise remained completely intact.
42. The General Assembly has also left intact the 1899 laws imposing low-
level criminal penalties for certain serious election crimes. Under present-day North
Carolina law, it is merely a Class 2 misdemeanor to interfere with an election by force or
violence, or to intimidate a legally qualified voter. N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 163-274(4–5, 7).
52
1899 N.C. Sess. Laws 676–77, supra note 36.
53
54
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(5) (edited to reflect changes from 1931 N.C. Sess. Laws
444).
23

1899 Act—Misdemeanors Present-Day Law—Misdemeanors
“Any person who by force and violence “It shall be unlawful: . . . For any person
shall break up or stay any election by to break up or by force or violence to stay
assaulting the officers thereof or depriving or interfere with the holding of any
them of the ballot boxes or by any other primary or election, to interfere with the
means, his aiders and abettors, shall be possession of any ballot box, election
guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .”55 book, ballot or return sheet by those
entitled to possession of the same under
the law . . . .”56
“Any person who shall discharge from “It shall be unlawful: . . . For any person,
employment, withdraw patronage from, or directly or indirectly, to discharge or
otherwise injure, threaten, oppress or threaten to discharge from employment, or
attempt to intimidate any qualified voter otherwise intimidate or oppose any legally
of this state because of the vote such voter qualified voter on account of any vote
may or may not have cast in any election such voter may cast or consider or intend
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”57 to cast, or not to cast, or which that voter
may have failed to cast;”58
55
56
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-274(4) (emphasis added).
57
58
24

1899 Act—Misdemeanors Present-Day Law—Misdemeanors
“If any person shall interrupt or disturb the “It shall be unlawful: . . . For any person
registrar while actually engaged in the to be guilty of any boisterous conduct so
registration of voters or the registrar or as to disturb any member of any election
judges of election while engaged in board or any chief judge or judge of
holding the election or in counting and election in the performance of that
adding up the result thereof, or the board person’s duties as imposed by law.”60
of county canvassers or the state board of
canvassers while engaged in the discharge
of their official duties, or behave in a
disorderly or boisterous manner in the
presence of said officers while so engaged
in the discharge of their official duties, or
obstruct such officers in the legal
discharge of the duties of their several
positions, such person shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor . . . .”59
43. The Strict Liability Voting Law is an outlier in North Carolina’s election
laws. Virtually every other election crime punishable as a Class I felony requires intent.
For example, it is unlawful:
• “For any person fraudulently to cause that person's name to be placed

upon the registration books of more than one election precinct or
fraudulently to cause or procure that person's name or that of any other
person to be placed upon the registration books in any precinct when
registration in that precinct does not qualify the person to vote legally
therein, or to impersonate falsely another registered voter for the
purpose of voting in the stead of the other voter.” N.C. GEN. STAT.
§ 163-275(1) (emphasis added).
59
1899 N.C. Sess. Laws 676–77, supra note 37.
60
25

• “For any person who is an election officer, a member of an election
board or other officer charged with any duty with respect to any primary
or election, knowingly to make any false or fraudulent entry on any
election book or any false or fraudulent returns, or knowingly to make
or cause to be made any false statement on any ballot, or to do any
fraudulent act or knowingly and fraudulently omit to do any act or make
any report legally required of that person.” Id. § 163-275(3) (emphasis
added).
• “For any person knowingly to swear falsely with respect to any matter
pertaining to any primary or election.” Id. § 163-275(4) (emphasis
added).
• “For any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more
than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to do so,
in the same primary or election, or to vote illegally at any primary or
election.” Id. § 163-275(7) (emphasis added).
• “For any chief judge or any clerk or copyist to make any entry or copy
with intent to commit a fraud.” Id. § 163-275(8) (emphasis added).
• “For any election official or other officer or person to make, certify,

deliver or transmit any false returns of any primary or election, or to
make any erasure, alteration, or conceal or destroy any election ballot,
book, record, return or process with intent to commit a fraud.” Id. § 163-
275(9) (emphasis added).
44. Yet there is no intent requirement of any kind under the Strict Liability
Voting Law. As the NCSBE has explained, “[t]he language contained in the felon voting
statute does not include an element of intent, such that violating the statute does not
require evidence that the statute was knowingly violated for a possible violation to have
occurred.”61
61
August 12, 2018 Letter from the Chief Investigator of the NCSBE to the District
Attorney for Judicial District 16A (“Aug. 12, 2018 NCSBE Letter”) (Exhibit 3), at 1.
26

45. The penalties for violating the Strict Liability Voting Law are exceedingly
harsh: An individual who mistakenly votes while on parole, probation or post-release
supervision for a felony conviction may be imprisoned for up to two years.62
II. North Carolina’s Strict Liability Voting Law Disproportionately Impacts

Black Individuals.
46. Black individuals constitute an outsized percentage of individuals in North
Carolina who are no longer incarcerated but are still serving some aspect of a sentence
for a felony conviction—the category of individuals the Strict Liability Voting Law
targets. While Black individuals account for only 22% of the North Carolina’s
population, they constitute 42% of those on probation or post-release supervision for a
felony conviction in North Carolina state courts.63
47. In the course of an audit of the 2016 presidential election, the NCSBE
determined that 441 individuals with felony convictions may have voted before their
62
See N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-1340.17; Bell Dep. (Exhibit 1) at 127:4–9.
63
United States Census, Quick Facts North Carolina,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/NC (last visited Sept. 23, 2020); Expert Report on
North Carolina’s Disenfranchisement of Individuals on Probation and Post-Release
Supervision, Professor Frank R. Baumgartner, Richard J. Richardson Distinguished
Professor of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CSI (May 8,
2020), at 3–4, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6887554-Expert-Report-of-
Frank-R-Baumgartner-Reenfranch.html.
27

sentences were completed.64 66% of these individuals were Black.65
48. The NCSBE referred these cases to the state’s District Attorneys, as
required under state law. See N.C.G.S. § 163-22(d) (requiring the NCSBE to “report
violations of the election laws to the Attorney General or district attorney or prosecutor of
the district for further investigation and prosecution”).66
49. “[S]ome [D]istrict [A]ttorneys express[ed] understandable concern that a
felon who has voted may not have been aware of the unlawfulness of his actions.”67
Many District Attorneys “summarily declined” to bring charges because they
“determined there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was ever notified
of his or her ineligibility to vote.”68
50. But in April 2018, the District Attorney of Alamance County charged
64
Post-Election Audit Report (Exhibit 2) at 3.
65
NCSBE Response to Public Records Request (May 29, 2018) (Exhibit 4).
66
See also Post-Election Audit Report at 3.
67
Id. at Appendix 7.
68
August 9, 2017 Letter from the Chief Investigator of the NCSBE to the General
Counsel of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, the Chief Legal Counsel for
Governmental Affairs of the Judicial Branch of the North Carolina Administrative Office
of the Courts, and the President of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys
(“Aug. 9, 2017 NCSBE Letter”) (Exhibit 5), at 1; see also id. at 4-8 (communications
from District Attorneys declining to prosecute violations of the Strict Liability Voting
Law).
28

twelve individuals (“the Alamance 12”) with violating the Strict Liability Voting Law.69
Black individuals comprise less than 21% of Alamance County’s population.70 But nine
members of the Alamance 12 (75% of those prosecuted) were Black. 71 The Washington
Post reported that “[i]n the case of the Alamance 12, . . . most seem to have had no intent
to break the law; they were simply unaware of it.”72
51. The New York Times separately interviewed five of the members of the
Alamance 12. Each “said their votes were an unwitting mistake—a product of not
understanding the voter forms they signed and not knowing the law. They said they
believed they were allowed to vote because election workers let them fill out voter
registration and eligibility forms, then handed them ballots. They said they never would
have voted if anyone had told them they were ineligible.” 73
52. Several Black members of the Alamance 12 moved to dismiss the charges
69
Healy, supra note 4.
70
United States Census, Quick Facts: Alamance County, North Carolina,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/alamancecountynorthcarolina (last visited Sept. 23,
2020).
71
72
Editorial Board, “An Assault on minority voting continues in North Carolina,” THE
WASH. POST (Aug. 12, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-assault-on-
minority-voting-continues-in-north-carolina/2018/08/12/b60ea52c-9a8f-11e8-8d5e-
c6c594024954_story.html.
73
Healy, supra n. 4.
29

on the grounds that the Strict Liability Voting Law violates the Equal Protection Clauses
of the United States and North Carolina constitutions.74 The Equal Protection claims were
never adjudicated because the defendants ultimately pled guilty to misdemeanor charges
of obstruction of justice, in exchange for a dismissal of the felony charges under the Strict
Liability Voting Law.75
53. In August 2019, the Hoke County District Attorney charged four
individuals with violating the Strict Liability Voting Law.76 All four individuals are
Black.77
54. One of the individuals charged in Hoke County, Lanisha Bratcher, was
arrested the day after she was discharged from the hospital for a miscarriage.78 She was
74
SCSJ Challenges NC Law that punishes returning citizens with felonies for voting
while ineligible, Southern Coalition for Social Justice (June 8, 2018),
https://www.southerncoalition.org/scsj-challenges-nc-law-punishes-returning-citizens-
felonies-voting-ineligible/.
75
Statement Regarding Alamance County Voters Accused of Voting While Ineligible,
Southern Coalition for Social Justice (Aug. 13, 2018),
https://www.southerncoalition.org/statement-regarding-alamance-county-voters-accused-
voting-ineligible/.
76
Baez, supra note 4.
77
Id.
78
Sam Levine, “A black woman faces prison because of a Jim Crow-era plan to ‘protect
white voters,’” GUARDIAN (Dec. 16, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2019/dec/16/north-carolina-felony-vote-law-black-woman.
30

mourning the loss of her baby when the police came to her door.79 Ms. Bratcher
explained that she did not know she was ineligible to vote in the 2016 election. “I had no
intention to trick anybody or to be malicious in any kind of way. . . . If you expect us to
know that we should know we should not do something then we should not be on the list
or even allowed to do it.”80
55. Like the Alamance County defendants, Ms. Bratcher moved to dismiss the
charges against her on the grounds that the Strict Liability Voting Law violates the Equal
Protection Clauses of the United States and North Carolina constitutions.81 The District
Attorney’s Office responded by dismissing the charges against her under the Strict
Liability Voting Law, and then bringing two new indictments that doubled the felony
charges against her under a different provision of the same statute (N.C. GEN. STAT.
§ 163-275(4)).82
56. Some of the individuals prosecuted under the Strict Liability Voting Law
79
Id.
80
Id.
81
Motion to Dismiss Under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I,
§ 19 of the N.C. Constitution, State of North Carolina v. Bratcher-Bain, No. 19-CRS-
051171 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 8, 2019), http://renapply.web.unc.edu/files/2019/12/S-v-
Bratcher-EP-Discrim-MTD-Oct-2019.pdf.
82
Sam Levine, “A black woman faces prison for a voting mistake. Prosecutors just
doubled the charges,” GUARDIAN (July 21, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2020/jul/21/voting-arrest-racist-law-north-carolina-lanisha-brachter.
31

have expressed a deep-seated fear of voting in the future. “[I]t’s going to really take a
mighty wind from heaven to make me vote again,” says Keith Sellars, a 45-year old
Black member of the Alamance 12 who was “arrested . . . in the middle of a highway,
while his 10- and 7-year old daughters cried in the back seat.”83
57. Anthony Haith, another Black member of the Alamance 12, has said, “I am
still fearful of voting now. I do not want to go to jail for voting. . . . I honestly do not
know if I will ever vote again[.]”84 Mr. Haith has “said he would tell his four children
also not to vote.”85
58. Taranta Holman, also a Black member of the Alamance 12, has similarly
said he will never cast another ballot. “Even when I get this cleared up, I still won’t vote.
. . . That’s too much of a risk.” 86
59. Lanisha Bratcher, whose felony charges remain pending, says “[s]he’s not
83
Sam Levine, “They Didn’t Know They Were Ineligible to Vote. A Prosecutor Went
After Them Anyway,” HUFFPOST (Aug. 13, 2018),
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alamance-county-felon-
voting_n_5b71f4d8e4b0530743cca87d.
84
Affidavit of Anthony Haith (“Haith Aff.”) at ¶¶ 10, 14, Exhibit A. to Brief of Amici
Curiae, North Carolina Justice Center and Down Home NC, CSI (July 23, 2020),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7009817/Amicus-NC-Justice-Center-and-
Down-Home.pdf.
85
The Observer Editorial Board, “Another Attack on Voting in North Carolina,”
CHARLOTTE OBSERVER (Aug. 14, 2018),
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article216646385.html.
86
32

sure if she’ll ever vote again, even once she’s legally allowed to.”87 But her husband has
urged her to reconsider: “If you don’t vote again, then the law would have done exactly
what it was supposed to do, which is to suppress your vote. . . . If they’ve got you afraid,
then the law did what it’s supposed to do.” 88
III. The Strict Liability Voting Law Fails to Provide Fair Notice of Criminal
Liability.
60. The Strict Liability Voting Law renders it a Class I felony “[f]or any person
convicted of a crime which excludes the person from the right of suffrage, to vote at any
primary or election without having been restored to the right of citizenship in due course
and by the method provided by law.” N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(5).
61. But the Strict Liability Voting Law does not define which crimes
“exclude[] the person from the right of suffrage,” nor does it provide any information
concerning how an individual may be “restored to the right of citizenship.” To understand
which crimes are disenfranchising, a prospective voter must turn to the statute entitled,
Qualifications to vote; exclusion from electoral franchise, which provides as follows:
[T]he following classes of persons shall not be allowed to

vote in this State: . . . Any person adjudged guilty of a felony
against this State or the United States, or adjudged guilty of a
felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had
been committed in this State, unless that person shall be first
restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed
by law.
87
Levine, supra note 78.
88
Id.
33

N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-55(a)(2) (“Criminal Disenfranchisement Law”). The Criminal
Disenfranchisement Law mirrors the disenfranchisement provision of the state
constitution. N.C. CONST., art. VI, § 2(3).
62. To determine how to be “restored to the rights of citizenship,” a prospective
voter must look outside the state’s election code to Chapter 13, entitled Citizenship
Restored. Pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 13-1 (the “Citizenship Restoration Law”), an
individual convicted of a disenfranchising crime regains citizenship rights upon his or her
“unconditional discharge.” The Citizenship Restoration Law provides in its entirety as
follows:
Any person convicted of a crime, whereby the rights

of citizenship are forfeited, shall have such rights
automatically restored upon the occurrence of any one of the
following conditions:
(1) The unconditional discharge of an inmate, of a

probationer, or of a parolee by the agency of the State
having jurisdiction of that person or of a defendant under
a suspended sentence by the court.
(2) The unconditional pardon of the offender.
(3) The satisfaction by the offender of all conditions of a

conditional pardon.

United States, the unconditional discharge of such person
by the agency of the United States having jurisdiction of
such person, the unconditional pardon of such person or
the satisfaction by such person of a conditional pardon.
(5) With regard to any person convicted of a crime in another

state, the unconditional discharge of such person by the
34

agency of that state having jurisdiction of such person, the
unconditional pardon of such person or the satisfaction by
such person of a conditional pardon.89
Id. (emphasis added). The Citizenship Restoration Law does not specifically mention the
restoration of voting rights.
63. Neither the Citizenship Restoration Law nor any other North Carolina
statute defines the term “unconditional discharge.” The NCSBE also does not define the
term “unconditional discharge” anywhere in the state’s Voter Registration Application or
on the section of the NCSBE’s website entitled, Registering as a Person in the Criminal
Justice System (“NCSBE Website”).90
64. The State has construed the Citizenship Restoration Law as “preclud[ing]
the restoration of citizenship rights until the completion of the sentence, including any
period of parole, post-release supervision or probation.”91 Parole was abolished in North
89
The Citizenship Restoration Law, which provides for automatic re-enfranchisement,
was first enacted in 1971. Prior to the enactment of the Citizenship Restoration Law,
individuals with felony convictions had to petition the court for the restoration of voting
rights.
90
See North Carolina Voter Registration Application, available at
https://dl.ncsbe.gov/Voter_Registration/NCVoterRegForm_06W.pdf (last visited Sept.
23, 2020); see also Registering as a Person in the NC Criminal Justice System, NCSBE,
https://www.ncsbe.gov/registering/who-can-register/registering-person-nc-criminal-
justice-system (last visited Sept. 23, 2020).
91
Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, CSI (Sept. 4, 2020), at 5,
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7202707/19-CVS-15941-Order-on-Plt-
MSJ.pdf.
35

Carolina in 1994; the General Assembly instead imposed post-release supervision for all
individuals convicted of felonies under the Structured Sentencing Act.92 Yet until a few
months ago, the State’s Voter Registration Application, Absentee Ballot Application and
Certificate, and One-Stop Application (pursuant to which an individual can register to
vote during early voting) made no mention of post-release supervision.93
65. The NCSBE’s script for poll workers to use when verifying voter eligibility
also failed to mention post-release supervision; poll workers were simply instructed to
ask whether prospective voters “have completed their sentence, including any probation
or parole.”94 Defendant Karen Brinson Bell, the Executive Director of the NCSBE, has
testified that an individual on post-release supervision who answered “no” to this
question “would be allowed to vote” by the poll worker, but “could then be prosecuted
for the crime of illegally voting.”95
66. Some individuals convicted of felonies in North Carolina are sentenced to
unsupervised probation; these individuals may not even realize that they are legally on
92
See Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission, North Carolina Department of
Public Safety, https://www.ncdps.gov/about-dps/boards-commissions/post-release-
supervision-parole-commission.
93
See Prior Version of the North Carolina Voter Registration Application, at 2,
Instruction for Section 1 (Exhibit 6); Prior Version of the One Stop Application (Exhibit
7); Bell Dep. (Exhibit 1) at 82:18–86:9, 94:14–96:4, 112:1-23.
94
Bell Dep. (Exhibit 1) at 98:3–100:17.
95
Id. at 105:12–106:5.
36

probation because they are not subject to the oversight of a probation officer.96
67. The confusion caused by the State’s voting materials is exacerbated by the
State’s inadequate procedures for notifying individuals with felony convictions that they
are ineligible to vote. When the NCSBE “conducted interviews of suspected violators” of
the Strict Liability Voting Law following the 2016 post-election audit, the NCSBE
discovered “a wide pattern of defendants in multiple counties who claim[ed] they were
never informed of their loss of voting rights upon conviction and sentencing.”97
68. The NCSBE determined that there were “deficiencies in the notice provided
to felons who are still serving an active felony sentence, notably during the periods of
probation and parole—the window during which current felons tend to vote.”98
Specifically, the NCSBE found that “there was no documented procedure by which
convicted felons were informed of the loss of their voting rights by probation officers
while on felony probation/parole/supervised release.”99 The NCSBE also found that
“associated court judgments and plea agreements . . . did not inform felons upon a plea or
96
In 2019, 249 individuals convicted of felonies were sentenced to unsupervised
probation. Structured Sentencing Statistical Report: Fiscal Year 2019, North Carolina
Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, at 21,
https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/publications/FY-2019-Statistical-Report-
Web_Combined.pdf?H5Ee8hJhBdhzh_BVFmV4L9tcbiQXnmaB.
97
Aug. 9, 2017 NCSBE Letter (Exhibit 5), at 1.
98
Id. at 2.
99
37

at sentencing that they had lost their eligibility to vote while serving an active felony
sentence, including probation/parole/supervised release.”100
69. Neither the standard guilty plea form in North Carolina nor the statutes
requiring judges to inform defendants of their rights upon conviction contain any
reference to the loss of voting rights. See, e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-1022. Under
North Carolina law, the only entity statutorily required to notify an individual with a
felony conviction of the loss of voting rights pending full sentence completion is the
county board of elections, which must send removal letters “to the last known address of
registered voters who appear on the convicted felon list.”101 List maintenance, though—
that is, the accuracy of North Carolina’s voter registration lists—remains the ultimate
responsibility of the NCSBE. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-82.11(a, c). No statutorily-
mandated notification procedures apply to individuals who were not registered to vote at
the time they were convicted of a felony.
70. Anthony Haith, one of the members of the Alamance 12, is among the
victims of the State’s inadequate notification procedures. He explained: “When I voted in
the 2016 election, I was still on probation for a previous conviction. I did not know I was
unable to vote, or I would not have voted. When I was put on probation, I was informed
100
Id. at 2. The North Carolina Department of Public Safety has since revised its
probation brochure “to include information concerning loss of voting rights.” Id.
101
Aug. 9, 2017 NCSBE Letter (Exhibit 5) at 2; see also N.C. GEN. STAT. §163-
82.14(c)(3).
38

of many things that I could not do or have. However, no one ever told me that I could not
vote.”102
71. The NCSBE has recognized that although “individuals are required to
affirm that they are not serving an active felony sentence both when registering to vote
and presenting to vote,” “not all voters read this language prior to signing” the forms.103
This may be the consequence of low adult literacy levels through the State: For example,
24% of adults in Alamance County and 26% of adults in Hoke County lack basic literacy
skills.104
72. The NCSBE has also acknowledged that “some forms, such as the federal
voter registration application, do not contain warnings against registering and voting
while serving an active felony sentence, since laws concerning felon voting rights vary
from state to state.”105
73. Under North Carolina law, county boards of elections are required to
remove individuals with felony convictions from the voter registration rolls. N.C. GEN.
STAT. § 163-82.14(a)(1), (c)(3). But in the course of its post-2016 election investigations,
102
Haith Aff., supra note 84 at ¶ 5.
103
Post-Election Audit Report (Exhibit 2) at Appendix 7.
104
Literacy Map Gap, Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy,
http://map.barbarabush.org/overview/#intro (last visited Sept. 24, 2020).
105
39

the NCSBE discovered that county boards of elections had not consistently done so.106
The NCSBE recognized that the failure to remove individuals with felony convictions
from the voter registration rolls had resulted in “unintentional violations” of the Strict
Liability Voting Law.107 The NCSBE explained that “[a]n individual may, for instance,
legally register to vote before becoming a felon and then appear at the polls while on
probation. Such a person may not understand they are ineligible.”108
74. Since the 2016 post-election audit, the NSCBE has redesigned certain of its
voting forms with checkboxes “to ensure participants are aware of voter
qualifications.”109 However, there is no checkbox to alert a registrant that he or she
cannot be currently serving a felony sentence.110 The only places on the Voter
Registration Application that reference ineligibility for serving a current felony sentence
are the fine print at the bottom of the form and the dense application instructions.111 The
NCSBE has also implemented “new processes . . . to ensure [that] those serving felony
sentences do not remain on the voter rolls,” as well as software improvements “to check
106
Post-Election Audit Report (Exhibit 2) at 2–4.
107
Id. at 3.
108
Id.
109
Id. at 4 & Appendix 8.
110
See North Carolina Voter Registration Application, supra note 90.
111
Id.
40

felon status at the time of registration.”112 In addition, the Department of Public Safety
has revised its probation brochure at the NCSBE’s suggestion “to include information
concerning loss of voting rights.”113
75. While these improvements to the State’s notification procedures and voter
registration roll protocols may reduce some future unintentional violations of the Strict
Liability Voting Law, these changes still do not provide constitutionally-adequate notice
to, for example, voters on unsupervised probation who may be completely unaware that
they are still serving a felony sentence. Moreover, the changes also do nothing to protect
from criminal liability the individuals who voted in the 2016 election before sentence
completion. Those individuals may still be prosecuted under the Strict Liability Voting
Law at any time, as “no statute of limitations bars the prosecution of a felony” in North
Carolina. State v. Taylor, 713 S.E.2d 82, 90 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).
76. Even with the recent changes made by the NCSBE, it is still entirely
possible for an individual to mistakenly vote while on parole, probation or post-release
supervision for a felony conviction. For example, the section of the NCSBE’s website
concerning voting after a felony conviction is entitled, “Registering as a Person in the
NC Criminal Justice System.”114 An individual who is still serving a sentence for an out-
112
Post-Election Audit Report (Exhibit 2) at 2–4.
113
114
See supra note 90.
41

of-state or federal felony conviction may not realize that he or she is ineligible to vote in
North Carolina. Such an individual could face felony-level prosecution under the Strict
Liability Voting Law for mistakenly voting in reliance on the NCSBE’s own guidance.
77. Since the CSI decision, the NCSBE has updated its website with the
following guidance: “[Y]ou may register to vote and vote if you are serving an extended
term of probation, post-release supervision, or parole, you have outstanding fines, fees or
restitution, and you do not know of any other reason that your probation, post-release
supervision, or parole was extended.”115 This guidance advises individuals that they “may
. . . vote” if they are unaware that they are subject to any other conditions of their felony
sentence other than the payment of fines, fees and/or restitution.116 Yet under the Strict
Liability Voting Law, an individual with a felony conviction who votes before
completing the non-financial terms of his or her sentence is subject to criminal
prosecution, irrespective of whether that individual believed in good faith that he or she
was eligible to vote. The NCSBE’s updated guidance does not mention the Strict
Liability Voting Law or how it might impact individuals who vote based on an erroneous
belief that they are eligible to do so.
115
Id.
116
Id.
42

IV. The Strict Liability Voting Law Deters Eligible Individuals From Voting.
78. The vagueness of the Strict Liability Voting Law, coupled with the recent
prosecutions under this law, have caused eligible individuals with criminal convictions to
refrain from voting, for fear of unintentionally violating the law and triggering criminal
charges. Corey Purdie, the Executive Director of Wash Away Unemployment, has
personally been told by North Carolina residents with past criminal convictions “that they
have a fear of voting and getting arrested for doing so.” 117
79. The enforcement of the Strict Liability Voting Law disproportionately
deters voting by Black individuals, who comprise a disproportionate percentage of
individuals with criminal convictions in North Carolina.118 According to the North
Carolina Justice Center and Down Home NC, “African-American voters are discouraged
from attempting to exercise their fundamental right to vote because of the fear caused by
the disenfranchisement laws and their enforcement. This includes those with no felony
records.”119
117
Affidavit of Corey Purdie, CSI (May 6, 2020), at ¶ 23, https://forwardjustice.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Jacobson-Decl.-and-Exhibits_US_167801403_2-1.pdf.
118
Black individuals comprise just 22% of the State’s population. Quick Facts North
Carolina, supra note 63. But in 2019, for instance, 44% of all individuals convicted of
felonies and 41% of all individuals convicted of misdemeanors in North Carolina were
Black. Structured Sentencing Statistical Report, supra note 96, at 7, 38.
119
Brief of Amici Curiae, North Carolina Justice Center and Down Home NC, CSI (July
24, 2020), at 1 (emphasis added),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7009817/Amicus-NC-Justice-Center-and-
Down-Home.pdf; see also id. at 5 (“Not only are the prosecuted voters themselves fearful
43

80. Confusion regarding eligibility to vote is a significant problem among
individuals with past criminal convictions. During oral argument in CSI, Judge Keith
Gregory of the Wake County Superior Court observed that even “when the person is
eligible to vote, there’s confusion there as to their eligibility.120 Diana Powell, the
Executive Director of Justice Served N.C., has testified that she “regularly speak[s] with
people who are confused as to whether or not they are eligible to vote after having been
convicted of a crime.”121 Dennis Gaddy, the Executive Director of Community Success
Initiative, has testified that “[t]he current law creates confusion among [his] clients about
whether they have the ability to vote after they have been released from incarceration or
while they are on probation.”122 Mr. Purdie of Wash Away Unemployment has testified
similarly.123
81. This rampant confusion is due in part to the State’s inadequate procedures
for notifying individuals with felony convictions of the restoration of their voting rights.
of ever resuming voting after their prosecutions, but community members are also
impacted by the prosecutions, subsequently becoming less likely to engage in the voting
process.”).
120
Hearing Transcript, CSI (Aug. 19, 2020), at 181,
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7203894-CSI-v-Moore-transcript.html.
121
Powell Aff., supra note 5, at ¶ 20.
122
Affidavit of Dennis Gaddy, CSI (May 6, 2020), at ¶ 17, https://forwardjustice.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Jacobson-Decl.-and-Exhibits_US_167801403_2-1.pdf.
123
Purdie Aff., supra note 117, at ¶ 23.
44

When individuals complete their sentences for felony convictions in North Carolina state
courts, the Department of Public Safety provides them with a notification of the
restoration of their voting rights, along with an application to register to vote. See N.C.
GEN. STAT. § 163.82.20A. But these voting rights restoration notifications are “striking
for their lack of clarity. The voting rights information is buried in densely worded
pamphlets . . . distributed in an exit packet that often contains a lot of other important
documents, and this may cause information about voting rights to be crowded out.”124
Moreover, no state agency is statutorily required to notify individuals who have
completed their sentences for a federal or out-of-state conviction of the restoration of
their voting rights.125
82. While county boards of elections are statutorily required to advise
registered voters of their ineligibility to vote following a felony conviction, see N.C. GEN.
STAT. §163-82.14(c)(3), neither the NCSBE nor the county boards of elections advise
individuals who have completed their sentences that they are eligible to vote.126 During
124
Marc Meredith and Michael Morse, Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-
Felon Turnout?, ANNALS, AAPSS, 65651 (Jan. 2014) at 241240,
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~marcmere/workingpapers/FelonNotification.pdf.
125
See, e.g., Bell Dep. (Exhibit 1) at 65:24–66:9.
126
Id. at 41:16–23 (Q: “So after a person finishes their felony sentence, does either the
State Board of Elections or a county board of elections send voters a notification telling
them they’re now once again eligible to vote?” A: We do not send a letter . . . of that
nature. Sorry.”); see also id. at 46:15–47:4.
45

oral argument in CSI, Judge Gregory of the Wake County Superior Court recognized that
this one-way notification protocol inevitably results in fear and confusion among
individuals who are eligible to vote:
[I]f a person has been convicted of a felony and . . . they

believe they can’t vote, even if they are . . . at a point now
where they actually can vote, but they are afraid because
they’ve received a letter previously saying, you can’t vote.
Now they are eligible, but they are afraid because they don’t
know because they haven’t received a letter telling them they
can vote. . . . [T]hat’s confusing.127
83. Individuals with criminal convictions do not always know whether they
have completed all aspects of their sentences for felony convictions. Diana Powell, the
Executive Director of Justice Served, has testified that she has “spoken to individuals
who are unsure of whether or not they are on misdemeanor probation or felony probation,
as well as individuals who are unsure if their probation has been extended due to an
inability to pay court costs, fees, fines or restitution.”128 Such an individual would not be
able to obtain guidance concerning his or her eligibility to vote from the NCSBE. The
Executive Director of the NCSBE testified that when an individual with a felony
conviction is “not certain” regarding the completion of his or her sentence, “the best thing
[she] can do as an election official is to say, ‘That’s outside the scope of elections and
you should speak with your officer as to whether you have completed your sentence or
127
Transcript, CSI, supra 120, at 173.
128
Powell Aff., supra note 5, at ¶ 20.
46

not.’”129
84. “[L]ack of clarity” concerning the restoration of voting rights in North
Carolina “has been exacerbated by the prosecutions that have occurred across the state,
chilling the voting activity of many members of society.”130 Plaintiffs and many similar
organizations have reported the “fear caused by prosecutions on their work” to register
voters.131 Their “workers encounter people who have never been disqualified, or who are
no longer disqualified, from voting who hold on to apprehension based on the pervasive
fear of a felony conviction or jail time.” 132
85. North Carolina’s voter challenge laws exacerbate this pervasive fear. Under
these laws, a registered voter may challenge a prospective voter’s eligibility to vote “if
the challenger knows, suspects or reasonably believes such a person not be qualified and
entitled to vote.” N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-90.1(a). To initiate a challenge to a prospective
voter’s eligibility on the basis of a criminal conviction, a registered voter must simply
complete a Voter Challenge Form and check the box that states: “The person has been
adjudged guilty of a felony and the person’s rights of citizenship have not been
129
Bell Dep. (Exhibit 1), at 88:12–89:19.
130
Amicus Brief of the North Carolina Justice Center and Down Home NC, supra note
119, at 1.
131
Id. at 5.
132
Id.
47

restored.”133 North Carolina law provides that “[i]f a registered voter is challenged as
having been convicted of any crime which excludes him from the right of suffrage, he
shall be required to answer any question in relation to the alleged conviction[.]” N.C.
GEN. STAT. § 163-90. Even though the answers may not be used against them, the
harassment of being challenged is enough to deter people from voting. Id.
86. In the event the prospective voter is deemed ineligible based on a voter
challenge, the county board of election may refer the case to the NCSBE. See N.C. GEN.
STAT. § 163-33(3) (providing that the county board of elections must “investigate . . .
violations of laws by elections officers and other persons, and report violations to the
State Board of Elections”). The NCSBE may then choose to investigate the case.134
87. Because of the potential threat of voter challenges, the NCSBE Website
recommends that individuals with felony convictions obtain documentary proof of
sentence completion in the form of a Certificate of Restoration of Forfeited Rights of
Citizenship to verify their eligibility to vote:
Once you complete your felony sentence or receive a pardon,

you are eligible to vote and may register. You can ask your
releasing officer for your Certificate of Restoration of
133
A sample Voter Challenge Form is available at
http://nebula.wsimg.com/132d4773df0be073741b179d330b5e06?AccessKeyId=46DCFE
3716DFE59A2104&disposition=0&alloworigin=1.
134
See Post-Election Audit Report (Exhibit 2), at 3 (explaining that the NCSBE “initiates
investigations into possible cases of felons voting through a system of data audits
followed by investigator review, referrals from county boards of election and tips from
the public”).
48

Forfeited Rights of Citizenship. This is not required to
register to vote, but will prove your eligibility to vote if
someone challenges your registration.135
The NCSBE Website provides no guidance on how to procure a Certificate of
Restoration of Forfeited Rights of Citizenship, other than directing a prospective voter to
contact his or her “releasing officer.”
88. When an individual convicted of a felony in a North Carolina state court is
“unconditionally discharge[d],” “[t]he agency, department or court having jurisdiction
over the inmate, probationer, parolee or defendant at the time his rights of citizenship are
restored” is supposed to “immediately issue a certificate or order . . . specifying the
restoration of his rights of citizenship.” N.C. GEN. STAT. § 13-2(a). Upon information and
belief, this does not happen as statutorily mandated.
89. No such certificates are automatically issued to individuals convicted of
felonies in out-of-state courts or federal courts. To obtain a Certificate of Restoration of
Forfeited Rights of Citizenship, an individual convicted of a federal or out-of-state felony
must submit an application to “the clerk in the county where such person resides” along
with “any paper writing from the agency of any other state or of the United States which
had jurisdiction over such person, which shows that the conditions of [the Citizenship
Restoration Law] have been met.” N.C. GEN. STAT. § 13-2(b). The NCSBE Website
provides no instructions for how and where individuals with federal or out-of-state felony
135
Registering as a Person in the NC Criminal Justice System, supra note 90.
49

convictions can apply.
90. Individuals who have completed their sentences for felony convictions may
not have a Certificate of Restoration of Forfeited Rights of Citizenship, either because
they can no longer locate the certificate they received, or because they never received
such a certificate in the first place. These individuals may not know how to obtain a
Certificate of Restoration of Forfeited Rights of Citizenship and may be afraid to vote
without one, for fear of being challenged and potentially facing prosecution under the
Strict Liability Voting Law.
91. Individuals who have completed all aspects of their sentences for felony
convictions except for the payment of fines, fees and/or restitution may still be afraid to
vote, despite the North Carolina Superior Court’s September 4, 2020 decision in CSI.
Under North Carolina law, an individual may be on probation for the sole purpose of
paying fines, fees and/or restitution. See, e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-1342(a). The North
Carolina Superior Court specifically enjoined the State defendants “from preventing a
person convicted of a felony from registering to vote and exercising that person’s right to
vote if that person’s only remaining barrier to obtaining an ‘unconditional discharge’ . . .
is the payment of a monetary amount.”136 Even with this injunction in place, however, an
individual who is on probation solely due to outstanding financial obligations may still
not vote for fear of criminal prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law (which is
136
Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, supra note 6, at 10.
50

vague and the ultimate source of confusion).
V. The Strict Liability Voting Law Impedes Plaintiffs’ Efforts to Carry Out
Their Missions.
92. Plaintiffs’ core missions include increasing political participation among
the residents of North Carolina through voter registration and get-out-the-vote-activities.
The specter of prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law has substantially
impeded Plaintiffs’ efforts to carry out this mission. Plaintiffs have had difficulty
persuading eligible North Carolina residents with criminal convictions to register to vote
and vote, because of their fear of prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law.
93. Plaintiffs fear encouraging individuals with felony convictions to register to
vote and vote, because those individuals could potentially face criminal prosecution
under the Strict Liability Voting Law if they are still serving some aspect of a felony
sentence. Plaintiffs also fear incurring criminal liability themselves under N.C. GEN.
STAT. § 163-275(13), which provides that it is a Class I felony “[f]or any person falsely
to make or present any certificate or other paper to qualify any person fraudulently as a
voter, or to attempt thereby to secure to any person the privilege of voting . . . .” The
intent requirement under this law is unclear. Depending on how the NCSBE and District
Attorneys construe this law, Plaintiffs could potentially face prosecution under N.C. GEN.
STAT. § 163-275(13) for attempting “to secure to any person the privilege of voting” if
that person has not yet completed a felony sentence.
94. The risk of criminal prosecution of prospective voters under the Strict
51

Liability Voting Law, together with the potential for criminal liability for Plaintiffs
themselves under N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(13), has rendered it practically impossible
for Plaintiffs to continue their efforts to engage in voter registration and get-out-the-vote
activities with respect to individuals with felony convictions, and Plaintiffs’
organizations’ missions include serving historically-excluded and underserved
communities such as those that have been previously involved with the criminal justice
system. Moreover, Plaintiffs are not able to assist many individuals with felony
convictions with registering to vote because of these risks.
VI. Expedited Relief Is Necessary to Ensure That Eligible Individuals With

Criminal Convictions Do Not Refrain From Voting in the Presidential
Election.
95. The fear of prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law could
potentially deter thousands of eligible North Carolina residents with criminal convictions
from voting in the November 3, 2020 presidential election, just weeks away.
96. The mail-in voter registration deadline in North Carolina is October 9,
2020. The State also permits same day registration during the early voting period, which
runs October 15, 2020 through October 31, 2020.137 To ensure that all eligible individuals
have the opportunity to register in time to vote in the presidential election, this Court
should preliminarily enjoin the Strict Liability Voting Law well before the registration
137
See Voter Registration Deadline, NCSBE, https://www.ncsbe.gov/registering/how-
register/voter-registration-deadlines (last visited Sept. 20, 2020); One-Stop Early Voting,
NCBSE https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/vote-early-person (last visited Sept. 20, 2020).
52

window closes.
97. Absent expedited relief, countless individuals will forever lose the
opportunity to exercise their right to vote in the 2020 elections. This harm cannot be
undone by damages or an injunction after the election.
CLAIMS
COUNT ONE
Void for Vagueness in Violation of the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
98. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of
this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
99. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the
deprivation of “life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend.
XIV. “The prohibition of vagueness in criminal statutes is a well-recognized requirement,
consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law, and a
statute that flouts it violates the first essential of due process.” Johnson v. U.S., 576 U.S.
591, 595–96 (2015). When a criminal law imposes strict liability, even greater clarity is
necessary to satisfy the demands of due process. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379,
395 (1979) (“This Court has long recognized that the constitutionality of a vague
statutory standard is closely related to whether that standard incorporates a requirement
of mens rea.”).
100. The Strict Liability Voting Law is unconstitutionally vague on its face
because it fails to provide individuals of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct
53

is prohibited, and then subjects them to strict felony-level liability. The statute
criminalizes voting by “any person convicted of a crime, which excludes the person from
the right of suffrage, to vote at any primary or election without having been restored to
the right of citizenship in due course and by the method provided by law.” N.C. GEN.
STAT. § 163-275(5). The Strict Liability Voting Law neither defines which crimes
“exclude[ ] the person from the right of suffrage,” nor explains how an individual may be
“restored to the right of citizenship.”
101. To learn which crimes “exclude[ ] the person from the right of suffrage,” a
prospective voter must turn to the North Carolina Constitution and the State law setting
forth voter qualifications. See N.C. CONST., art. VI, § 2(3); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-55.
Only then would a prospective voter learn that misdemeanors and other low level crimes
do not disqualify an individual from voting.
102. To attempt to understand how an individual may be “restored to the right of
citizenship,” a prospective voter must look outside the State’s election laws to the
Citizenship Restoration Law. That statute provides, inter alia, that “[a]ny person
convicted of a crime, whereby the rights of citizenship are forfeited, shall have such
rights automatically restored upon . . . [t]he unconditional discharge of an inmate, of a
probationer, or of a parolee by the agency of the State having jurisdiction of that person
or of a defendant under a suspended sentence by the court.” N.C. GEN. STAT. § 13-1(1)
(emphasis added). But neither the Citizenship Restoration Law nor any other North
Carolina statute defines the term “unconditional discharge.”

54

103. The NCSBE and other State entities have concluded that an individual
convicted of a felony does not regain the right to vote until sentence completion,
“including any probation, post-release supervision or parole.”138 But the NCSBE has not
defined the term “unconditional discharge” in the State’s Voter Registration Application
or other commonly-referenced voting materials.
104. Because of the vagueness of the Strict Liability Voting Law, some
ineligible individuals have incurred criminal liability by mistakenly voting prior to
sentence completion, while many other eligible voters have refrained from voting
because of a fear of prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law. This law plainly
does not pass constitutional muster under the Due Process Clause.
105. In enforcing the Strict Liability Voting Law, Defendants have acted under
color of state law.
106. Defendants have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs and
prospective voters in North Carolina of their right under the Due Process Clause to non-
vague laws governing the prosecution of voting crimes.
138
North Carolina Voter Registration Application, supra note 90.
55

COUNT TWO
Intentional Racial Discrimination in Violation of

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
107. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of
this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
108. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any
State from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. A law originally enacted with racially
discriminatory intent violates the Equal Protection Clause if (a) the law was never
substantively amended, and (b) the law continues to have racially disproportionate
effects. See, e.g., Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 233 (1985) (“[W]e simply observe
that its original enactment was motivated by a desire to discriminate against [B]lacks on
account of race and the section continues to this day to have that effect. As such, it
violates [E]qual [P]rotection . . . .”).
109. The Strict Liability Voting Law was originally enacted with discriminatory
intent in 1877, and was reenacted almost verbatim in 1899 in an effort to suppress the
Black vote and reinstate white control throughout the state. The purpose of the Strict
Liability Voting Law was to deter Black individuals with criminal convictions from ever
attempting to vote.
110. The North Carolina General Assembly has never amended the key features
of the Strict Liability Voting Law. In substance, the Strict Liability Voting Law has
remained unchanged since 1899.

56

111. The Strict Liability Voting Law disproportionately affects Black North
Carolinians, who constitute the overwhelming majority of individuals who were flagged
by the NCSBE for voting in the 2016 election prior to sentence completion. Black
individuals have also been disproportionately targeted in purported “voter fraud”
prosecutions under the Strict Liability Voting Law, despite unequivocal evidence that
these individuals voted based on a good-faith belief that they were eligible to do so.
112. The Strict Liability Voting Law also disproportionately affects eligible
Black voters with past criminal convictions in North Carolina. These individuals
disproportionately refrain from voting for fear of prosecution under the Strict Liability
Voting Law.
113. The Strict Liability Voting Law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment because it was originally enacted with racially discriminatory
intent; its key features have never been substantively amended; and it continues to
disproportionately impact Black North Carolinians.
114. In enforcing the Strict Liability Voting Law, Defendants have acted under
color of state law.
115. Defendants have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs and Black
voters in North Carolina of their right under the Equal Protection Clause to non-
discriminatory laws governing the prosecution of voting crimes.
57

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A. Declare that the Strict Liability Voting Law violates the Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution;
B. Declare that Plaintiffs’ rights will be irreparably harmed absent declaratory
and injunctive relief from this Court;
C. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Strict
Liability Voting Law;
D. Grant Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in
bringing this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920; and
E. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
58


LLP JUSTICE
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 455-2000
Fax: (212) 455-2502
59

NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE and

ACTION NC,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
v. 20-cv-876
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official capacity as CHAIR OF THE
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; STELLA ANDERSON, in
her official capacity as SECRETARY OF THE STATE BOARD
OF ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON III, in his official capacity as
MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; KAREN
BRINSON BELL, in her official capacity as EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JOSH
STEIN, in his official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF PAT McCOY
Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 3-23 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 7

I, Pat McCoy, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a U.S. citizen and a resident of North Carolina. I am a registered voter
in Mecklenburg County, and have resided in Mecklenburg County since 2007.
2. I have served as the Executive Director of Action NC since the organization
was founded a decade ago. In this role, I implement the policies and programs established
rd, and fulfill other duties necessary to maintain and build
the organization.
3. Action NC is a non-profit, non-partisan organization focused on reducing the
root causes of poverty, underdevelopment, and social and economic inequality in North
Carolina. Action NC operates through three regional offices located in Charlotte, Durham,
and Raleigh. Issues of concern to Action NC include voter participation, education,
immigration, health care, fair and affordable housing, and neighborhood organizing.
4. Action NC grassroots political power by increasing
the number of individuals who register to vote, and who then vote in minority and low-
income communities. Action NC believes that the more people who wield political power
through voting, the larger the difference we can make in underrepresented and forgotten
communities in North Carolina.
5. To fulfill our core mission of encouraging minority and low-income
community members to participate in the political process, Action NC, through its
501(c)(3) affiliate Action Institute NC, conducts voter registration drives and hosts public

presentations on elections and voting. Action NC also educates prospective voters, by
distributing information on the issues at stake in upcoming elections.
6. Because of the importance of fair ballot access and other voting rights issues
d as a plaintiff in different voting rights
litigations in North Carolina, including Action NC, et al. v. Strach, CA No.1:15-cv-1063
(M.D.N.C.), which resulted in a settlement requiring stricter compliance with the National
Voter Registration Act.
The Impact of the N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) on Action NC s Ability to Carry Out
Its Core Mission of Increasing Political Participation in Low-Income and Minority
Neighborhoods
7. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5), an individual who mistakenly vote
whiles on parole, probation or post-release supervision can be charged with a Class I felony
and sentenced to up to two years in prison even if that person does not know that he or
she is ineligible to vote.
8. This law is very unfair, particularly because some members of the low-
income and minority communities we serve have limited literacy skills and thus are unable
to comprehend . Literacy aside, we have found a
general lack of understanding of bility laws, and moreover,
sometimes, the people we engage with do not even know whether or not they are still on
probation.
9. In 2018, a dozen residents of Alamance County were charged with violating
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5). Nine of these individuals were Black. The following year,

four residents of Hoke County were charged with violating this law. All of them were
Black. By all accounts, none of these defendants had any intent to break the law or engage
in voter fraud.
10. These prosecutions have had a huge chilling effect on the members of the
communities we serve. Many of these individuals have criminal records, typically for
misdemeanors. Some have felony convictions but have completed their sentences. Action
NC works hard to encourage all eligible individuals, including those with criminal
convictions, to register to vote and to vote, in order to have a voice in the S
governance and legislation. But ever since the Alamance County prosecutions were
announced, Action NC has had a significantly harder time persuading individuals with
criminal convictions to participate in the democratic process. These individuals are terrified
of doing something wrong by accident and then ending up facing charges for an honest
mistake. Action NC has diverted substantial time and resources from its voter registration
and get-out-the-vote activities to reassure eligible individuals that voting will not lead to
criminal prosecution. There is no question that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) has impeded
-income and minority
neighborhoods.
11. Earlier this month, the Wake County Superior Court issued a decision in
Community Success Initiative v. Moore granting the right to vote to individuals who have
completed all aspects of their sentences except for the payment of fines, fees and/or

restitution. This was a huge victory for the individuals in the low-income and minority
communities we serve.
12. However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) remains a significant obstacle to
persuading individuals who have completed all aspects of their sentences except for fines,
fees and/or restitution to register to vote and vote. Even though these individuals are now
clearly eligible to vote, they remain afraid to participate in the political process because of
the possibility of prosecution under this terrible law. Action NC is very concerned that
these individuals may refrain from voting in the November 3, 2020 election, despite our
best efforts to educate these individuals on their eligibility to vote under the law.
13. In the course of our work to encourage political participation, Action NC
often speaks with individuals who are not sure whether they have fully completed their
sentences for felony convictions. There is no way for Action NC to verify their eligibility
to vote by calling the State Board of Elections or the county board of elections.
Consequently, Action NC routinely declines to help such individuals because of the
possibility that they might vote while ineligible, and then face prosecution under N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 163-275(5).
14. Action NC is also very concerned about providing voting-assistance to
individuals with felony convictions because of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(13), which
certificate or other paper to qualify any person fraudulently as a voter, or to attempt thereby
to secure to any person the privilege of If an Action NC worker assists an

individual who is still serving a sentence for a felony conviction to register to vote, that
worker would potentially face prosecution under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(13). This is a
risk Action NC simply ca
governing voting, Action NC would be able to do more to try to help individuals with
felony convictions determine if they are eligible to vote.
15. Action NC works very hard to ensure that community members do not
it has a terrible ripple effect through the whole community. People would rather avoid
voting entirely than risk criminal charges for a mistake. To minimize the possibility of
mistakes concerning voter eligibility, Action NC has been forced to divert time, money and
resources from our voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities to educate volunteers
on the potential risks of registering an individual with a felony conviction, and to caution
community members on the potential risks of voting after a felony conviction but before
sentence completion. We would not spend such a disproportionate amount of our time and
resources on these warnings if N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) required fraudulent intent.
16. It is completely unjust for prosecutors to be able to bring felony charges
against individuals who made an honest mistake by voting before sentence completion. If
this Court does not issue an injunction enjoining the enforcement of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-
275(5) before the presidential election, then thousands of eligible North Carolinians whose
voices need to be heard may not vote in this election.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the foregoing Declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed
on the 2 ~ day of September , 2020.

NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE and

ACTION NC,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action
v. No. 20-cv-876
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official capacity as CHAIR OF THE
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; STELLA ANDERSON, in her
official capacity as SECRETARY OF THE STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON III, in his official capacity as
MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; KAREN
BRINSON BELL, in her official capacity as EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JOSH
STEIN, in his official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF MELVIN MONTFORD

I, Melvin Montford, hereby declare as follows:
Background
1. I am a U.S. citizen and a resident of North Carolina. I am a registered voter
in Wake County, and have resided in Wake County since 1998.
2. I have served as Executive Director of the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph
Institute (“NC APRI”) since 2009. I have worked with NC APRI since 1998, and I have
previously served in the roles of Vice President and then President of the organization.
3. In my capacity as NC APRI’s Executive Director, I implement the policies
and programs established by the organization’s Executive Board. I also oversee all of NC
APRI’s programs, including our voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.
Overview of NC APRI’s Core Mission
4. NC APRI is a state affiliate of the National A. Philip Randolph Institute
(“Institute”), the senior constituency group of the AFL-CIO. Founded in 1965, the Institute
is a non-partisan organization of Black trade unionists and community activists united to
fight for racial equality and economic justice for all working Americans. The Institute has
chapters across the United States. The Institute was instrumental in the passage of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, which removed many barriers to the exercise of the right to
vote by Black individuals and ushered in a new era of Black political participation.
5. NC APRI has thirteen chapters throughout North Carolina, which
collectively have more than 300 members and an annual budget of approximately
$2,500,000.

6. NC APRI’s core mission is to increase the political participation of Black
workers in North Carolina. While NC APRI devotes considerable time and resources to
efforts supporting charitable ventures, such as feeding the hungry and providing clothing
to those in need, approximately 75-80% of NC APRI’s work is focused on voter education,
registration, and outreach efforts. NC APRI’s chapters are strategically located to facilitate
“get-out-the-vote work.”
7. NC APRI’s voter registration activities include canvassing, letter writing,
and the use of new information technology such as the Voter Activation Network (VAN)
to educate voters, register voters, and increase voter participation. NC APRI focuses
primarily on underserved, predominantly Black low-income communities.
8. To help ensure that every eligible voter has a fair opportunity to register to
vote and cast a ballot in North Carolina, NC APRI has served as a plaintiff in numerous
voting rights litigations, including Action NC, et al. v. Strach, No.1:15-cv-1063
(M.D.N.C.), which ended in a settlement requiring stricter compliance with the National
Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The Impact of the N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) on the NC APRI’s Ability to Carry
Out Its Core Mission of Increasing Political Participation Among Black Workers
9. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5), an individual who mistakenly vote
whiles on parole, probation or post-release supervision can be charged with a Class I felony
and sentenced to up to two years in prison—even if that person does not know that he or
she is ineligible to vote.

10. Recent prosecutions under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) have really
frightened people who might otherwise have been willing to register to vote and cast a
ballot. Nearly every single person who has been prosecuted is Black. According to the
news reports, all of these individuals voted because they mistakenly believed they were
eligible to vote. Yet the District Attorneys in Alamance and Hoke Counties decided to
bring felony charges against them anyway.
11. In the majority-Black, low-income communities in which NC APRI operates,
many individuals have criminal records. Often these records are for misdemeanors. Other
individuals have old felony convictions and have long since completed their sentences.
Even though these individuals are eligible to vote under the law, they are afraid to vote
because they are worried about violating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5). This unfair law has
significantly impeded our mission of ensuring that Black working class individuals register
to vote and vote. NC APRI has diverted substantial time and resources from its voter
registration and get-out-the-vote activities to reassure eligible individuals that voting will
not lead to criminal prosecution.
12. NC APRI is especially concerned that Black individuals who have completed
all aspects of their sentences except for the payment of fines, fees and/or restitution will be
too afraid to vote because of the risk of prosecution under N.C.G.S. § 163-275(5). These
individuals are now eligible to vote under the Wake County Superior Court’s September
4, 2020 decision in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, which was brought by the
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and other plaintiffs. But NC APRI may

not be able to persuade these individuals to vote in the November 3, 2020 presidential
election because of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5).
13. During our efforts to register new voters and get out the vote, NC APRI
workers regularly encounter individuals with felony convictions who are unsure whether
they have completed all aspects of their sentences. We cannot risk making a mistake as to
their eligibility, because of the looming threat of prosecution under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-
275(5).
14. Another significant concern is the risk that NC APRI workers could face
criminal liability ourselves under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(13), which provides that it is
a Class I felony “[f]or any person falsely to make or present any certificate or other paper
to qualify any person fraudulently as a voter, or to attempt thereby to secure to any person
the privilege of voting . . . .” NC APRI could potentially face prosecution under this law
for helping an individual who is still serving a sentence for a felony conviction to register
to vote.
15. Because of these criminal laws, NC APRI does not attempt to provide voting-
related assistance to individuals with felony convictions who are unsure of whether they
have completed their sentences. We decline to help such individuals, and instead direct
them to other legal organizations with expertise in the details of criminal sentences.
16. NC APRI has been forced to divert time, money and resources from our voter
registration and get-out-the-vote activities to educate volunteers on the potential risks of
registering an individual with a felony conviction, and to caution community members on

the potential risks of voting after a felony conviction but before sentence completion. If
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) applied only to individuals who voted with fraudulent intent,
then we would not have to spend so much of our time and resources on preventing mistakes,
which happen very rarely. We would instead focus our efforts on encouraging eligible
individuals to register to vote and to vote.
17. Unless this Court enjoins the enforcement of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5),
this unjust and racially discriminatory law will continue to impair our efforts to increase
political participation by Black, low-income North Carolinians.

that the foregoing Declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed
on the2 [ ~fa'ay of September, 2020.
~_j-~
Melvin Montford


Plaintiffs,

BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON III, in
his official capacity as MEMBER OF THE STATE
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF ALLISON J. RIGGS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I, Allison J. Riggs, hereby declare:
1. All facts set forth herein are based on my personal knowledge, and if called
upon to testify as to the contents of this Declaration, I could and would do so.
2. I am the Interim Executive Director and Chief Counsel for Voting Rights at
Southern Coalition for Social Justice (“SCSJ”).
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the transcript of
the July 16, 2020 deposition of Defendant Karen Brinson Bell, Executive Director of the
North Carolina State Board of Elections (“NCSBE”), in Community Success Initiative v.
Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.), that was obtained from counsel in that
matter, and that bears all the marks of a properly certified copy of a deposition transcript.
4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the NCSBE’s Post-
Election Audit Report: General Election 2016, dated April 21, 2017, available at
https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/Post-
Election%20Audit%20Report_2016%20General%20Election/Post-
Election_Audit_Report.pdf.
5. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a letter and attached
documents dated August 12, 2018 from Joan M. Fleming, Chief Investigator of the
NCSBE, to the District Attorney for Judicial District 16A that was obtained by Sam
Levine, reporter for The Guardian, and published as a link, available at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aZlP2BFb7kg-Q0mfMZQlRtNb_EWXFW3N/view, to a
July 16, 2020 article in The Guardian entitled “A black woman faces prison for a voting
1

mistake. Prosecutors just doubled the charges,” available at
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/21/voting-arrest-racist-law-north-
carolina-lanisha-brachter.
6. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the NCSBE’s response
dated May 29, 2018 to a Public Records Request from my organization, SCSJ; together
with a true and correct copy of a Public Records Act Request dated May 17, 2018
submitted by my organization, SCSJ, to the NCSBE.
7. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated August 9,
2017 from Joan M. Fleming, Chief Investigator of the NCSBE, to the General Counsel of
the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, the Chief Legal Counsel for
Governmental Affairs for the Judicial Branch of the North Carolina Administrative
Office of the Courts, and the President of the North Carolina Conference of District
Attorneys; together with accompanying letters from District Attorneys submitted as
attachments to the August 9, 2017 letter. This letter was produced to my organization by
the NCSBE in connection with our defense of an individual charged with voter fraud.
8. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of an earlier version of the
North Carolina Voter Registration Application that was produced in Community Success
Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.) and that was obtained from
counsel in that matter.
9. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an earlier version of the
One Stop Application that was produced in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No.
2

19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.) and that was obtained from counsel in that matter.
10. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated August 22,
2017 from the President of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys to Joan
M. Fleming, Chief Investigator of the NCSBE. This letter was produced to my
organization by the NCSBE in connection with our defense of an individual charged with
voter fraud.
11. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of an Expert Report on
North Carolina’s Disenfranchisement of Individuals on Probation and Post-Release
Supervision dated May 8, 2020 submitted by Professor Frank R. Baumgartner of the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in Community Success Initiative v. Moore,
No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.) and that was obtained from counsel in that matter.
12. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of an affidavit dated May
7, 2020 submitted by Diana Powell, Founder, CEO and Executive Director of Justice
Served N.C., Inc. in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C.
Super. Ct.) and that was obtained from counsel in that matter.
13. Attached as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of an affidavit dated May
5, 2020 submitted by Corey Purdie, Executive Director of Wash Away Unemployment,
in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.) and that
was obtained from counsel in that matter.
14. Attached as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of an amicus brief
submitted by the North Carolina Justice Center and Down Home NC, along with
3

accompanying affidavits, in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941
(N.C. Super. Ct.) and that was obtained from counsel in that matter.
15. Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the Wake County
Superior Court’s Order dated September 4, 2020 granting in part plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C.
Super. Ct.).
16. Attached as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the Wake County
Superior Court’s Order dated September 4, 2020 granting in part plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941
(N.C. Super. Ct.).
17. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of clippings from The
Centennial (Warrenton, North Carolina) dated August 25, 1876, available at
newspapers.com (subscription required).
18. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of Article VI, § 1 of the
1868 Constitution of the State of North Carolina, as amended following the
Constitutional Convention of 1875, available at
https://www.carolana.com/NC/Documents/NC_Constitution_as_Amended_by_1875_Co
nvention.pdf.
19. Attached as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of Chapter 275, § 62 of
the 1876-77 Session Laws of North Carolina, available at
4

20. Attached as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of The Democratic
Handbook (1898), prepared by the State Democratic Executive Committee of North
Carolina, available at https://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/dem1898/dem1898.html.
21. Attached as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of selected provisions of
Chapter 507, entitled An Act to Regulate Elections, of the 1899 Session Laws of North
Carolina, available at
https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p249901coll22/id/229909/rec/1.
22. Attached as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of the 1900 amendment to
the suffrage provisions of the North Carolina Constitution, available at
23. Attached as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of selected provisions of
Chapter 348, entitled An Act to Make More Effective the Control of the State Over
Corrupt Practices in Primaries and Elections, of the 1931 Session Laws of North
Carolina , available at

that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed this 24th day of September, 2020.
Allison J. Riggs


Plaintiffs,

BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON III, in
his official capacity as MEMBER OF THE STATE
ELECTIONS; JOSH STEIN, in his official capacity
as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF TODD ZIMMER

I, Todd Zimmer, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a United States citizen and a resident of North Carolina. I live in
Greensboro and I am registered to vote in Guilford County.
2. I serve as co-founder and co-director of Down Home North Carolina
(“DHNC”), a community organization that works to build power for poor and working-
class people of all races in North Carolina.
Overview of DHNC’s Core Mission
3. DHNC was founded on the belief that small towns and rural areas cannot be
ignored if we want to see positive change at the state and national levels.
4. Though our network of member-led, county-based chapters, including
chapters in Alamance, Cabarrus, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison Counties, DHNC is
engaged in year-round organizing, mutual aid programs, leadership development, multi-
racial movement building, and civic engagement.
5. DHNC has experience in registering people to vote and advocating for the
rights of people prosecuted for voting while on felony probation and/or post-release
supervision.
6. DHNC played a significant role in supporting the “Alamance 12,” a group of
12 North Carolinians who were prosecuted in 2018 for voting while on probation in the
2016 elections and were consequently indicted for violating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5).
Nine of the prosecuted Alamance 12 were African American.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) Has Hindered DHNC’s Ability to Carry Out Its Core
Mission of Increasing Political Participation in Low-Income and Minority
Neighborhoods
7. Having worked closely in supporting the Alamance 12, while simultaneously
engaging in community organizing and voter registration efforts in the enumerated
counties, including Alamance, I am personally aware of the chilling effect the Alamance
12 prosecutions have had on citizens’ willingness to be civically engaged, register to vote,
and participate in the democratic process.
8. In our work we have noticed a pattern of eligible voters—including those
who do not have a felony record—who are scared to register and vote for fear that they
may be prosecuted.
9. As a direct result of the Alamance 12 prosecutions, DHNC has had a
significantly harder time persuading individuals with criminal convictions to participate in
the democratic process; these individuals are terrified of unintentionally doing something
wrong, and then facing criminal charges for an honest mistake. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-
275(5) has impeded and continually impedes DHNC’s fundamental mission of increasing
political participation in low-income and minority neighborhoods.
10. Earlier this month, on September 4, 2020, the Wake County Superior Court
issued a landmark decision in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, wherein it granted
the right to vote to individuals who have completed all aspects of their sentences, except
for the payment of fines, fees and/or restitution.

11. Notwithstanding the Moore decision, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) remains
a significant obstacle for DHNC in its work to engage individuals who have completed all
aspects of their sentences—except for the payment of fines, fees and restitution—and assist
them in registering to vote, as these individuals still fear that participating in the political
process may result in prosecution.
12. Further, notwithstanding DHNC’s best efforts to educate potential voters
about their eligibility, DHNC’s first-hand experience suggests that those whom we work
hardest to empower will refrain from voting in the November 3, 2020 Election because of
the prosecutions under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5) of the Alamance 12 and, more
recently, 4 African Americans in Hoke County.
13. DHNC diligently works to ensure that community members do not
inadvertently violate North Carolina’s voting laws. When citizens are prosecuted for
voting, it has a terrible ripple effect through the communities in which DHNC serves, as
people would rather avoid voting than risk criminal charges for a mistake.
14. DHNC has been forced to divert time, money and resources to educate
volunteers on the potential risks of registering citizens with felony convictions, while
simultaneously cautioning members of the communities we serve on the potential risks of
voting after felony conviction, but before sentence completion. DHNC would not spend
such a disproportionate amount of our time and resources on these warnings if N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 163-275(5) required fraudulent intent for prosecution.

Exhibit 1
Transcript of the July 16, 2020 Deposition of Defendant

Karen Brinson Bell, Executive Director of the North
Carolina State Board of Elections (“NCSBE”), in
Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-
15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, ET AL. vs TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL.
30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·
·1· ·NORTH CAROLINA· · ·)· IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

· · · · · · · · · · · · )· · · SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
·2· ·WAKE COUNTY· · · · )· · · · · · 19-CVS-15941
·3
·4· ·COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE; JUSTICE

· · ·SERVED NC, INC.; NORTH CAROLINA STATE
·5· ·CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP,
·6· · · · · · Plaintiffs,
·7· ·vs.
·8· ·TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL

· · ·CAPACITY OF SPEAKER OF THE NORTH
·9· ·CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
· · ·et al.,
10
· · · · · · · Defendants.
11· ·__________________________________________/
12
13
14· · · · · · 30(b)(6) Deposition by RingCentral
15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · of
16· · · · · · · · · · KAREN BRINSON BELL
17
18
19· · · · · · · (Taken Remotely by Plaintiffs)
20· · · · · · · · · Raleigh, North Carolina
21· · · · · · · · · Thursday, July 16, 2020
22
23
24· · · · · · · Reported Remotely in Stenotype

· · · · · · · · · · · · Denise Y. Meek
25· · · · · · ·Court Reporter and Notary Public
www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers 800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco

30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 Pages 2..5
Page 2 Page 4
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES ·1· · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
·2 ·2
· · ·FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ·3· ·KAREN BRINSON BELL· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
·3 ·4· ·By Mr. Jacobson· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·9
· · · · · DANIEL F. JACOBSON, ESQ. (Via RingCentral)
·5· ·By Mr. Cox· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 207
·4· · · · Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP
· · · · · 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW ·6
·5· · · · Washington, DC· 20001-3743 ·7· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXHIBITS
· · · · · 202-942-5000 ·8· ·NUMBER· · · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · PAGE
·6· · · · daniel.jacobson@arnoldporter.com ·9· ·Defendants' 1· Order - 7/15/2020· · · · · · · · · · 8
·7· · · · DARYL V. ATKINSON, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) 10· ·Plaintiffs' A· Election Technology Training· · · · 27
· · · · · WHITLEY J. CARPENTER, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) · · · · · · · · · · Topic: Felony Processes 6/21/2017
·8· · · · Forward Justice
11· · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_279 thru 302
· · · · · 400 West Main Street, Suite 203
·9· · · · Durham, NC· 27701 12· ·Plaintiffs' B· Biennial List Maintenance· · · · · ·52
· · · · · daryl@forwardjustice.org · · · · · · · · · · (No-Contact Process)
10 13· · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_322 thru 350
11· ·FOR THE LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS: 14· ·Plaintiffs' C· Post-Election Report 4/21/2017· · · 70
12· · · · BRIAN D. RABINOVITZ, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) · · · · · · · · · · General Election 2016
· · · · · North Carolina Department of Justice 15· · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_406 thru 439
13· · · · 114 West Edenton Street
16· ·Plaintiffs' D· HuffPost Article - 6/18/2020· · · ·132
· · · · · Raleigh, NC· 27603
14· · · · 919-716-6820 · · · · · · · · · · "They Didn't Know They Were
· · · · · brabinovitz@ncdoj.gov 17· · · · · · · · · Ineligible to Vote.· A Prosecutor
15 · · · · · · · · · · Went After Them Anyway."
16· ·FOR THE STATE BOARD DEFENDANTS: 18
17· · · · PAUL M. COX, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) · · ·Plaintiffs' E· North Carolina Voter Registration· ·82
· · · · · North Carolina Department of Justice 19· · · · · · · · · Application
18· · · · 114 West Edenton Street · · · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_351 thru 353
· · · · · Raleigh, NC· 27603
19· · · · 919-716-6820 20
· · · · · pcox@ncdoj.gov · · ·Plaintiffs' F· Absentee Application and· · · · · · 94
20 21· · · · · · · · · Certificate
21· ·FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS: · · · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_127
22· · · · KATELYN ROSE LOVE, ESQ. (Via RingCentral) 22
· · · · · North Carolina State Board of Elections · · ·Plaintiffs' G· One Stop Application· · · · · · · ·111
23· · · · 430 North Salisbury Street 23· · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_405
· · · · · 6400 MSC
24· ·Plaintiffs' H· NCSBE Voting Site Station Guide· · ·97
24· · · · Raleigh, NC· 27603
· · · · · 919-814-0756 · · · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_537 thru 597
25· · · · katelyn.love@ncsbe.gov 25
Page 3 Page 5
·1 ·1
· · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXHIBITS
·2 ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · (Continued)
·3 ·3
· · ·NUMBER· · · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · PAGE
·4 ·4
· · ·Plaintiffs' I· Election Offices Manual· · · · · · 101
·5· · · · · · 30(b)(6) Deposition by RingCentral of ·5· · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_132 thru 278
·6· ·Plaintiffs' J· NC Voting Rights Guide· · · · · · ·114
·6· ·KAREN BRINSON BELL, a witness located in Raleigh, · · · · · · · · · · People in the Criminal Justice
·7· ·North Carolina, was called remotely on behalf of the ·7· · · · · · · · · System
· · · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_598
·8· ·plaintiffs, before Denise Y. Meek, remote court ·8
· · ·Plaintiffs' K· A Misdemeanant & Ex-Felon's· · · · 106
·9· ·reporter and notary public, in and for the State of ·9· · · · · · · · · Guide to Voting in North Carolina
10· ·North Carolina, on Thursday, July 16, 2020, · · · · · · · · · · Bates: CSI_NCSBE_303 thru 304
10
11· ·commencing at 9:01 a.m. · · ·Plaintiffs' M· State of Michigan Voter· · · · · · 140
11· · · · · · · · · Registration Application and
12 · · · · · · · · · · Michigan Driver's License/State
12· · · · · · · · · Identification Card Address
13 · · · · · · · · · · Change Form Instructions
14 13
· · ·Plaintiffs' N· Voter Registration Application· · ·142
15 14· · · · · · · · · District of Columbia Board of
· · · · · · · · · · Elections
16 15
17 · · ·Plaintiffs' O· New Jersey Voter Registration· · · 144
16· · · · · · · · · Application
18 17· ·Plaintiffs' P· State Board's Amended Response· · ·159
· · · · · · · · · · to Interrogatory No. 7 of the
19 18· · · · · · · · · Plaintiffs' First Set of
· · · · · · · · · · Interrogatories
20
19
21 · · ·Plaintiffs' Q· Letter 3/3/2017 Re: Uniform· · · · 119
20· · · · · · · · · Notice to Felons Regarding Voting
22 · · · · · · · · · · Rights in North Carolina
21
23 22
24 · · ·REPORTERS NOTE:· Exhibit L was not identified.
23
25 24
25

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco YVer1f

Page 6 Page 8
·1· · · · · · · · · ·-· - - ·1· ·through 1.f.
·2· · · ·THE REPORTER:· We are now on the ·2· · · ·"Plaintiffs' examination of Defendant
·3· ·record. ·3· ·State Board's Rule 30(b)(6) designee shall
·4· · · ·MR. COX:· I'm Paul Cox with the ·4· ·also be limited to governmental interests
·5· ·North Carolina Attorney General's Office, ·5· ·Defendant State Board may have in the
·6· ·representing the State Board of Elections ·6· ·present enforcement of N.C.G.S.,
·7· ·and its members, and the witness, and we ·7· ·Section 13-1, including Defendant State
·8· ·consent to the remote deposition. ·8· ·Board's current policies and procedures
·9· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· This is Daniel Jacobson ·9· ·relating to N.C.G.S., Section 13-1."
10· ·from Arnold & Porter representing the 10· · · ·And finally:
11· ·plaintiffs.· We consent to the remote 11· · · ·"Plaintiffs shall be precluded from
12· ·deposition. 12· ·examining Defendant State Board's Rule
13· · · ·MR. ATKINSON:· Darryl Atkinson, 13· ·30(b)(6) designee on matters relating to
14· ·Forward Justice, counsel for the 14· ·the enactment or historical enforcement of
15· ·plaintiffs.· We consent to the remote 15· ·N.C.G.S., Section 13-1."
16· ·deposition. 16· · · ·And, Madam Court Reporter, I'll send
17· · · ·MS. CARPENTER:· Whitley Carpenter, 17· ·you a copy for the exhibit to be entered
18· ·Forward Justice, counsel for the 18· ·into the record.
19· ·plaintiffs.· We consent to the remote 19· · · ·And just stating here at the outset,
20· ·deposition. 20· ·for anything that would go outside the
21· · · ·MR. RABINOVITZ:· This is Brian 21· ·bounds of that order or would violate the
22· ·Rabinovitz from the North Carolina Attorney 22· ·order, the State Board will be objecting to
23· ·General's Office on behalf of the 23· ·those questions and instructing the witness
24· ·legislative defendants, and we also consent 24· ·not to answer.
25· ·to the remote deposition. 25· · · ·(Defendants' 1 marked.)
Page 7 Page 9
·1· · · ·THE REPORTER:· All right.· Ms. Bell, ·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·-· - -
·2· ·please raise your right hand. ·2· · · · · · · · ·KAREN BRINSON BELL,
·3· · · ·Do you solemnly swear the testimony you ·3· · · · having been first duly remotely sworn,
·4· ·will give in this matter will be the truth, ·4· · · · was examined and testified as follows:
·5· ·the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, ·5· · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
·6· ·so help you God? ·6· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
·7· · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do. ·7· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Good morning, again, Ms. Bell.
·8· · · ·THE REPORTER:· Thank you, ma'am. ·8· ·As I mentioned, I'm Daniel Jacobson.· I am an
·9· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Good morning, Ms. Bell. ·9· ·attorney for the plaintiffs in this case.
10· · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, this is Paul.· Before we 10· · · · · ·Could I ask you to state your full name
11· ·get started, I just wanted to make one note 11· ·for the record.
12· ·on the record. 12· · · ·A.· Karen Brinson Bell.
13· · · ·Yesterday the Court entered into a 13· · · ·Q.· And do you understand that you've taken
14· ·protective order, as all counsel knows, and 14· ·an oath to tell the truth today?
15· ·I just want to make sure that that's 15· · · ·A.· Yes, I do.
16· ·entered into the record.· I'll be emailing 16· · · ·Q.· There will be a transcript of
17· ·a copy to the court reporter to enter it 17· ·everything we say.· So we should just try the
18· ·into the record. 18· ·best we can not to talk over each other.· I'll
19· · · ·But just for everyone's sake of 19· ·try to do my best if you could do your best as
20· ·understanding right now, it states that: 20· ·well.
21· · · ·"Plaintiffs' examination of Defendant 21· · · ·A.· Yes.· I'm aware of that.· Thank you.
22· ·State Board's Rule 30(b)(6) designee 22· · · ·Q.· And your counsel may object, but you
23· ·relating to matter 1 of Schedule A of the 23· ·must answer the question even if he objects,
24· ·notice of deposition shall be limited to 24· ·unless your counsel specifically instructs you
25· ·factual assertions pertaining to items 1.a. 25· ·not to answer the question.


Page 10 Page 12
·1· · · · · ·Do you understand that? ·1· · · ·Q.· And other than those two cases, you've
·2· · · ·A.· I do. ·2· ·never given a deposition before in any
·3· · · ·Q.· Is there any reason you cannot give ·3· ·capacity?
·4· ·complete, truthful testimony today? ·4· · · ·A.· In my role as executive director.
·5· · · ·A.· Not that I'm aware of. ·5· ·That's correct.· There was a personal matter
·6· · · ·Q.· Have you taken any medications that ·6· ·that I've been deposed for.
·7· ·would prevent you from giving complete, ·7· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And just to make sure:· You've
·8· ·accurate, and truthful testimony today? ·8· ·never given a deposition in any other case in
·9· · · ·A.· I have not. ·9· ·your professional capacity even before your
10· · · ·Q.· If you want a break at any point, just 10· ·current job; is that right?
11· ·let us know, and we'll take a break. 11· · · ·A.· That's right.
12· · · ·A.· Will do.· Thank you. 12· · · ·Q.· Have you ever testified before at a
13· · · ·Q.· Have you ever been deposed before? 13· ·trial?
14· · · ·A.· Yes, I have. 14· · · ·A.· I'm sorry.· One moment.
15· · · ·Q.· And when was that? 15· · · ·Q.· Sure.
16· · · ·A.· I've been deposed once personally; once 16· · · ·A.· Sorry.· No, I have not testified in a
17· ·about a year ago, in my capacity as executive 17· ·trial.
18· ·director; and then once this week in my 18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· What is your current job title?
19· ·capacity as executive director; and then this 19· · · ·A.· I'm executive director of the
20· ·deposition. 20· ·North Carolina State Board of Elections.
21· · · ·Q.· I'll take those one at a time, then. 21· · · ·Q.· And how long have you been in that
22· · · · · ·You said once about a year ago?· Did I 22· ·position?
23· ·hear that right? 23· · · ·A.· I began June 1, 2019.· So just over a
24· · · ·A.· That's correct. 24· ·year.
25· · · ·Q.· And what case was that? 25· · · ·Q.· And I understand that this might be a
Page 11 Page 13
·1· · · ·A.· It was dealing with the federal ID law. ·1· ·very difficult question to answer, but on a
·2· · · ·Q.· And was that a federal court case or a ·2· ·high level, what are your responsibilities in
·3· ·state court case? ·3· ·that role?
·4· · · ·A.· I honestly don't recall at this point. ·4· · · ·A.· I am the chief elections official for
·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And you were already in your ·5· ·the State of North Carolina.· I, with the State
·6· ·position that you currently hold now at the ·6· ·Board of Elections, have oversight of
·7· ·time of that deposition; is that right? ·7· ·elections, administration for our state, and
·8· · · ·A.· I had just begun.· Yes. ·8· ·the conduct of all 100 county boards of
·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then the second case, what ·9· ·elections.· And we also, as the State Board,
10· ·was that case? 10· ·and the 100 county boards, oversee compliance
11· · · ·A.· That was earlier this week, and it is 11· ·with campaign finance laws.
12· ·dealing with changes to the -- it's a case 12· · · ·Q.· In your role, do you oversee the State
13· ·dealing with coronavirus and -- a lawsuit 13· ·Board's efforts to notify people convicted of
14· ·asking for changes in how we conduct elections 14· ·felonies about their voting rights?
15· ·dealing with coronavirus. 15· · · ·A.· We do receive voter registrations.· So
16· · · ·Q.· And what kind of changes are the 16· ·that does pertain to felons.
17· ·plaintiffs asking for in that case? 17· · · ·Q.· And do you oversee the State Board's
18· · · ·A.· It's actually quite a -- numerous 18· ·procedures for preventing people convicted of
19· ·things.· Changes to the witnesses on -- changes 19· ·felonies from voting?
20· ·to the voter registration deadline.· How we -- 20· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Assumes facts not
21· ·I'm just trying to think of some of the other 21· · · ·in evidence.
22· ·things that were being considered.· Those are 22· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
23· ·two of the main ones. 23· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, you understand that people
24· · · ·Q.· Okay. 24· ·who are serving a felony sentence in
25· · · ·A.· The poll workers and precinct workers. 25· ·North Carolina are not allowed to vote.· Is


Page 14 Page 16
·1· ·that right? ·1· · · ·Q.· And how long did you have that job?
·2· · · ·A.· That is what the law states. ·2· · · ·A.· From -- in a full-time capacity,
·3· · · ·Q.· And do you oversee the State Board's ·3· ·October of 2016 until I assumed this role.· So
·4· ·procedures for preventing such people from ·4· ·the end of May 2019.
·5· ·voting? ·5· · · ·Q.· And is that a nonprofit organization?
·6· · · ·A.· I administer the law which says that we ·6· · · ·A.· It is.· It is organized now as a
·7· ·give notice or administer the law as it's ·7· ·nonprofit organization.
·8· ·written pertaining to felons and their rights ·8· · · ·Q.· And what's -- again, this might be a
·9· ·to vote. ·9· ·loaded question, but, broadly speaking, what's
10· · · ·Q.· Right.· And just so that I -- the Board 10· ·the primary mission of that organization?
11· ·has certain procedures in place.· Right? 11· · · ·A.· We were a group of former election
12· ·Administrative procedures to, you know, the 12· ·administrators who had worked in the election
13· ·best they can, make sure that people who are 13· ·administration field.· We were working with
14· ·serving such felony convictions are not 14· ·different governmental entities, be that a
15· ·actually able to vote; is that right? 15· ·legislature or a city council, varying levels
16· · · ·A.· We have procedures pertaining to the 16· ·of government and election administration for
17· ·qualifications of voters. 17· ·those who were considering or were already
18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then in your capacity as 18· ·charged with implementing ranked choice voting
19· ·executive director, that falls within your 19· ·as a voting method.· We had -- I particularly
20· ·purview of overseeing those procedures; is that 20· ·had experience in that voting method, and so we
21· ·right? 21· ·were sharing election administration practices
22· · · ·A.· That's correct. 22· ·for those considering the method or who were
23· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And in your role -- and, 23· ·implementing or expanding their processes.
24· ·Ms. Bell, you understand that people who have 24· · · ·Q.· And before that job -- what was your
25· ·completed their felony sentence become 25· ·job before that?
Page 15 Page 17
·1· ·reeligible to vote again.· Is that right? ·1· · · ·A.· I had worked for a voting -- an
·2· · · ·A.· That is how our law is stated, yes. ·2· ·elections software company.
·3· · · ·Q.· And does the Board have procedures to ·3· · · ·Q.· Have you ever worked -- other than your
·4· ·help implement that aspect of the law, that ·4· ·current job, have you ever worked for any
·5· ·people are allowed to vote again once their ·5· ·government agency?
·6· ·felony sentences are completed? ·6· · · ·A.· Yes.· From two thousand -- well, yes.
·7· · · ·A.· Yes.· That's correct. ·7· ·That's a "yes" or "no."· So yes.
·8· · · ·Q.· And in your capacity as executive ·8· · · ·Q.· And what agency was that?
·9· ·director, do you oversee those procedures? ·9· · · ·A.· I was the elections director for
10· · · ·A.· Yes. 10· ·Transylvania County, North Carolina.
11· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, am I correct that the Board 11· · · ·Q.· And when did you serve in that role?
12· ·conducts investigations of people who may have 12· · · ·A.· From March of 2011 until March of 2015.
13· ·voted illegally while they were serving their 13· · · ·Q.· And did I hear you right that you said
14· ·felony sentence? 14· ·you were the elections director?· Or I might
15· · · ·A.· We do have an investigations division 15· ·have misheard.
16· ·where we look at violations of election law. 16· · · ·A.· That's correct.· Yes.· At the county
17· · · ·Q.· And do you -- in your capacity as 17· ·level in North Carolina, we're considered
18· ·executive director, do you oversee that 18· ·election directors.
19· ·division? 19· · · ·Q.· And what were your responsibilities in
20· · · ·A.· Yes, that is a division of this agency. 20· ·that role?
21· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Before your current job, what 21· · · ·A.· To administer voting, voter
22· ·was -- what job did you hold before your 22· ·registration, campaign finance, election
23· ·current job? 23· ·administration for Transylvania County,
24· · · ·A.· I was a consultant for the Ranked 24· ·North Carolina.
25· ·Choice Voting Resource Center. 25· · · ·Q.· And in that role, were you involved in


Page 18 Page 20
·1· ·implementing procedures for notifying people ·1· · · ·Q.· And when you say "voting systems," are
·2· ·convicted of felonies about their voting ·2· ·you referring to the actual software that
·3· ·rights? ·3· ·voting machines use that will actually cast the
·4· · · ·A.· Yes, as it pertains to North Carolina ·4· ·ballots?· Is that --
·5· ·law, yes. ·5· · · ·A.· A voting system is the firmware,
·6· · · ·Q.· And in that role were you involved in ·6· ·software, and hardware associated with voting.
·7· ·implementing procedures for preventing people ·7· ·So the tabulators, the tabulation software.
·8· ·who were serving felony sentences from voting? ·8· ·Yeah.· All the components you see when you cast
·9· · · ·A.· Again, my role was to administer ·9· ·your ballot.
10· ·elections and voter registration based on 10· · · ·Q.· In that role -- did that role touch at
11· ·qualifications for people to vote or not to 11· ·all on the law regarding people serving their
12· ·vote based on North Carolina law. 12· ·felony sentences and whether they can vote?
13· · · ·Q.· And those qualifications included that 13· · · ·A.· That was not a direct part of my job.
14· ·a person is not currently serving a felony 14· ·I assisted counties in other processes, but
15· ·sentence; is that right? 15· ·that was not a direct part of my job at that
16· · · ·A.· That was the law at that time.· Yes. 16· ·time.
17· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And in that role in Transylvania 17· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And other than the three
18· ·County, were you involved in procedures for 18· ·government positions we've discussed, have you
19· ·enabling people who had finished their felony 19· ·held any government position?
20· ·sentence to once again vote? 20· · · ·A.· No.
21· · · ·A.· Yes.· If an individual was qualified to 21· · · ·Q.· Other than the jobs we've already
22· ·register and vote, then we did follow those 22· ·talked about, have you ever worked at all in a
23· ·procedures. 23· ·professional capacity on issues relating to
24· · · ·Q.· And in that role were you involved in 24· ·felony disenfranchisement?
25· ·the investigation of people who may have 25· · · ·A.· I have not.
Page 19 Page 21
·1· ·legally voted while serving a felony sentence? ·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· What did you do to prepare for
·2· · · ·A.· The county level turns over that ·2· ·today's deposition?
·3· ·information to the state, and there is no ·3· · · ·A.· I have spoken with counsel to
·4· ·county investigations division.· So that's ·4· ·understand the process, particularly, to the
·5· ·turned over to the state. ·5· ·organizational witness aspect.· I have reviewed
·6· · · ·Q.· Other than that role in Transylvania ·6· ·documents that we provided as the State Board,
·7· ·County, have you served in any sort of ·7· ·that were provided by counsel.
·8· ·government capacity, other than your current ·8· · · ·Q.· Did you meet with your lawyers to
·9· ·job? ·9· ·prepare for this deposition?
10· · · ·A.· Yes. 10· · · ·A.· I did.
11· · · ·Q.· And what was that? 11· · · ·Q.· How many times did you meet them?
12· · · ·A.· I worked for the State Board of 12· · · ·A.· Other than being briefed, you know, on
13· ·Elections from 2006 until I became county 13· ·the status of the case to actually prepare for
14· ·elections director in 2011. 14· ·this, we met once.
15· · · ·Q.· And what was your -- what role did you 15· · · ·Q.· And other than Mr. Cox, was anyone else
16· ·hold at that time? 16· ·present at that meeting?
17· · · ·A.· I was a district elections technician. 17· · · ·A.· The State Board's general counsel,
18· · · ·Q.· And what did that job entail? 18· ·Katelyn Love.
19· · · ·A.· I was assigned a regional position 19· · · ·Q.· Other than Ms. Love and Mr. Cox, was
20· ·where I worked in the western part of the state 20· ·anyone present?
21· ·supporting 12 counties.· The primary 21· · · ·A.· Yes.· Our deputy director, Trena Parker
22· ·responsibilities dealt with the voting systems 22· ·Velez.
23· ·and North Carolina's procurement of a new 23· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Was Mr. Rabinovitz from the
24· ·voting system in 2006, and that rollout, and 24· ·Attorney General's Office present at that
25· ·the training associated with that. 25· ·meeting?


Page 22 Page 24
·1· · · ·A.· No, he was not. ·1· ·handled by our general counsel.· We reached out
·2· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I believe you just mentioned ·2· ·to staff.
·3· ·this a moment ago, but have you reviewed any ·3· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Are you familiar at all with the
·4· ·documents to prepare for this deposition? ·4· ·process that he used to gather documents?
·5· · · ·A.· Yes.· I reviewed some of our ·5· · · ·A.· Our general counsel, or Mr. Cox?
·6· ·procedures -- procedural documents that were ·6· · · ·Q.· Your general counsel.
·7· ·provided with this case. ·7· · · ·A.· I was copied or included on emails when
·8· · · ·Q.· Other than documents that were -- and ·8· ·she reached out to staff members.· If she --
·9· ·when you -- I'm sorry.· When you say provided ·9· ·yeah, I was not pertinent to phone
10· ·in this case, do you mean provided to 10· ·conversations, if those occurred.
11· ·plaintiffs as part of discovery? 11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Do you know do they search paper
12· · · ·A.· That would be my understanding.· I'm 12· ·files and electronic documents, or just one or
13· ·not an attorney, so... 13· ·the other?
14· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Other than those documents that 14· · · ·A.· I don't have the answer to that.
15· ·you think were provided to the plaintiffs as 15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Do you know if they conducted
16· ·part of discovery, did you review any documents 16· ·electronic searches?
17· ·to prepare for today? 17· · · ·A.· In some of what I have, there's a
18· · · ·A.· No, not that I recall. 18· ·record of an email that I have in front of me
19· · · ·Q.· I see that you have a large stack of 19· ·that was submitted.· So if that answers your --
20· ·documents behind you, and I won't ask you about 20· ·there's at least an email.· So that would be an
21· ·those, but did you -- 21· ·electronic file.
22· · · ·A.· So that would be our COVID response, 22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· What email is that?
23· ·our Monday morning kickoff, our conference that 23· · · ·A.· It's -- maybe the best way for me to
24· ·we have coming up.· All the many things that go 24· ·identify it is the page number.
25· ·on in election administration. 25· · · ·Q.· Sure.
Page 23 Page 25
·1· · · ·Q.· Fair enough.· And that would probably ·1· · · ·A.· So CSI_NCSBE_000048.· So it's an email
·2· ·take us a full day just to go through those. ·2· ·from Katelyn Love, as well as Veronica
·3· · · ·A.· At least. ·3· ·Degraffenreid.
·4· · · ·Q.· Did you bring any documents, though, ·4· · · ·Q.· And do State Board -- does the State
·5· ·with you today specifically for this ·5· ·Board staff or members frequently email about
·6· ·deposition? ·6· ·issues relating to felony disenfranchisement?
·7· · · ·A.· I have some of those documents that ·7· · · ·A.· What do you mean by "frequently"?
·8· ·have been provided.· I have those with me. ·8· · · ·Q.· Do they ever email about issues
·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· But nothing else beyond what ·9· ·relating to felony disenfranchisement?
10· ·you've already described? 10· · · ·A.· Yes, we would email -- you know, yes,
11· · · ·A.· That's correct. 11· ·we would email about that.
12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And, Ms. Bell, I believe, again, 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And do you know that the State
13· ·you already answered this, but you're aware 13· ·Board searched their emails in response to
14· ·that the State Board produced documents in 14· ·discovery requests in this case?
15· ·response to the plaintiffs' discovery request 15· · · ·A.· I don't know.
16· ·in this case? 16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And you think the person who
17· · · ·A.· Yes. 17· ·would know that is the deputy director and the
18· · · ·Q.· Were you involved in the process of 18· ·general counsel.· Am I understanding that
19· ·identifying or collecting the documents that 19· ·right?
20· ·were to be produced? 20· · · ·A.· In this case it would be the general
21· · · ·A.· No, not -- not particularly. 21· ·counsel.
22· · · ·Q.· Who at the State Board was involved in 22· · · ·Q.· Okay.
23· ·gathering the documents that were produced as 23· · · ·A.· The deputy director does not have the
24· ·part of discovery in this case? 24· ·discovery rights.
25· · · ·A.· To my knowledge, most of that was 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And have you reviewed all of the


Page 26 Page 28
·1· ·documents that were ultimately produced by the ·1· ·reflect current protocols and technology
·2· ·State Board in this case? ·2· ·databases used by the State Board and county
·3· · · ·A.· I have not. ·3· ·board of elections?
·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Just a subset? ·4· · · ·A.· Yes.· We have -- we have other
·5· · · ·A.· Correct. ·5· ·supplemental documents, but, yes, this is the
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to walk through some ·6· ·latest version, to my knowledge, of this
·7· ·of the documents, now, that were produced. ·7· ·document.
·8· · · ·A.· Okay. ·8· · · ·Q.· So there's no more recent documents
·9· · · ·Q.· So I'm going to pull up -- I'm going to ·9· ·that sort of updates this?· This is the latest
10· ·pull up exhibits on my screen and use the 10· ·version, you just said?
11· ·screen-share function.· You can at any point 11· · · ·A.· I believe that's correct.· Yes.
12· ·tell me you want me to scroll to a different 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn now to the
13· ·page or you want to take more time to read 13· ·page that's Bates stamped page 286.
14· ·something I'm looking at.· It's a little bit 14· · · · · ·Do you see that the title of this slide
15· ·cumbersome using remote procedures, but we'll 15· ·is "DOC Felon Reports Updated"?
16· ·do the best we can. 16· · · ·A.· Yes.
17· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· And for opposing 17· · · ·Q.· Does this page show the databases that
18· · · ·counsel, Mr. Atkinson will email you the 18· ·the State Board maintains regarding persons
19· · · ·marked copies.· We've premarked all of 19· ·convicted of a felony in a North Carolina state
20· · · ·these.· So he'll email them, you know, one 20· ·court and their eligibility to vote?
21· · · ·by one as we introduce each one, just so 21· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
22· · · ·everyone has a copy in front of them. 22· · · ·A.· Repeat your question, please.
23· · · · · ·Does that sound okay to everyone? 23· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Does this page show the
24· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Yes. 24· ·databases that the State Board of Elections
25· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay. 25· ·maintains regarding persons convicted of a
Page 27 Page 29
·1· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' A premarked.) ·1· ·felony in a North Carolina state court and
·2· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: ·2· ·their eligibility to vote?
·3· · · ·Q.· Are you able to see my screen? ·3· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
·4· · · ·A.· Yes.· Well, I see a screen.· I don't ·4· · · ·A.· I don't know that the terminology used
·5· ·see the entire document. ·5· ·is correct for what this displays.
·6· · · ·Q.· Do you see that this is a document ·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· How would you describe it?
·7· ·entitled Election Technology Training? ·7· · · ·A.· Okay.· This is a listing of lists and
·8· · · ·A.· Yes. ·8· ·daily reports.· It's not necessarily a
·9· · · ·Q.· Have you seen this document before? ·9· ·database.
10· · · ·A.· I have. 10· · · ·Q.· Okay.· But these are the lists and
11· · · ·Q.· Can you confirm, to the best of your 11· ·daily reports that the State Board possesses
12· ·ability, that this is a true and accurate copy 12· ·regarding persons convicted of a felony in a
13· ·of a document produced by the State Board in 13· ·North Carolina state court; is that right?
14· ·discovery? 14· · · ·A.· Somewhat.
15· · · ·A.· I'm sorry.· Your audio faded. 15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· What did I get wrong?
16· · · ·Q.· I'm sorry.· You said you've seen this 16· · · ·A.· You indicated that we possess them.
17· ·document before, correct? 17· ·They may be provided to us or -- I just don't
18· · · ·A.· Yes, I have. 18· ·want to -- it indicates it's the Department of
19· · · ·Q.· Can you confirm, to the best of your 19· ·Corrections, which is a title that really means
20· ·ability, that this is a true and accurate copy 20· ·DPS, Department of Public Safety.· And so some
21· ·of a document produced by the State Board in 21· ·of these are provided to us and not necessarily
22· ·this case in discovery? 22· ·our documents.
23· · · ·A.· Yes, it is a State Board document.· At 23· · · ·Q.· Sure.· The State Board maintains copies
24· ·least, as far as the cover. 24· ·of -- at least, copies of all of these lists;
25· · · ·Q.· And does this -- does this document 25· ·is that correct?


Page 30 Page 32
·1· · · ·A.· Yes.· They're provided to us, and we ·1· ·North Carolina state court?
·2· ·maintain them for our purposes.· Yes. ·2· · · ·A.· I don't want to split hairs with you,
·3· · · ·Q.· And these lists show -- or these lists ·3· ·but that's -- it is not a report that says they
·4· ·relate to persons convicted of a felony in a ·4· ·are not eligible to vote.· It says that they
·5· ·North Carolina state court; is that correct? ·5· ·are "active felony status due to conviction of
·6· · · ·A.· Actually, the way this is written, it ·6· ·a felony" in North Carolina.
·7· ·does not indicate that all of those are those ·7· · · ·Q.· Okay.· But everyone who is on the list
·8· ·convicted of a felony in a North Carolina state ·8· ·is ineligible to vote; is that right?
·9· ·court. ·9· · · ·A.· They are active felony status.
10· · · ·Q.· You think that this includes people who 10· ·Therefore, we would then process this as
11· ·were convicted of a felony in a different 11· ·someone who is not eligible to vote.
12· ·court? 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.
13· · · ·A.· Not -- no, just indicating that that's 13· · · ·A.· But it's --
14· ·not what all of these bullet points state. 14· · · ·Q.· Go ahead.· I'm sorry.
15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· How about we'll do this.· We'll 15· · · ·A.· That's all.
16· ·go through them one by one, and I'll state my 16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· The second list is called "Felon
17· ·understanding of them, and then you can tell me 17· ·State Matching List"; is that right?
18· ·what I'm getting wrong.· Sound good? 18· · · ·A.· Yes.
19· · · ·A.· I believe you're correct that they are 19· · · ·Q.· And does that list show the current
20· ·from the North Carolina state court, but I just 20· ·list of people who are on active felony status
21· ·wanted to clarify that they don't each state 21· ·who you are able to -- from a conviction in a
22· ·that. 22· ·North Carolina state court -- who you are able
23· · · ·Q.· I understand.· Okay.· So the first one 23· ·to match up to a North Carolina voter
24· ·here is called "Felon County List"? 24· ·registration record?
25· · · ·A.· Yes. 25· · · ·A.· That is correct.
Page 31 Page 33
·1· · · ·Q.· And does that list show the current ·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And is that -- am I
·2· ·list of people who are ineligible to vote ·2· ·understanding right, is that the SEIMS
·3· ·because they are serving a felony sentence? ·3· ·database?· I might be --
·4· · · ·A.· By definition, no, that's not what the ·4· · · ·A.· No.· You said it correctly.
·5· ·report indicates. ·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· That's a list of voters who are
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Well, can you explain to me why ·6· ·registered in North Carolina; is that right?
·7· ·that's not correct? ·7· · · ·A.· That's our database of people who are
·8· · · ·A.· I will read what it says.· It says ·8· ·registered in North Carolina, SEIMS.
·9· ·that:· "This report shows the current list of ·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And the third list is called
10· ·persons who have an active felony status due to 10· ·"Felon Completed List."· Does that show the
11· ·conviction of a felony in a North Carolina 11· ·current list of persons who have completed
12· ·state court.· The report is available by the 12· ·their felony sentence from a conviction in a
13· ·county in which the person was convicted of a 13· ·North Carolina state court?
14· ·felony (or was a resident at the time of his or 14· · · ·A.· It states that they are no longer
15· ·her conviction).· User must select county and 15· ·considered active felons.· So by that -- does
16· ·user may select conviction month and year." 16· ·that meet your definition of no longer serving
17· · · · · ·It does not state whether they are 17· ·a sentence?
18· ·eligible to vote or not, as you stated. 18· · · ·Q.· So let me ask you this:· Anyone who is
19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is it your understanding that 19· ·no longer considered to be an active felon and
20· ·anyone serving an active felony status due to a 20· ·is, therefore, on that list, are all of those
21· ·felony is ineligible to vote in North Carolina? 21· ·people eligible to vote in North Carolina
22· · · ·A.· That is correct. 22· ·elections?
23· · · ·Q.· So given that, doesn't this list show a 23· · · ·A.· They are eligible, yes.
24· ·current list of persons who are ineligible to 24· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then the fourth list here,
25· ·vote in North Carolina due to a conviction in a 25· ·"Felon Completed State Matching List," does


Page 34 Page 36
·1· ·that show the current list of people who are no ·1· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
·2· ·longer considered to be active felons who you ·2· · · ·speculation.
·3· ·are also able to match up to a North Carolina ·3· · · ·A.· What I can attest to is what the
·4· ·voter registration record? ·4· ·process would be once we receive that
·5· · · ·A.· That is correct. ·5· ·information.· And that is available to the
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn back now to ·6· ·counties on a daily or weekly basis.· So as
·7· ·what is stamped as Bates stamp page 282. ·7· ·they process those, that would be the time
·8· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you see that the title of ·8· ·frame from an elections side of things.
·9· ·this slide is "Felony Removal Notice"? ·9· · · ·Q.· Gotcha.
10· · · ·A.· I do. 10· · · ·A.· So that's all I can speak to.
11· · · ·Q.· And does this represent a sample letter 11· · · ·Q.· And is the county processing that
12· ·sent to voters notifying them that their name 12· ·information on a continual basis?
13· ·will be removed from the list of registered 13· · · ·A.· Yes.
14· ·voters because they've been convicted of a 14· · · ·Q.· They're not -- they don't only do it,
15· ·felony? 15· ·you know, once a year or twice a year or
16· · · ·A.· That is what it's depicting, yes. 16· ·something like that?
17· · · ·Q.· So to state it slightly differently: 17· · · ·A.· That's correct.
18· ·This letter tells voters that they are now 18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And am I correct that this
19· ·ineligible to vote because of their felony 19· ·letter is sent by the relevant county board of
20· ·conviction; is that correct? 20· ·elections in the voter's home county?
21· · · ·A.· That is correct. 21· · · ·A.· That is correct.
22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is it -- am I right that this 22· · · ·Q.· Is this letter, though, a standard
23· ·letter is sent shortly after the conviction 23· ·template that's used by all counties?
24· ·takes place? 24· · · ·A.· Yes, we do have a standard template
25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Calls for speculation. 25· ·letter.
Page 35 Page 37
·1· · · ·Objection. ·1· · · ·Q.· And is it the State Board of Elections
·2· · · ·A.· I was going to say.· I mean, what do ·2· ·that develops that standard template letter?
·3· ·you mean by "shortly after"? ·3· · · ·A.· Yes.
·4· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Roughly how long after a ·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I think we touched on this a
·5· ·conviction takes place is this letter sent? ·5· ·moment ago, but do counties rely on what was
·6· · · ·A.· Can you zoom in?· Or, actually, I'd ·6· ·the second database that we talked about on the
·7· ·like to look at my procedures to give you the ·7· ·previous slide, which was called the Felon
·8· ·exact number of days. ·8· ·State Matching List, to identify persons whose
·9· · · ·Q.· That would be fine. ·9· ·names should be removed from the list of
10· · · ·A.· I don't believe this page that you have 10· ·registered voters and sent this letter?
11· ·displayed indicates the number of days as we 11· · · ·A.· That is data available to the counties
12· ·process voter registration reforms -- or not 12· ·and that is a method that they use.
13· ·reforms -- forms.· I'm sorry. 13· · · ·Q.· Is there any other method that they use
14· · · ·Q.· Well, let me -- 14· ·to identify people who were registered to vote
15· · · ·A.· So it's untimely.· It's not... 15· ·who should be removed because of felony
16· · · ·Q.· Am I correct, Ms. Bell, that this 16· ·conviction other than that database -- or that
17· ·letter is sent to people who are already 17· ·list, I should say?
18· ·registered to vote who have been matched up to 18· · · ·A.· I believe what you were showing on that
19· ·a voter registration record in SEIMS?· Is that 19· ·previous slide were all the lists available to
20· ·correct? 20· ·the counties for them to use in processing.
21· · · ·A.· That is correct.· Yes.· Sorry.· I did 21· ·But that -- yes, that is the primary way that a
22· ·not state that quite right. 22· ·county would process for this -- for this
23· · · ·Q.· Sure.· So, just ballpark, is it fair to 23· ·notice.
24· ·say that this letter will be sent to voters 24· · · ·Q.· Sure.· You say it's the primary way,
25· ·within six months of their conviction? 25· ·and I guess what I'm just trying to clarify is,


Page 38 Page 40
·1· ·is there -- well, I'll go back to that other ·1· ·they're ineligible to register to vote because
·2· ·slide, just to be -- just so we can make sure ·2· ·of a felony conviction?
·3· ·we're on the same page. ·3· · · ·A.· This is the template, at the time, of
·4· · · · · ·So I'm referring to the Felon State ·4· ·the denial of registration letter, yes.
·5· ·Matching List that matches up people who are on ·5· · · ·Q.· So this is for people who tried to
·6· ·active felony status (inaudible) -- ·6· ·register to vote; is that right?
·7· · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Excuse me.· I can't hear ·7· · · ·A.· That's right.
·8· · · ·you.· You're cutting out. ·8· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And like the prior letter, is
·9· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· I'm sorry.· Can you hear ·9· ·this letter sent by the relevant county board
10· · · ·me? 10· ·of elections?
11· · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes.· Please repeat. 11· · · ·A.· Yes.
12· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay. 12· · · ·Q.· And like the prior letter, is it based
13· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 13· ·on a template that's developed by the State
14· · · ·Q.· The second list here that we talked 14· ·Board?
15· ·about before, the Felon State Matching List, 15· · · ·A.· Yes.
16· ·that shows the current list of people who are 16· · · ·Q.· And going back now to slide 286.
17· ·on active felony status who are also matched up 17· · · · · ·For purposes of that Denial Notice we
18· ·to an existing voter registration record; is 18· ·just looked at, am I correct that the counties
19· ·that right? 19· ·rely on this first list, the Felon County List,
20· · · ·A.· That is right. 20· ·to identify people who should be sent that
21· · · ·Q.· And so what I'm asking is:· Other than 21· ·letter?
22· ·relying on this list, is there something 22· · · ·A.· Yes.
23· ·else -- some other source that counties rely on 23· · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, we've just looked at two
24· ·to remove people who are already on the rolls, 24· ·separate notices that election officials send
25· ·from the rolls, because of a felony conviction? 25· ·to voters after their felony convictions, or
Page 39 Page 41
·1· · · ·A.· There are two other items on this ·1· ·that may send to voters after their felony
·2· ·particular slide that indicate other resources ·2· ·convictions, advising them that they cannot
·3· ·that the counties have.· The one that you ·3· ·vote; is that right?
·4· ·noted, the Felon State Matching List, is the ·4· · · ·A.· Yes.
·5· ·primary, but they do still have access to the ·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, I didn't see any
·6· ·Felon County List that we've reviewed.· And the ·6· ·similar letter in this document advising voters
·7· ·one that you did not review is the DOC Felon ·7· ·after their sentence is completed that they're
·8· ·Search.· If they needed to clarify or review, ·8· ·once again eligible to vote.
·9· ·those would be available to them as well. ·9· · · · · ·Is it correct that neither the State
10· · · ·Q.· And is it your understanding that 10· ·Board of Elections nor a county board of
11· ·counties, in fact, do rely on those two other 11· ·elections send voters such a notification once
12· ·lists when identifying -- to identify people 12· ·they've become reeligible to vote?
13· ·who should be removed from the registration 13· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Confusing.
14· ·rolls? 14· · · ·A.· Would you state your question again,
15· · · ·A.· They are available to them, but they 15· ·please?
16· ·would rely primarily on the Felon State 16· · · ·Q.· Sure.· So after a person finishes their
17· ·Matching List that you've asked about. 17· ·felony sentence, does either the State Board of
18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll turn now to page 283. 18· ·Elections or a county board of elections send
19· · · · · ·And, Ms. Bell, do you see that this 19· ·voters a notification telling them that they're
20· ·is -- this slide is titled "Denial Notice"? 20· ·now once again eligible to vote?
21· · · ·A.· I do. 21· · · ·A.· We do not send a letter --
22· · · ·Q.· And does this slide -- does this letter 22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And --
23· ·on this slide represent a letter sent to people 23· · · ·A.· -- of that nature.· Sorry.
24· ·who were not already registered to vote, or 24· · · ·Q.· And we talked earlier here about the
25· ·tried to register to vote, notifying them that 25· ·third and fourth bullet points -- or lists --


Page 42 Page 44
·1· ·Felon Completed List and Felon Completed State ·1· ·can you tell me what you mean by that?
·2· ·Matching List? ·2· · · ·A.· We do not have -- the instruction in
·3· · · ·A.· Yes. ·3· ·our law is not -- it does not instruct that it
·4· · · ·Q.· Those lists provide details of people ·4· ·will be the county board of elections who would
·5· ·who finished their felony sentences and are ·5· ·make that contact --
·6· ·once again eligible to vote; is that right? ·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is there --
·7· · · ·A.· Correct.· They are no longer active -- ·7· · · ·A.· -- based upon these lists.
·8· ·considered active felons. ·8· · · ·Q.· Is there anything in the law, based on
·9· · · ·Q.· And am I correct that those databases ·9· ·your understanding, that prohibits the county
10· ·contain contact information like name and last 10· ·boards of elections from contacting individuals
11· ·known address? 11· ·to tell them that they're once again eligible
12· · · ·A.· I'm sorry.· You cut out. 12· ·to vote?
13· · · ·Q.· I'm sorry.· The perils of remote 13· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
14· ·depositions. 14· · · ·conclusion.
15· · · · · ·Am I correct that those databases 15· · · ·A.· As I've mentioned, I'm not an attorney.
16· ·contain contact information for people such as 16· ·So I would need to confirm with counsel before
17· ·their name and last known address? 17· ·I would make that decision.
18· · · ·A.· It still trails off at the end of your 18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· But sitting here today, you're
19· ·question.· I'm sorry. 19· ·not aware of any law that would prohibit the
20· · · ·Q.· That's okay.· Can you hear me better? 20· ·counties from contacting people to tell them
21· · · ·A.· I can.· Yes. 21· ·that they're once again eligible to vote, are
22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll try my best to be heard. 22· ·you?
23· · · · · ·Am I correct that those two databases 23· · · ·A.· Restate your question, please.
24· ·contain contact information such as name and 24· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Just sitting here today, as we
25· ·last known address? 25· ·talk to each other, you're not aware of any law
Page 43 Page 45
·1· · · ·A.· I believe that is correct.· Yes. ·1· ·that would prevent the county boards of
·2· · · ·Q.· And you could -- the State Board could ·2· ·elections from contacting people on these lists
·3· ·use that contact information to contact people ·3· ·and telling them that they're once again
·4· ·and tell them that they're now eligible to ·4· ·eligible to vote?
·5· ·vote, right? ·5· · · ·A.· The way that I best know to answer that
·6· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for ·6· ·is to say that we administer the law as it is
·7· · · ·speculation. ·7· ·written.· We -- it is not -- so if there's
·8· · · ·A.· We could use -- I don't -- that is not ·8· ·not -- if that's not within the law, then --
·9· ·a procedure that we have.· I mean, is that a ·9· ·you know, we have to be careful in our
10· ·contact list?· Could anyone send a letter? 10· ·administration that we do not exceed what the
11· ·Yes, anyone could send a letter. 11· ·law states either.
12· · · ·Q.· Right.· And the county boards could use 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· But you're not aware of any law
13· ·that contact information to send a letter to 13· ·that prohibits it, are you?
14· ·people telling them that they're once again 14· · · ·A.· To the best of my knowledge, no.
15· ·eligible to vote; is that right? 15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So from the standpoint of a
16· · · ·A.· Your question is "could," and that 16· ·person convicted of a felony in North Carolina,
17· ·would imply:· Do they have the ability or the 17· ·even after their sentence is finished, the last
18· ·capability?· "Could" is -- an answer to "could" 18· ·communication they will have received from
19· ·is "yes." 19· ·election officials is something telling them
20· · · ·Q.· Okay.· But they don't do that, do they? 20· ·that they're not eligible to vote; is that
21· · · ·A.· That is not what is -- that is not our 21· ·right?
22· ·procedure or law. 22· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
23· · · ·Q.· Okay. 23· · · ·speculation.· Vague.
24· · · ·A.· So they do not keep that. 24· · · ·A.· And I actually was going to ask you to
25· · · ·Q.· When you say that it's not their law, 25· ·restate your question, please.


Page 46 Page 48
·1· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Yes.· I understand.· That was a ·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And would you agree, though,
·2· ·bad question. ·2· ·that at a minimum, a person in the situation we
·3· · · · · ·So we talked before that when somebody ·3· ·just talked about, with the last communication
·4· ·is convicted of a felony, they receive a ·4· ·they received directly from a state election
·5· ·notice -- a letter from the county board of ·5· ·official -- I'll rephrase the question.
·6· ·elections telling them that they're not ·6· · · · · ·Would you agree, at a minimum, that a
·7· ·eligible to vote, correct? ·7· ·person in a situation we just talked about,
·8· · · ·A.· If they are a registered voter and are ·8· ·could be confused about their eligibility to
·9· ·convicted of a felony, and we removed them, ·9· ·vote?
10· ·then they receive a notice.· Your question was, 10· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
11· ·if someone is convicted of a felony, that they 11· · · ·speculation.
12· ·receive a letter from the State Board -- or 12· · · ·A.· I don't think I can speak to another's
13· ·from the Board of Elections -- and that would 13· ·state of mind.
14· ·not be correct for all individuals. 14· · · ·Q.· Okay.· If somebody -- if the last
15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So somebody who was a registered 15· ·communication they received from an election
16· ·voter, after they're convicted, they receive a 16· ·official is something telling them they're not
17· ·letter from the county board of elections 17· ·eligible to vote, could you understand how that
18· ·telling them they're not eligible to vote; is 18· ·person could then be confused about their
19· ·that right? 19· ·eligibility to vote even after they've finished
20· · · ·A.· That is correct. 20· ·their sentence?
21· · · ·Q.· And that same person, after they finish 21· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Assumes facts not
22· ·their sentence, does not receive a letter from 22· · · ·in evidence.
23· ·the county board of elections telling them that 23· · · ·A.· The letter actually might be the
24· ·they're once again eligible to vote, right? 24· ·clarification that they need not to create
25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and 25· ·confusion.
Page 47 Page 49
·1· · · ·answered. ·1· · · ·Q.· I'm sorry.· Can you explain to me what
·2· · · ·A.· They do not receive a letter from the ·2· ·you mean by that?
·3· ·State Board of Elections or county board of ·3· · · ·A.· Your assertion is that by receiving the
·4· ·elections. ·4· ·letter, it confuses someone about their state
·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So for such a person, the last ·5· ·of registration.· But the fact that they
·6· ·communication they will receive from either the ·6· ·receive a letter stating that they're not
·7· ·State Board of Elections or the county board of ·7· ·registered might actually be not confusing but
·8· ·elections will have been that letter telling ·8· ·rather provide clarity to them of their status
·9· ·them they're not eligible to vote, right? ·9· ·of registration.
10· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for 10· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, you mentioned before that --
11· · · ·speculation. 11· ·I think I heard you say the Department of
12· · · ·A.· Actually, I could say that we work with 12· ·Public Safety is tasked with handing people
13· ·the probation and parole and DPS and provide 13· ·some information after they finish their
14· ·them with brochures that are provided to 14· ·sentence about their voting rights.· Is that
15· ·someone who has completed their sentence. 15· ·correct?
16· ·Therefore, that is a communication from the 16· · · ·A.· That's correct.
17· ·State Board of Elections or county board of 17· · · ·Q.· Does the State Board have any
18· ·elections.· It's just not in the form of a 18· ·procedures for ensuring that the Department of
19· ·letter. 19· ·Public Safety actually distributes that
20· · · ·Q.· But the State Board of Elections and 20· ·information?
21· ·the county board of elections, they don't send 21· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
22· ·that themselves, right, to people who have 22· · · ·A.· Sorry.· What do you mean by
23· ·finished their sentences? 23· ·"procedures"?
24· · · ·A.· No, it is provided to DPS and the court 24· · · ·Q.· Does the State Board do anything to
25· ·system to provide to those individuals. 25· ·ensure that the DPS, the Department of Public


Page 50 Page 52
·1· ·Safety, distributes that information about the ·1· · · ·think it might be a good time.
·2· ·restoration of voting rights to individuals ·2· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure.
·3· ·after they've completed their sentence? ·3· · · · · ·(Recess from 9:55 to 10:02 a.m.)
·4· · · ·A.· We have worked with that agency and ·4· · · · · ·(Plaintiff's B premarked.)
·5· ·have been in communication with them to provide ·5· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
·6· ·them with materials.· And they have a checklist ·6· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, as I mentioned a moment ago,
·7· ·that they review that indicates -- and one of ·7· ·I would like to now turn to people convicted of
·8· ·the items on their checklist is to review that ·8· ·federal felony crimes.
·9· ·with someone when they've completed their ·9· · · · · ·And I've pulled up what's been marked
10· ·sentence. 10· ·as Exhibit B.· And this is a title "Biennial
11· · · ·Q.· Other than providing DPS with those 11· ·List Maintenance," and in parentheses it says,
12· ·materials, does the State Board take any 12· ·"(No-Contact Process)."
13· ·measures to ensure that DPS actually 13· · · · · ·Have you seen this document before,
14· ·distributes those materials? 14· ·Ms. Bell?
15· · · ·A.· I think the best answer I can give you 15· · · ·A.· I believe so, yes.· I'm not seeing a
16· ·is that we are in a routine and set schedule, 16· ·whole lot of it right now, so...
17· ·but we are in -- we are -- we have 17· · · ·Q.· I'm going to zoom out a bit.
18· ·communication that is ongoing with that agency. 18· · · ·A.· Okay.
19· ·So there is assurance there.· Does that -- I 19· · · ·Q.· And I'm happy to scroll over.
20· ·don't know if I'm answering your question. 20· · · · · ·You believe you've seen this document
21· · · ·Q.· Sure.· So maybe you can explain it to 21· ·before?
22· ·me.· How does that -- how do those 22· · · ·A.· Yes.
23· ·communications provide an assurance that DPS is 23· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And can you confirm, to the best
24· ·actually distributing these materials that 24· ·of your ability, that this is a true and
25· ·we're talking about? 25· ·accurate copy of a document produced by the
Page 51 Page 53
·1· · · ·A.· I don't know that I have an answer for ·1· ·State Board of Elections as part of discovery
·2· ·you. ·2· ·in this case?
·3· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Do you know the volume -- beyond ·3· · · ·A.· You cut out a little bit.· I'm sorry.
·4· ·just materials relating to voting rights, do ·4· · · ·Q.· Can you confirm, to the best of your
·5· ·you know how many materials DPS distributes to ·5· ·ability, that this is a true and accurate copy
·6· ·an individual after they complete their felony ·6· ·of a document produced by the State Board in
·7· ·sentence? ·7· ·this case?
·8· · · ·A.· I do not know. ·8· · · ·A.· Yes, I believe it is.
·9· · · ·Q.· So you don't know if they might hand ·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn now to what's
10· ·out a hundred different documents? 10· ·been marked as Bates stamped page 333.
11· · · ·A.· I don't work in that agency, and I'm 11· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you see this top paragraph
12· ·not a probation or parole officer, so I would 12· ·here?· And you can take a moment to read it.
13· ·not know. 13· ·But do you see it says that the State Board
14· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, to this point, 14· ·receives quarterly reports from the federal
15· ·everything we've been discussing has been about 15· ·US Attorney's Office about people who have been
16· ·convictions in the North Carolina state court. 16· ·convicted of a felony crime in the federal
17· ·I would like to now discuss individuals 17· ·court?
18· ·convicted of felony crimes. 18· · · ·A.· Yes, I do see that.
19· · · · · ·And for that I'll pull up what's been 19· · · ·Q.· And then do you see in the second
20· ·marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 -- or 20· ·paragraph here -- and, again, you can take a
21· ·Exhibit -- 21· ·moment to read it -- it says that county boards
22· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Would this be a good time 22· ·of elections should cancel the registrations on
23· · · ·for a break? 23· ·anyone listed on those lists received from the
24· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure. 24· ·federal US Attorney's Offices?
25· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You're shifting gears. I 25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the


Page 54 Page 56
·1· · · ·evidence. ·1· · · ·Q.· Thank you.
·2· · · ·A.· Would you restate your question?· And ·2· · · · · ·If the North Carolina Board of
·3· ·then I'll read the paragraph. ·3· ·Elections and the county boards of elections
·4· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Do you see that it says in the ·4· ·don't receive information from federal
·5· ·second paragraph that county boards of ·5· ·officials about when people have finished their
·6· ·elections should initiate steps to cancel a ·6· ·felony sentences, won't the state boards
·7· ·voter's registration if they're on that list ·7· ·databases or lists continue to assume that such
·8· ·received from the federal US Attorney's ·8· ·a person isn't eligible to vote even though
·9· ·Offices? ·9· ·they've finished their federal sentence?
10· · · ·A.· It does state that, yes. 10· · · ·A.· So I'm not trying to be smart here, but
11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And do county boards of 11· ·a database can't assume anything.
12· ·elections send letters, like the ones we looked 12· · · ·Q.· Sure.· So the Board, we just discussed
13· ·at earlier, the removal notice and the denial 13· ·on the top of this page, you receive lists of
14· ·notice, to individuals convicted of federal 14· ·people who have been convicted of federal
15· ·felony crimes? 15· ·felonies, right?
16· · · ·A.· They do send those notices, yes. 16· · · ·A.· Yes.
17· · · ·Q.· And similar to those notices before, or 17· · · ·Q.· And from those lists, the State Board
18· ·maybe the same as those notices before, do 18· ·and the county board uses those lists to deny
19· ·those advise voters that either their names are 19· ·people registration or to remove their
20· ·being removed from the list of registered 20· ·registrations, right?
21· ·voters or that their application to register to 21· · · ·A.· Correct.
22· ·vote has been denied? 22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And the State Board continues to
23· · · ·A.· That is the intent of those letters, 23· ·maintain those lists, right, on an ongoing
24· ·yes. 24· ·basis?
25· · · ·Q.· And is it the exact same letter that we 25· · · ·A.· As we receive the reports, yes.
Page 55 Page 57
·1· ·looked at before that is sent to people with ·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So if a person, who has finished
·2· ·felony convictions in federal court? ·2· ·their federal felony sentence -- right? --
·3· · · ·A.· I do believe so, yes. ·3· ·let's say it's finished, tries to register to
·4· · · ·Q.· We discussed earlier how the Board ·4· ·vote, won't their registration be denied
·5· ·receives information from the North Carolina ·5· ·because the current information that the Board
·6· ·Department of Public Safety about when a person ·6· ·has is just from that list we talked about,
·7· ·convicted of a state crime has completed his or ·7· ·that they've committed a crime, a federal
·8· ·her sentence.· Do you recall that? ·8· ·crime?
·9· · · ·A.· Yes. ·9· · · ·A.· Is your question if a former federal
10· · · ·Q.· I couldn't find anything in this 10· ·felon comes into the North Carolina Board of
11· ·document or any of the other documents produced 11· ·Elections, and submits a voter registration
12· ·by the Board saying that the Board receives 12· ·form, would we deny, because in our system it
13· ·information from federal officials about when 13· ·shows them as having been convicted of a
14· ·an individual has completed his or her federal 14· ·felony?
15· ·sentence. 15· · · ·Q.· Correct.
16· · · · · ·Does the Board receive information from 16· · · ·A.· No, we would not deny them because of
17· ·the federal government about when people 17· ·that.
18· ·convicted of federal crimes have completed 18· · · ·Q.· My understanding from before is that
19· ·their sentences? 19· ·you rely on these lists to deny people voter
20· · · ·A.· One moment.· Let me double-check 20· ·registrations, right, the list provided by the
21· ·something.· (Reviewing.) 21· ·US Attorney's Office?
22· · · · · ·I felt like I knew the answer, but I 22· · · ·A.· We receive these lists of felony
23· ·wanted to double-check.· So I do not show 23· ·convictions.· And if you read further, it does
24· ·correspondence from a federal authority on 24· ·say that we use this to cancel the person's
25· ·that. 25· ·registration if they have been convicted of a


Page 58 Page 60
·1· ·felony. ·1· · · ·A.· Any individual who completes a voter
·2· · · ·Q.· Sure.· But I believe you said a few ·2· ·registration form and attests to their
·3· ·minutes ago that you also use this list to deny ·3· ·qualifications to register, if they attest to
·4· ·registrations to people who try to register for ·4· ·that, we will process the voter registration
·5· ·the first time.· Isn't that what you stated? ·5· ·form.· If we find a match with these reports,
·6· · · ·A.· I may have misunderstood your question, ·6· ·then they would be denied registration and
·7· ·then. ·7· ·removed from the registration list.
·8· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So if somebody is convicted of a ·8· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So in our hypothetical, John Doe
·9· ·federal crime, and you receive their name on a ·9· ·tries to register to vote, or he fills it out,
10· ·list from the US Attorney's Office, and then a 10· ·and he attests that he's eligible.· But then
11· ·week later tries to register to vote -- so 11· ·you would get a match -- right? -- saying he's
12· ·they're still on their federal sentence -- are 12· ·on this US attorney's report, just like you
13· ·they going to be allowed to register to vote? 13· ·just said, and he would be sent a denial
14· · · ·A.· Let me make sure that I'm clear on the 14· ·notice.· Is that right?
15· ·steps you're outlining. 15· · · ·A.· I believe we're saying the same thing.
16· · · ·Q.· Sure. 16· ·Yes.
17· · · ·A.· If we received notice that John Doe is 17· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So now I'm going to just change
18· ·convicted of a felony, and he then attempts to 18· ·the hypothetical slightly.
19· ·register to vote? 19· · · · · ·John Doe finishes his federal
20· · · ·Q.· Correct. 20· ·sentence -- so he's done with his federal
21· · · ·A.· Are you saying that he's already in our 21· ·sentence -- and then he tries to register to
22· ·database as a registered voter and we've 22· ·vote for the first time.
23· ·removed him because now he's updating his 23· · · · · ·Okay?· Are you with me on that
24· ·registration? 24· ·hypothetical?
25· · · ·Q.· No.· So John Doe has never registered 25· · · ·A.· Yes.
Page 59 Page 61
·1· ·to vote before in North Carolina.· Okay? ·1· · · ·Q.· Won't his name still come up as a match
·2· ·That's the -- are you with me on my hypo so ·2· ·to this quarterly report that you receive from
·3· ·far? ·3· ·the US Attorney's Office after his conviction?
·4· · · ·A.· Yes. ·4· · · ·A.· Did he attest to having completed his
·5· · · ·Q.· He's then convicted of a federal crime. ·5· ·felony sentence, that he is no -- that he is
·6· ·Okay? ·6· ·not a felon?
·7· · · ·A.· Okay. ·7· · · ·Q.· He attested it to the same way he did
·8· · · ·Q.· And then you receive his name on one of ·8· ·in the prior hypothetical, where he was not
·9· ·these quarterly reports from the US Attorney's ·9· ·telling the truth, but this time he is.
10· ·Office.· Okay? 10· · · ·A.· I believe if you'll scroll down on your
11· · · ·A.· After he's registered to vote. 11· ·document, you'll find the answer to your
12· · · ·Q.· No, he hasn't tried to register to 12· ·question.
13· ·vote. 13· · · ·Q.· What page am I looking for on the
14· · · ·A.· Okay. 14· ·document?
15· · · ·Q.· After you receive his name from the 15· · · ·A.· Let's stop right here.· And if you look
16· ·US Attorney's Office -- from one of these 16· ·at the very first question, it says:
17· ·quarterly reports -- he tries to register to 17· · · · · ·"If a county does not update the
18· ·vote.· He's still serving his federal sentence, 18· · · ·removal reason to Felony Sentence Completed
19· ·though.· Will he be allowed -- 19· · · ·for a previously removed voter, will the
20· · · ·A.· Did he -- 20· · · ·SEIMS prevent the new voter's registration
21· · · ·Q.· Go ahead. 21· · · ·from being processed?"
22· · · ·A.· Did he attest on his voter registration 22· · · · · ·"No.· SEIMS will not prevent the
23· ·form that he is not a felon? 23· · · ·processing of a registration of a
24· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Will he be allowed to register 24· · · ·previously removed voter whose citizenship
25· ·to vote? 25· · · ·rights have been restored even if the


Page 62 Page 64
·1· · · ·removal reason still indicates FELONY ·1· ·convicted of a crime in North Carolina state
·2· · · ·CONVICTION." ·2· ·court, the Board of Elections maintains
·3· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: ·3· ·databases called the Felon Completed List and
·4· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, how does the State Board or ·4· ·the Felon Completed Matching List.· And I'm
·5· ·the county board know that this person is ·5· ·using the word "databases," but I don't mean
·6· ·eligible to vote if they don't receive any ·6· ·that in a technical sense.· It maintains lists
·7· ·information from the federal officials that the ·7· ·showing people who have finished their
·8· ·person has finished their sentence? ·8· ·sentences in order to inform election officials
·9· · · ·A.· The voter attested to it. ·9· ·about who is, once again, eligible to vote,
10· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, am I correct that in the 10· ·right?
11· ·context of a state court conviction, that we 11· · · ·A.· Right.
12· ·talked about earlier, you maintain databases 12· · · ·Q.· It does not maintain a comparable list
13· ·called Felon Completed List -- I can go back 13· ·for people who have finished their federal
14· ·just to make sure I'm getting the names exactly 14· ·felony sentences?
15· ·right -- Felon Completed List and Felon 15· · · ·A.· I do not know of us being provided with
16· ·Completed State Matching List, based on data 16· ·a federal list.· Correct.
17· ·you receive from the North Carolina Department 17· · · ·Q.· Okay.· We spoke earlier, Ms. Bell,
18· ·of Public Safety, right? 18· ·about how, when people finish their state court
19· · · ·A.· Yes. 19· ·sentences, the Department of Public Safety is
20· · · ·Q.· And we talked about before that that's 20· ·supposed to hand them information about
21· ·information that shows you who has finished 21· ·restoration of their rights; is that correct?
22· ·their state federal sentence, which now shows 22· · · ·A.· Yes.
23· ·you who is once again eligible to vote.· Right? 23· · · ·Q.· The Department of Public Safety, to the
24· · · ·A.· Yes. 24· ·best of your knowledge, they don't hand
25· · · ·Q.· You don't -- the State Board does not 25· ·information to people who finish their federal
Page 63 Page 65
·1· ·possess any analogous list for people who have ·1· ·sentences; is that correct?
·2· ·finished their federal sentences, right? ·2· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
·3· · · ·A.· We do not get a list of -- a federal ·3· · · ·speculation.
·4· ·list of who has completed their sentence.· It's ·4· · · ·A.· Actually, I don't know that I'm
·5· ·based on the information I've just reviewed. ·5· ·knowledgeable of how federal felons or former
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay. ·6· ·federal felons are processed upon their
·7· · · ·A.· And what we discussed. ·7· ·completion.
·8· · · ·Q.· And in the context of a state court ·8· · · ·Q.· Is it your understanding that the
·9· ·conviction, you don't rely solely on an ·9· ·North Carolina Department of Public Safety
10· ·individual's attesting that they've finished 10· ·supervises people who have been convicted of
11· ·their sentence, right?· You rely on these Felon 11· ·federal crimes but not state crimes?
12· ·Completed Lists; is that right? 12· · · ·A.· I actually -- I actually do not know
13· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. 13· ·the answer to that.· I don't know how a federal
14· · · ·A.· I'm going to review a procedure for 14· ·felon is processed.
15· ·just a moment, and then I'm going to ask you to 15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to represent to you
16· ·restate your question. 16· ·for the purposes of my next question that
17· · · ·Q.· Sure. 17· ·people convicted of felony crimes are
18· · · ·A.· (Reviewing.) 18· ·supervised by federal probation officers.
19· · · ·Q.· Actually, Ms. Bell, in the interest of 19· · · · · ·Will you accept that representation
20· ·time, I'm happy to move on, unless there's 20· ·just for purposes of my next question?· If I'm
21· ·something more you want to say on this subject. 21· ·wrong, that's my fault, but will you accept it
22· · · ·A.· I would like you to state your question 22· ·for purposes of my next question?
23· ·again, because I think it's the same answer. 23· · · ·A.· I will accept that.
24· ·But I would like to hear your question again. 24· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Do you know if federal probation
25· · · ·Q.· Sure.· In the context of individuals 25· ·officers hand any information to individuals


Page 66 Page 68
·1· ·after they've finished their sentences about ·1· ·done by the Department of Public Instruction,
·2· ·the restoration of their voting rights? ·2· ·since that's how we receive information as the
·3· · · ·A.· I do not know that. ·3· ·State and county board of elections.· We do
·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So to the best of your ·4· ·not --
·5· ·knowledge, you're not aware if anybody provides ·5· · · ·Q.· Let me try to clarify that just to make
·6· ·information to individuals who finish their ·6· ·sure we're on the same page.
·7· ·federal sentences about the restoration of ·7· · · · · ·So let's say an individual is convicted
·8· ·their voting rights? ·8· ·of a crime in South Carolina -- right over the
·9· · · ·A.· I do not know if they do or do not. ·9· ·border, let's say -- but they live in
10· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'd like to now turn to 10· ·North Carolina, and they're serving their
11· ·individuals who are convicted of crimes in 11· ·probation in North Carolina, while they live in
12· ·another state's courts; for instance, in a 12· ·North Carolina.
13· ·South Carolina state court. 13· · · · · ·Do the county boards of elections in
14· · · ·A.· Okay. 14· ·North Carolina send that person a notice
15· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, do you understand that 15· ·saying, "You're not eligible to vote in
16· ·individuals convicted of crimes in another 16· ·North Carolina elections"?
17· ·state's courts, if they're serving their 17· · · ·A.· We do not notify someone in another
18· ·community supervision while living in 18· ·state that they are ineligible to vote in
19· ·North Carolina, they're not eligible to vote? 19· ·North Carolina.· No.
20· ·Correct?· If it's a federal offense?· I'm 20· · · ·Q.· So just to clarify, the person in my
21· ·sorry.· I'm going to start that over. 21· ·hypothetical lives in North Carolina.
22· · · · · ·If an individual is convicted of a 22· · · ·A.· Correct.
23· ·felony in another state's courts, but is 23· · · ·Q.· They were convicted of a crime in
24· ·serving their community supervision in 24· ·South Carolina, but they live in North
25· ·North Carolina, while living in North Carolina, 25· ·Carolina.· They're serving their probation from
Page 67 Page 69
·1· ·is it your understanding that they're ·1· ·their South Carolina conviction while they live
·2· ·ineligible to vote in North Carolina elections? ·2· ·in North Carolina.· Okay?
·3· · · ·A.· That would be correct. ·3· · · ·A.· Correct.· Okay.
·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board receive ·4· · · ·Q.· And let's say they're a North Carolina
·5· ·information about such individuals from any ·5· ·registered voter.· Okay?
·6· ·source? ·6· · · ·A.· Uh-huh.
·7· · · ·A.· Because we do not have a national ·7· · · ·Q.· Does the county board of elections send
·8· ·network, we would be reliant upon other states ·8· ·that person any notification that they're not
·9· ·to notify us. ·9· ·eligible to vote?
10· · · ·Q.· And to the best of your knowledge, do 10· · · ·A.· If we received a notice, which I can't
11· ·any other states notify you of that? 11· ·say whether we would or would not -- if we
12· · · ·A.· I do not know one way or the other. 12· ·received a notice from a court or from, you
13· · · ·Q.· Okay.· To the best of your knowledge, 13· ·know, South Carolina's system, then that would
14· ·does the State Board of Elections or the county 14· ·be -- we could send notice.· But the -- the
15· ·boards of elections notify such individuals 15· ·source of information that our county boards of
16· ·that they are ineligible to vote in 16· ·elections receive, and that we receive at the
17· ·North Carolina elections? 17· ·State Board of Elections, is from the
18· · · ·A.· I do not know. 18· ·North Carolina court system.
19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· To the best of your knowledge -- 19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So to the best of your
20· · · ·A.· Actually, let me ask you to state that 20· ·knowledge, you're not aware that county boards
21· ·question again.· Because I believe you asked if 21· ·of elections would send such a person a notice?
22· ·the State Board of Elections or county board of 22· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and
23· ·elections would give notice of a felony to 23· · · ·answered.
24· ·someone else in another state.· That would not 24· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry.· What was
25· ·be our role.· Reporting a felon is, obviously, 25· · · ·that, Paul?


Page 70 Page 72
·1· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and ·1· ·document is that after the 2016 election the
·2· · · ·answered. ·2· ·State Board conducted an audit to identify
·3· · · ·A.· Yes.· Correct. ·3· ·persons who voted in the 2016 general election
·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board of ·4· ·but were ineligible due to a felony conviction.
·5· ·Elections or county board of elections receive ·5· ·Is that right?
·6· ·information when such a person has completed ·6· · · ·A.· That's correct.
·7· ·their sentence? ·7· · · ·Q.· Does the State Board still conduct
·8· · · ·A.· In another state? ·8· ·audits after elections?
·9· · · ·Q.· The exact same person we were just ·9· · · ·A.· We have not done one.· This is the only
10· ·talking about, who is convicted in 10· ·time this audit was completed.
11· ·South Carolina, but they're living in 11· · · ·Q.· Is the State Board planning to do a
12· ·North Carolina, while they're serving their 12· ·similar audit after the 2020 election?
13· ·probation? 13· · · ·A.· The State Board, as a board, has not
14· · · ·A.· We do not have a systematic process for 14· ·directed for that, and I have not, as executive
15· ·that. 15· ·director, so no.
16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And so for such people, when 16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· But it's possible you'll conduct
17· ·they've finished their sentence, am I correct 17· ·future audits again after future elections?
18· ·that neither the State Board of Elections nor 18· · · ·A.· In my role as executive director, I do
19· ·the county board of elections sends such person 19· ·not have plans to request this audit, and I
20· ·a notification telling them that they're once 20· ·have not had that expressed by this board, and
21· ·again eligible to vote? 21· ·I can't speak for current boards.
22· · · ·A.· No, we would not send a letter to 22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Fair enough.· I'm going to now
23· ·someone who has completed their sentence in 23· ·scroll to page 3 of this document, which is
24· ·another state. 24· ·Bates stamped page 409.
25· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' C premarked.) 25· · · · · ·Can you see what's on my screen,
Page 71 Page 73
·1· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: ·1· ·Ms. Bell?
·2· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, I'm going to turn now ·2· · · ·A.· I can.
·3· ·to what's been marked as Exhibit C. ·3· · · ·Q.· And this -- we're looking now at the
·4· · · ·A.· Okay. ·4· ·section that's titled "FELONS," in all
·5· · · ·Q.· I'm going to share my screen if I can ·5· ·capitals.· And the second sentence reads:
·6· ·figure out how. ·6· ·"NCSBE" -- and I should clarify.· That was the
·7· · · · · ·Okay.· Ms. Bell, do you see that this ·7· ·prior name for the State Board of Elections; is
·8· ·is a document titled Post-Selection Audit ·8· ·that right?
·9· ·Report. ·9· · · ·A.· Actually, that -- that would -- we'll
10· · · ·A.· I do. 10· ·have several iterations.· We also have
11· · · ·Q.· Have you seen this document before? 11· ·abbreviated it in numerous ways.· This is,
12· · · ·A.· I have. 12· ·actually, an abbreviation that we currently
13· · · ·Q.· And can you confirm, to the best of 13· ·use, that stands for North Carolina State Board
14· ·your knowledge, that this is a true and 14· ·of Elections.· Yes, that actually is the
15· ·accurate copy of a document produced by the 15· ·current --
16· ·State Board in discovery in this case? 16· · · ·Q.· Got it.· I will admit I lose track of
17· · · ·A.· It does appear to be. 17· ·all the names that your agency has had over the
18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And, then, Ms. Bell, is this an 18· ·last few years.
19· ·audit report written by the State Board of 19· · · ·A.· And there's different perspectives on
20· ·Elections after the 2016 general election? 20· ·which ones should be used.· So we'll...
21· · · ·A.· It is.· That is the title. 21· · · ·Q.· I understand.· I'll try to avoid that
22· · · ·Q.· And it's dated April 21, 2017; is that 22· ·land mine.
23· ·correct? 23· · · · · ·So the second sentence here reads:
24· · · ·A.· That's correct. 24· ·"NCSBE initiates investigations into possible
25· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, my understanding from this 25· ·cases of felons voting through a system of data


Page 74 Page 76
·1· ·audits followed by investigator review." ·1· ·active sentences, but to people who actually
·2· · · · · ·Do you see that? ·2· ·voted in the election?
·3· · · ·A.· I do. ·3· · · ·A.· I can try to determine from this
·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And where this refers to "a ·4· ·document what the audit may have been, if it's
·5· ·system of data audits," is that using the ·5· ·stated, but I did not perform the audit, nor
·6· ·database, the DPS database -- or I'm sorry, the ·6· ·was I the executive director when the audit was
·7· ·DPS list -- we discussed previously that has a ·7· ·performed.· So I can only attest to what it
·8· ·list of registered voters -- I'm sorry -- that ·8· ·states that audits were performed.
·9· ·has a list of active felons who are ineligible ·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· It's fair to say that they use
10· ·to vote? 10· ·some sort of matching criteria to match the
11· · · ·A.· I believe that may -- that that was a 11· ·list of people who are serving felony sentences
12· ·source within this audit. 12· ·to the list of people who voted to come up with
13· · · ·Q.· And we discussed earlier how -- for 13· ·this list?· Is that fair?
14· ·that second database we discussed earlier -- so 14· · · ·A.· I think that's fair.
15· ·putting this aside -- DPS, on a continual 15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'm going to go back now to
16· ·basis, matches the list of people convicted of 16· ·page 408, Bates stamp page 408 of this
17· ·felony crimes to people -- to registered voters 17· ·document.· And can I ask you to take a moment
18· ·in the SEIMS database to determine who should 18· ·to just read this first bullet point here that
19· ·have their registrations canceled.· Is that 19· ·starts with, "441 open cases."
20· ·right? 20· · · ·A.· Read it for myself or read it aloud?
21· · · ·A.· That's correct. 21· · · ·Q.· You can just read it to yourself.
22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And is the system that was used 22· · · ·A.· Okay.· And just the first bullet point?
23· ·here to match people who actually voted in an 23· · · ·Q.· Correct.
24· ·election to the DPS database, is that a similar 24· · · ·A.· Okay.· (Reviewing.)· Okay.
25· ·matching process to the one that's used for 25· · · ·Q.· Does that first bullet point indicate
Page 75 Page 77
·1· ·purposes of that list we discussed earlier? ·1· ·that through the data matching process we just
·2· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. ·2· ·discussed, the State Board initially identified
·3· · · ·A.· Yeah.· State your question again. ·3· ·541 people who may have illegally voted due to
·4· · · ·Q.· Sure.· That was a terrible question, I ·4· ·a felony conviction, with the 541 being the 441
·5· ·will admit. ·5· ·people listed in that first sentence plus the
·6· · · ·A.· I'm not judging. ·6· ·hundred people who further investigation ruled
·7· · · ·Q.· I'll judge myself here. ·7· ·out?
·8· · · · · ·Previously we discussed how, on a ·8· · · ·A.· Okay.· I do really need you to state
·9· ·continual basis, the State Board of Elections ·9· ·that question again --
10· ·is using some sort of matching system to match 10· · · ·Q.· Sure.
11· ·the list of people who are serving an active 11· · · ·A.· -- because I got hung up on the
12· ·felony sentence to the list of names in your 12· ·numbers, so...
13· ·SEIMS database, right? 13· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Does this first bullet indicate
14· · · ·A.· Yes. 14· ·that through the data matching process we just
15· · · ·Q.· And there's some sort of matching 15· ·discussed, the State Board initially identified
16· ·criteria that are used, right? 16· ·541 people who may have illegally voted due to
17· · · ·A.· That's correct. 17· ·a felony conviction?
18· · · ·Q.· And here it describes a "system of data 18· · · ·A.· It does indicate that they were able to
19· ·audits" that was used for purposes of this 19· ·rule out more than 100 voters initially
20· ·audit, right? 20· ·flagged.· So 100 to the 441 open cases is 541.
21· · · ·A.· Yes. 21· ·So it does state "more than," so there could
22· · · ·Q.· And so what I'm asking is:· Was that 22· ·potentially be more than a hundred that were
23· ·system of data audits using a similar matching 23· ·ruled out.
24· ·process of matching the SEIMS database -- I'm 24· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Sure.· But let's -- I'll just
25· ·sorry -- matching the list of felons serving 25· ·assume -- I'll just use the number 100 for


Page 78 Page 80
·1· ·purposes of my next question. ·1· ·investigators showed that roughly 20 percent of
·2· · · · · ·So just based on this data in this ·2· ·the people who are identified as illegally
·3· ·bullet, the false positive rate that resulted ·3· ·voting through the data matching turned out to
·4· ·from the data matching was nearly 20 percent, ·4· ·be false positives, right?
·5· ·right?· 100 out of 541? ·5· · · ·A.· In this particular report or audit,
·6· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. ·6· ·yes.
·7· · · ·A.· It would require you to use math ·7· · · ·Q.· So doesn't that suggest to you that
·8· ·skills, but I believe that's fairly correct. ·8· ·roughly 20 percent of the people whose
·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And that error rate was so ·9· ·registrations are canceled because they're
10· ·significant that the State Board wrote here 10· ·matched to that SEIMS database, that they are
11· ·that, "it further supported the need for 11· ·erroneously identified as false positives?
12· ·investigative review of data audits."· Is that 12· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Speculation.
13· ·right? 13· · · ·A.· I don't think I can make that as a
14· · · ·A.· It does state that, yes. 14· ·blanket statement.· I think that's what this
15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, we talked earlier 15· ·particular audit produced.
16· ·about -- I'm sorry.· Give me one second. 16· · · ·Q.· Sitting here today, do you have any
17· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, we talked in the context 17· ·reason to assert that the data matching that's
18· ·of -- sorry.· Bear with me a second. 18· ·done on a continual basis to remove
19· · · ·A.· You're fine. 19· ·registrations produces fewer false positives
20· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, so, in the context we talked 20· ·than the process that was used to identify
21· ·about earlier, where the State Board is on a 21· ·people who voted illegally in the 2016 election
22· ·continual basis taking in a list of people 22· ·as shown in this audit?
23· ·serving active felony sentences and comparing 23· · · ·A.· Since we have not conducted another
24· ·it to the SEIMS database, in that context, the 24· ·audit, I don't know that I have and can answer
25· ·State Board doesn't conduct any further 25· ·affirmatively or negatively.
Page 79 Page 81
·1· ·investigation into the circumstances of each ·1· · · ·Q.· So sitting here today, you don't have
·2· ·person before it initiates the cancellation ·2· ·any information to suggest that the false
·3· ·process, right? ·3· ·positive rate or the current ongoing
·4· · · ·A.· There's a -- there's a criteria -- a ·4· ·identification of people whose registration
·5· ·matching criteria, and that's the audits ·5· ·should be matched -- or should be canceled --
·6· ·performed or the process that's performed. ·6· ·is lower than it was in these audits?
·7· · · ·Q.· Right.· So if the matching criteria ·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and
·8· ·pops up and it's a hit, then that person will ·8· · · ·answered.
·9· ·be sent a letter telling them that their ·9· · · ·A.· We have not conducted further audits.
10· ·registration can be canceled right? 10· ·So I do not have an analysis to support one way
11· · · ·A.· In the nutshell, yes.· I mean, there's 11· ·or the other.
12· ·some steps in between there, but yes. 12· · · ·Q.· And assuming -- just assuming for the
13· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And the State Board doesn't have 13· ·purposes of this question -- that the false
14· ·investigators do a person-by-person 14· ·positive rates for your continual process of
15· ·investigation into each person who matches up 15· ·matching people to the registration records is
16· ·on the list to, you know, confirm that, in 16· ·the same as the false positive rating from the
17· ·fact, they are -- they were convicted of a 17· ·matching process that happened after the 2016
18· ·felony and should be removed from the rolls, 18· ·election, that would mean that roughly
19· ·right? 19· ·20 percent of the people whose registrations
20· · · ·A.· There is not an investigation done on 20· ·are canceled are false positives; is that
21· ·each of those individuals.· That is correct. 21· ·right?
22· ·We do not have that large of an investigations 22· · · ·A.· You're asking me to speculate that
23· ·division, for starters. 23· ·current matching would be -- the false
24· · · ·Q.· And we just talked about that, in the 24· ·positives would be equal to what was found in
25· ·context of this audit, further investigation by 25· ·this particular audit.


Page 82 Page 84
·1· · · ·Q.· I'm asking you just to assume that.· So ·1· ·North Carolina General Assembly passed a law
·2· ·assume for the sake of my question that the ·2· ·that essentially eliminated, quote, parole?
·3· ·false positive rate is the same.· Doesn't that ·3· · · ·A.· I know that there have been changes in
·4· ·mean that roughly 20 percent of people whose ·4· ·parole, but I do not know, as a person
·5· ·registrations are canceled, based on the ·5· ·working -- I don't know beyond that.· I don't
·6· ·ongoing matching process, had their ·6· ·work in that division.
·7· ·registration erroneously canceled as false ·7· · · ·Q.· Sure.· So, Ms. Bell, did you not know
·8· ·positives? ·8· ·that, quote, parole essentially does not exist
·9· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Incomplete ·9· ·in North Carolina today?
10· · · ·hypothetical. 10· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· States facts not
11· · · ·A.· I think the best I can say is that if 11· · · ·in evidence.· Calls for a legal conclusion.
12· ·this is the measure, then that is possible, but 12· · · ·A.· I think I -- I think I would have to
13· ·there could be other audits that would prove 13· ·have you -- I would have to have more
14· ·differently if we were to conduct those audits. 14· ·knowledge.
15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'd like to now switch gears a 15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, did you know that in
16· ·bit and talk about some of the -- the forms 16· ·the 1994 law that I mentioned a moment ago, the
17· ·that voters actually have to fill out that were 17· ·Structured Sentencing Act, North Carolina
18· ·produced in discovery.· And I'm going to pull 18· ·replaced parole with something called
19· ·up now what's been marked as Exhibit E. 19· ·"post-release supervision" for people who are
20· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' E premarked.) 20· ·released from incarceration but still subject
21· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 21· ·to supervision?
22· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, this is a -- do you recognize 22· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the
23· ·this document? 23· · · ·law.
24· · · ·A.· I do. 24· · · ·A.· I am familiar -- I am not familiar with
25· · · ·Q.· And can you confirm that this appears 25· ·the precise law.· I am familiar with a
Page 83 Page 85
·1· ·to be a true and accurate copy of a document ·1· ·change -- that there has been a change in what
·2· ·produced by the State Board in discovery in ·2· ·I would say is terminology, though, I do
·3· ·this case? ·3· ·know -- I do know parole would still be a
·4· · · ·A.· It does appear to be so, yes. ·4· ·common term.
·5· · · ·Q.· And, Ms. Bell, is this the voter ·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Are you familiar with the term
·6· ·registration form that the State Board ·6· ·post-release supervision?
·7· ·currently makes available for people to ·7· · · ·A.· I have been -- I actually did not know
·8· ·register to vote? ·8· ·of that term until I became executive director.
·9· · · ·A.· It is. ·9· · · ·Q.· But you're familiar with that term
10· · · ·Q.· And now turn to the second page, which 10· ·today?
11· ·is Bates stamped page 352.· And I'm going to 11· · · ·A.· Yes.
12· ·direct your attention, Ms. Bell, to instruction 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And what is that term?· What do
13· ·1 in subpart 5 here. 13· ·you understand that term to mean?
14· · · · · ·Do you see where it says:· "If 14· · · ·A.· The way that I came to understand it is
15· ·previously convicted of a felony, you must have 15· ·that it is a -- it is the term used in lieu of
16· ·fully completed your sentence, including 16· ·the term "parole" now.· As far as I know, they
17· ·probation and/or parole"? 17· ·are the same processes or the same entity with
18· · · ·A.· Yes, that is what it states. 18· ·a different term.
19· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, are you familiar with the 19· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, is it your understanding that
20· ·Structured Sentencing Act of 1994? 20· ·North Carolina's felony disenfranchisement laws
21· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. 21· ·apply to people who are on post-release
22· · · ·A.· Actually, I don't know -- I don't know 22· ·supervision, meaning that they're not allowed
23· ·it by that -- I don't know that one way or the 23· ·to vote until their post-release supervision is
24· ·other.· I don't know, by that time. 24· ·completed?
25· · · ·Q.· Are you aware that in 1994, the 25· · · ·A.· That is my understanding.


Page 86 Page 88
·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, I would like you to ·1· ·this is me speaking personally -- as an engaged
·2· ·put yourself in the shoes of someone who is on ·2· ·citizen, someone who works in the governmental
·3· ·post-release supervision and who reads this ·3· ·entity, and yet, until recently, I did not know
·4· ·form saying, "You must have completed your ·4· ·that that terminology had been changed, it is
·5· ·sentence, including and/or parole," without ·5· ·perhaps, actually, easier for someone to
·6· ·mentioning post-release supervision. ·6· ·understand what parole is than post-licensing
·7· · · · · ·Could such a person think they're ·7· ·supervision.· So I don't want to speculate one
·8· ·eligible to vote because post-release ·8· ·way or the other.· Because of how terminology
·9· ·supervision isn't mentioned here? ·9· ·has changed because of the law, we interchange
10· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope 10· ·terminology quite frequently in other -- there
11· · · ·of the deposition notice. 11· ·are other instances where we do that.
12· · · · · ·Objection.· Speculative. 12· · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, I'm not asking you to put
13· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Should I proceed on that, 13· ·yourself in the shoes of another person.· I'm
14· · · ·Paul? 14· ·just saying in your own shoes.· Hypothetically,
15· · · · · ·MR. COX:· You can answer it if you have 15· ·if somebody who is on post-release supervision
16· · · ·personal knowledge that would allow you to 16· ·reads this sentence, and then you happen to be
17· · · ·answer it. 17· ·standing right next to them while they're
18· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay. 18· ·reading it, and they said, "Ms. Bell, I think I
19· · · ·A.· And I'm sorry.· Could you state your 19· ·might be eligible to vote because this doesn't
20· ·question again? 20· ·mention post-release supervision," can you
21· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Put yourself in the shoes of 21· ·understand why that person would think that?
22· ·somebody who is on post-release supervision, 22· · · ·A.· I can -- what I can state is that when
23· ·who reads this instruction 1, number 5, where 23· ·someone questions whether they're eligible to
24· ·it says you can't vote if you -- or it says, 24· ·vote or not, in particular, with an individual
25· ·"You must have fully completed your sentence, 25· ·who is a felon or has completed their felony
Page 87 Page 89
·1· ·including probation and/or parole," but does ·1· ·sentence, and they're not certain, we aren't
·2· ·not mention post-release supervision.· Could ·2· ·probation officers, we aren't officers of the
·3· ·such a person think that they're eligible to ·3· ·court; therefore, we say that it's best for
·4· ·vote because post-release supervision is not ·4· ·them to speak with that officer if they need
·5· ·mentioned here? ·5· ·clarification.
·6· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope ·6· · · ·Q.· So just to make sure I understand that
·7· · · ·of the deposition notice. ·7· ·answer.· You're saying that the State Board of
·8· · · · · ·Objection.· Calls for speculation. ·8· ·Elections does not provide clarification to
·9· · · · · ·If you have knowledge and the ability ·9· ·individuals about their eligibility to vote?
10· · · ·to answer it, you can answer it. 10· · · ·A.· We give them clarification as defined
11· · · ·A.· I don't think I have -- you've asked me 11· ·here as best as to our knowledge, but if they
12· ·to put myself in someone else's shoes.· I don't 12· ·still don't -- if they don't know the
13· ·know whether that makes it clear or unclear for 13· ·distinction between parole or post-licensing,
14· ·them. 14· ·as you mentioned, or if they don't know what
15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll give you this as a 15· ·probation is, then the best thing I can do as
16· ·hypothetical.· Let's say somebody on 16· ·an election official is to say, "That's outside
17· ·post-release supervision reads this form and 17· ·of the scope of elections, and you should speak
18· ·says -- comes up to you -- you just happen to 18· ·with your officer as to whether you have
19· ·be standing there -- and they say, "I think I 19· ·completed your sentence or not."
20· ·might be eligible to vote because this doesn't 20· · · ·Q.· Sure.· So I'm just going to ask one
21· ·mention post-release supervision."· Could you 21· ·more time, though.· My question was simply that
22· ·understand why that person would think that? 22· ·hypothetical person, and they say to you, "I
23· · · ·A.· The best answer I can give you is that 23· ·think I might be eligible to vote, because this
24· ·I don't know if I can put myself in someone 24· ·doesn't mention post-release supervision,"
25· ·else's shoes.· And by the fact that as -- and 25· ·could you, at least, understand why they would


Page 90 Page 92
·1· ·think that? ·1· ·supervision.· Am I characterizing that
·2· · · ·A.· Are you asking me as Karen Brinson ·2· ·correctly?
·3· ·Bell, or are you asking -- I -- ·3· · · ·A.· Yes.· I think that's accurate.
·4· · · ·Q.· I'm asking you as the representative ·4· ·Correct.
·5· ·here for the State Board of Elections. ·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So do you see number 4 here
·6· · · ·A.· I think that -- I've expressed before, ·6· ·says:· "I have not been convicted of a felony,
·7· ·I think it's difficult for me to assert what ·7· ·or if I have been convicted of a felony, I have
·8· ·someone would have as confusion or not ·8· ·completed my sentence, including any
·9· ·confusion. ·9· ·probation"?
10· · · ·Q.· But can you at least understand why 10· · · ·A.· I do.
11· ·they would say that? 11· · · ·Q.· And so that doesn't even mention
12· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and 12· ·parole, does it, Ms. Bell?
13· · · ·answered. 13· · · ·A.· It does not.
14· · · ·A.· I don't think I can answer a question 14· · · ·Q.· And it does not mention post-release
15· ·about understanding as a representative of an 15· ·supervision?
16· ·organization versus -- understanding is about 16· · · ·A.· Correct.
17· ·my individual understanding, not the 17· · · ·Q.· So, again, I'll ask, if you put
18· ·understanding of an organization. 18· ·yourself -- well, if you put yourself in the
19· · · ·Q.· Could you understand why such a person 19· ·shoes of somebody who is on post-release
20· ·might be uncertain or confused if they're 20· ·supervision who reads this, could you
21· ·eligible to vote if they read this when they're 21· ·understand why such a person would think
22· ·on post-release supervision? 22· ·they're eligible to vote, because neither
23· · · ·A.· I don't believe I can answer your 23· ·parole nor post-release supervision is
24· ·question.· I'm sorry. 24· ·mentioned here?
25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn back now to 25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope
Page 91 Page 93
·1· ·the prior page, which is page 351. ·1· · · ·of the notice of deposition.
·2· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you see in Section 10 ·2· · · · · ·Objection.· Calls for speculation.
·3· ·here, which is the section that -- and I don't ·3· · · · · ·If you are able to answer based upon
·4· ·know what the right word is -- the affirmation ·4· · · ·your personal knowledge, you can.
·5· ·that a voter must sign, number 4 says:· "I have ·5· · · ·A.· I can't -- I can't determine what
·6· ·not been convicted of a felony, or if I have ·6· ·someone would be able to understand or not
·7· ·been convicted of a felony" -- (inaudible). ·7· ·understand.
·8· · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· We're not hearing you. ·8· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, as the executive director of
·9· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: ·9· ·the State Board of Elections, you have
10· · · ·Q.· Do you not hear me? 10· ·authority over the contents of these forms,
11· · · ·A.· No.· I was about to say, "Did you say 11· ·right?
12· ·something more?" 12· · · ·A.· Yes.
13· · · ·Q.· I could see everyone making gestures. 13· · · ·Q.· Do you think it would be advisable for
14· · · ·A.· I was reading the note, looked up, and 14· ·the State Board of Elections to clarify on here
15· ·I was, like, I think you're talking, but I 15· ·that it applies to people on post-release
16· ·don't hear your voice. 16· ·supervision?
17· · · ·Q.· Yeah.· I was, like, did I just say 17· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
18· ·something super offensive?· Everyone is 18· · · ·A.· Do I think it would be advisable for
19· ·starting to gesture. 19· ·the form to be altered?· Is that what you're
20· · · · · ·Can you hear me? 20· ·asking?
21· · · ·A.· Yes.· All I heard was "number 4," so... 21· · · ·Q.· Correct.
22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So, Ms. Bell, do you see on 22· · · ·A.· I don't -- if it's advisable, who is
23· ·number 4 here it says -- so let me ask you 23· ·providing the advice?
24· ·this:· You said a moment ago that in your mind 24· · · ·Q.· Well, you're in charge of the State
25· ·parole might be synonymous with post-release 25· ·Board of Elections, right?


Page 94 Page 96
·1· · · ·A.· Yes. ·1· ·of people to apply for absentee ballots in this
·2· · · ·Q.· As the executive director of the State ·2· ·year's November elections?
·3· ·Board of Elections, do you think this form ·3· · · ·A.· Yes.· That's correct.
·4· ·should be altered to include post-release ·4· · · ·Q.· Potentially, millions of people?
·5· ·supervision? ·5· · · ·A.· I would have to do the math on that.
·6· · · ·A.· Before we change any forms, I actually ·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.
·7· ·prefer to consult with our general counsel to ·7· · · ·A.· I hope it's not that much.
·8· ·ensure that we're in compliance with the laws. ·8· · · ·Q.· We can agree --
·9· ·And we are also in the process of updating many ·9· · · ·A.· Well, I shouldn't say I hope.· We're --
10· ·of our forms to be more user-friendly.· But 10· ·yeah, we're expecting a 30 to 40 percent
11· ·that -- that extends beyond the question that 11· ·possible participation.
12· ·you're asking me. 12· · · ·Q.· It's going to be a lot of people,
13· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll move on. 13· ·correct?
14· · · · · ·I'm going to pull up now what's been 14· · · ·A.· Yes.· Exactly.
15· ·marked as Exhibit F. 15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to direct your
16· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' F premarked.) 16· ·attention to the "Voter's Certification"
17· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 17· ·section on the left side of this form.· Do you
18· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, do you recognize this 18· ·see that?
19· ·document? 19· · · ·A.· I do.
20· · · ·A.· I do. 20· · · ·Q.· And do you see that it says right here
21· · · ·Q.· And I should have said, this is a 21· ·in the final sentence of that first paragraph:
22· ·document that's titled Absentee Application and 22· ·"I have not been convicted of a felony, or if I
23· ·Certificate; is that right? 23· ·have been convicted of a felony, I have
24· · · ·A.· That's correct. 24· ·completed my sentence, including any probation
25· · · ·Q.· Can you confirm, to the best of your 25· ·or parole"?
Page 95 Page 97
·1· ·knowledge, that this is a true and accurate ·1· · · ·A.· I do see that.
·2· ·copy of a document that the State Board ·2· · · ·Q.· Again, that does not mention
·3· ·produced this discovery? ·3· ·post-release supervision, correct?
·4· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Assumes facts not ·4· · · ·A.· That's correct.
·5· · · ·in evidence. ·5· · · ·Q.· And to the best -- as you sit here
·6· · · ·A.· I can't see an indication -- there we ·6· ·today, the Board currently does not intend to
·7· ·go.· I do see a notation at the bottom that ·7· ·change this language on this form, does it?
·8· ·does appear to have been provided. ·8· · · ·A.· Actually, I don't recall whether that's
·9· · · ·Q.· And, Ms. Bell, is this the State Board ·9· ·been changed.
10· ·of Elections form for voters to apply for an 10· · · ·Q.· You're not aware of any intent to
11· ·absentee ballot? 11· ·change this form currently to include
12· · · ·A.· This is a prior iteration of the form. 12· ·post-release supervision, are you?
13· · · ·Q.· When was the form updated since then? 13· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and
14· · · ·A.· We are currently updating due to a 14· · · ·answered.
15· ·change in the law and the number of witnesses 15· · · ·A.· I would have to look at the new proof
16· ·because of coronavirus. 16· ·to determine whether the language has been
17· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And is that the only change that 17· ·changed or not.· I don't know off the top of my
18· ·you expect to make to this form currently? 18· ·head.
19· · · ·A.· We have actually redesigned it to make 19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to skip ahead now and
20· ·it -- it's one of the forms I was meaning when 20· ·pull up what's been marked as Exhibit H.
21· ·I said we were trying to develop a more 21· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' H premarked.)
22· ·user-friendly format. 22· · · · · ·MR. COX:· And, Dan, one thing that
23· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Understood. 23· · · ·could be helpful to me is if you list the
24· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, is it fair to say that you 24· · · ·Bates stamp number as we're going through
25· ·would expect, at least, hundreds of thousands 25· · · ·this.


Page 98 Page 100
·1· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure. ·1· · · ·A.· It is stated as that, yes.
·2· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: ·2· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn now to two
·3· · · ·Q.· Exhibit H is a document that starts on ·3· ·pages later.· So Bates stamp page 558.· And
·4· ·Bates stamp 537. ·4· ·I'll give you a moment to read this, Ms. Bell.
·5· · · · · ·Do you see that, Ms. Bell? ·5· · · ·A.· (Reviewing.)
·6· · · ·A.· Actually, I don't see the number, but I ·6· · · ·Q.· Do you see here that it says that a
·7· ·do see the -- I would have to move everything ·7· ·poll worker must review certain eligibility
·8· ·off of zoom. ·8· ·statements with the voter, with the final one
·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Don't worry. ·9· ·being:· "Have not been convicted of a felony,
10· · · ·A.· Okay.· Thank you. 10· ·or if they have been convicted of a felony,
11· · · ·Q.· I'll just state for the record, it 11· ·they have completed their sentence, including
12· ·starts on page 537. 12· ·any probation or parole"?
13· · · ·A.· Thank you. 13· · · ·A.· I do see that.
14· · · ·Q.· And I'll try to make sure to do that 14· · · ·Q.· And, again, it just says probation or
15· ·for future ones, but if I don't, just remind 15· ·parole without mentioning post-release
16· ·me. 16· ·supervision, right?
17· · · ·A.· Okay. 17· · · ·A.· Correct.
18· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, this is a document titled 18· · · ·Q.· Would you concede that this may confuse
19· ·"Voting Site Station Guide"; is that right? 19· ·a poll worker as to whether a person is on
20· · · ·A.· That's correct. 20· ·post-release supervision or eligible to vote?
21· · · ·Q.· And have you seen this document before? 21· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
22· · · ·A.· Yes. 22· · · ·speculation.
23· · · ·Q.· And can you confirm, to the best of 23· · · ·A.· As I've stated, I don't think I can
24· ·your knowledge, that this is a true and 24· ·attest to someone's confusion or clarity.
25· ·accurate copy of a document that the State 25· · · ·Q.· Let's say, hypothetically, a person who
Page 99 Page 101

·1· ·Board produced in discovery in this case? ·1· ·is on post-release supervision shows up to the
·2· · · ·A.· It does appear to be, yes. ·2· ·polls and asks the poll worker, "I've finished
·3· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And, Ms. Bell, is this a guide ·3· ·serving my prison sentence, but I'm on
·4· ·that's developed by the State Board that's ·4· ·post-release supervision.· Can I vote?"· The
·5· ·given to poll workers in every polling place in ·5· ·poll worker might consult this document and say
·6· ·North Carolina? ·6· ·"Yes," right?
·7· · · ·A.· That's correct. ·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
·8· · · ·Q.· It indicates here on the cover page ·8· · · ·speculation.
·9· ·that it was last updated in 2020, right? ·9· · · ·A.· The poll worker could consult this
10· · · ·A.· Yes. 10· ·document.· That's correct.
11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn now to what's 11· · · ·Q.· And the poll worker might say, "Yes,
12· ·been marked as -- or not what's been marked -- 12· ·you're eligible to vote," because it doesn't
13· ·to Bates stamp page 557.· I can't see my own... 13· ·mention anything about post-release
14· · · ·A.· You're having the same problem I was. 14· ·supervision, right?
15· · · ·Q.· Yeah.· It's on the right side of the 15· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
16· ·screen. 16· · · ·speculation.
17· · · ·A.· Yeah, underneath everyone's video. 17· · · ·A.· They may say yes or they may say no.
18· · · ·Q.· One more page.· Okay. 18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to pull up now what's
19· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you see that this page -- 19· ·been marked as Exhibit I.
20· ·this slide is titled "Step 6: Determination of 20· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' I premarked.)
21· ·Voter Eligibility and Voting Authorization"? 21· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· And, Paul, and others,
22· · · ·A.· Yes. 22· · · ·this is one where the file is so large, I
23· · · ·Q.· Is this the final step for a poll 23· · · ·think that it might be that Daryl is not
24· ·worker to determine whether a voter who shows 24· · · ·able to send it to you.· But I'll try
25· ·up at a polling place is eligible to vote? 25· · · ·sending it, after the deposition, to


Page 102 Page 104
·1· · · ·everyone.· And if we don't get it, we could ·1· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, if somebody is currently on
·2· · · ·use our FTP file transfer or something like ·2· ·post-release supervision, and they're asked
·3· · · ·that.· Is that okay? ·3· ·this question, they would truthfully answer
·4· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay.· Is it a document ·4· ·"no," right?
·5· · · ·produced in discovery? ·5· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
·6· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Correct. ·6· · · ·speculation.
·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay. ·7· · · ·A.· I do not know.
·8· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· And I should say, along ·8· · · ·Q.· If I represent to you or if I ask you
·9· · · ·those lines, that this document starts at ·9· ·to assume for purposes of this question that
10· · · ·Bates stamp number 132. 10· ·post-release supervision is different from
11· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 11· ·probation and different from parole, wouldn't
12· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, this document doesn't have a 12· ·the truthful answer to this question for
13· ·title to it, but do you recognize this 13· ·somebody who is on post-release supervision be
14· ·document? 14· ·"no"?
15· · · ·A.· I believe I do.· Yes. 15· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
16· · · ·Q.· And can you confirm, to the best of 16· · · ·speculation.
17· ·your ability, that this is a true and accurate 17· · · ·A.· I think we determined earlier, I have
18· ·copy of a document produced by the State Board 18· ·an association of parole as being
19· ·in discovery in this case? 19· ·post-sentencing supervision.· I don't know if
20· · · ·A.· I believe so, yes. 20· ·that would be the case for an individual
21· · · ·Q.· And am I correct that this is a -- 21· ·answering this question.· They may have the
22· ·pardon me -- this is a manual that's given to 22· ·same understanding or assumption.
23· ·local election officials and poll workers?· Is 23· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So it sounds like we agree,
24· ·that right? 24· ·though, that it's possible a person on
25· · · ·A.· It is made available to the county 25· ·post-release supervision could answer this
Page 103 Page 105

·1· ·board of elections to provide, yes. ·1· ·question "no"?
·2· · · ·Q.· And this is developed by the State ·2· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the
·3· ·Board of Elections? ·3· · · ·testimony.
·4· · · ·A.· That's correct. ·4· · · ·A.· A person could answer "yes" or "no."
·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to go now to Bates ·5· · · ·Q.· But it would be reasonable for a person
·6· ·stamp page 256. ·6· ·to answer "no" who is on post-release
·7· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, my understanding is that this ·7· ·supervision?
·8· ·page shows the script that a poll worker is ·8· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
·9· ·supposed to read from if a voter's eligibility ·9· · · ·speculation.· Vague.
10· ·to vote is challenged at the polling place.· Is 10· · · ·A.· They can answer "yes" or "no" depending
11· ·that right? 11· ·on their understanding.
12· · · ·A.· Would you scroll just a little bit so I 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· If somebody who is on
13· ·can see what's above the -- 13· ·post-release supervision did answer this
14· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Do you want me to go on to the 14· ·question "no," they would be allowed to vote,
15· ·prior page? 15· ·right, by the poll worker?
16· · · ·A.· Thank you.· Yes.· That does help. 16· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Incomplete
17· · · · · ·Okay.· Then, yes, this is the script 17· · · ·hypothetical.
18· ·for a challenge. 18· · · ·A.· If an individual -- if any individual
19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And if we look at the fourth 19· ·answers "no" to this question, then they would
20· ·bullet here, it says that the poll worker is 20· ·be allowed to vote.
21· ·supposed to ask the voter:· "Are you currently 21· · · ·Q.· So if a person who is on post-release
22· ·on probation or parole for a felony 22· ·supervision answered "no," they would be
23· ·conviction?" 23· ·allowed to vote?
24· · · · · ·Do you see that? 24· · · ·A.· That is correct.
25· · · ·A.· I do see that. 25· · · ·Q.· And that person could then be


Page 106 Page 108
·1· ·prosecuted for the crime of illegally voting, ·1· ·restitution, you do not have to do anything to
·2· ·right? ·2· ·have your citizenship right restored"?
·3· · · ·A.· If someone who has not completed their ·3· · · ·A.· That is how it reads, yes.
·4· ·felony, votes, then they could be prosecuted, ·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And so, once again, this says
·5· ·correct. ·5· ·"including probation or parole."· It doesn't
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay. ·6· ·mention post-release supervision, correct?
·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, do you want to take a ·7· · · ·A.· That's correct.
·8· · · ·quick break? ·8· · · ·Q.· And this one, unlike the other ones we
·9· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I was about to ask.· If ·9· ·looked at, also mentions restitution, right?
10· · · ·you think we're wrapping up on some of this 10· · · ·A.· It does.
11· · · ·soon, then I can keep going.· But if not, 11· · · ·Q.· None of the other documents we looked
12· · · ·I'd like to take a break. 12· ·at before mention restitution?
13· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Paul, I've got maybe, I 13· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.
14· · · ·would say, about two more minutes of 14· · · ·A.· Not that I recall.
15· · · ·questions on this module.· Can we get 15· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, are you aware that
16· · · ·through that and then take a break? 16· ·individuals convicted of felonies in
17· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Sure.· Sure. 17· ·North Carolina are often required to pay fees
18· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay. 18· ·for court costs that are different from
19· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My Apple watch is telling 19· ·restitution?
20· · · ·me to stand. 20· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay.· Calls for a legal
21· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 21· · · ·conclusion.
22· · · ·Q.· I'll skip ahead one exhibit to 22· · · · · ·Objection.· Speculation.
23· ·Exhibit K.· And this is a document that starts 23· · · ·A.· Could you state your question again,
24· ·with Bates stamp number 303. 24· ·please?
25· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' K premarked.) 25· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Are you aware that individuals
Page 107 Page 109

·1· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: ·1· ·convicted of felonies in North Carolina are
·2· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, do you recognize this ·2· ·often required to pay fees for court costs that
·3· ·document? ·3· ·are different from restitution?
·4· · · ·A.· I do. ·4· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
·5· · · ·Q.· And to the best of your knowledge, is ·5· · · ·conclusion.· Calls for speculation.
·6· ·this a document produced by the State Board in ·6· · · ·A.· I actually -- I'm not -- I'm not clear
·7· ·discovery in this case? ·7· ·on that matter.· I actually personally
·8· · · ·A.· I believe it is.· Yes. ·8· ·associate restitution and fees and so forth as
·9· · · ·Q.· And this is a document that's produced ·9· ·being of the same language.· I don't know the
10· ·by the State Board of Elections, right, looking 10· ·distinction there.
11· ·at the top right corner here? 11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So a person who has paid back
12· · · ·A.· It was -- yes, it has been produced at 12· ·their restitution, but still owes other fees
13· ·a point in time by the State Board, yes. 13· ·from their court case, who reads this, they
14· · · ·Q.· And am I correct that this is a 14· ·might think they're eligible to vote, right,
15· ·document that's made specifically for 15· ·because it only mentions restitution?
16· ·individuals convicted of felonies to inform 16· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
17· ·them about their voting rights? 17· · · ·speculation and outside the scope of the
18· · · ·A.· That's correct. 18· · · ·notice.
19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to turn your attention 19· · · ·A.· I don't know what someone else's
20· ·now to the second page of this document and the 20· ·understanding would be.· Obviously, I don't
21· ·top right column, the part that's been 21· ·have a clear understanding.
22· ·highlighted. 22· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· Should we take a
23· · · · · ·Do you see the sentence that reads: 23· · · ·break?
24· ·"However, after completing all terms of your 24· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That sounds good.
25· ·sentence, including parole, probation, and 25· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Do you want to do five


Page 110 Page 112
·1· ·or ten minutes? ·1· · · ·Q.· I'll go back now to what's been marked
·2· · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can we do ten minutes? ·2· ·as Exhibit G.· And this is a document that
·3· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure.· So we'll come ·3· ·starts at Bates stamp number 405.
·4· ·back at 11:26. ·4· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, do you recognize this
·5· · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sounds fine.· Thank you. ·5· ·document?
·6· · · ·(Recess from 11:16 to 11:28 a.m.) ·6· · · ·A.· I do.
·7· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· So, Ms. Bell, are ·7· · · ·Q.· And is -- to the best of your
·8· ·you ready to go back on the record? ·8· ·knowledge, is this a document produced by the
·9· · · ·THE WITNESS:· I am. ·9· ·State Board in discovery?
10· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Court reporter, are you 10· · · ·A.· I believe so, yes.
11· ·all set? 11· · · ·Q.· And is this One Stop Application that
12· · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes, sir.· Thank you. 12· ·voters fill out when they want to vote -- what
13· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· All right. 13· ·I think of as early voting?
14· · · ·THE WITNESS:· Dan, before we go back 14· · · ·A.· Yes, it is part of our One Stop early
15· ·into questions, can we just amend the 15· ·voting.· It serves as the poll book document
16· ·record, or whatever the right phrase would 16· ·for that.
17· ·be? 17· · · ·Q.· And in section A here, the final thing
18· · · ·I did confirm during the break that we 18· ·that voters have to certify, it says:· "I have
19· ·took that we have amended or requested to 19· ·not been convicted of a felony, or if I have
20· ·be amended, in the new versions of our 20· ·been convicted of a felony, I have completed my
21· ·absentee by mail envelope and voter 21· ·sentence, including any probation or parole."
22· ·registration form, to include -- it does 22· ·Is that right?
23· ·say probation, parole, and 23· · · ·A.· That is what it states.· Yes.
24· ·post-sentencing -- 24· · · ·Q.· And are you aware of any present
25· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Post-release 25· ·efforts to update this form to include
Page 111 Page 113

·1· · · ·supervision? ·1· ·post-release supervision?
·2· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you.· Sorry.· I am ·2· · · ·A.· I do not know whether this is -- I
·3· · · ·stumbling over that, because I have -- in ·3· ·don't know if this one is being revised, but I
·4· · · ·real estate, it's post-licensing.· So all ·4· ·can check and correct the record if need be.
·5· · · ·of these things begin to run together. ·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And we spoke earlier about -- I
·6· · · ·But, yes, post -- what is the phrase?· I'm ·6· ·can't remember the exact name, but a voting
·7· · · ·sorry. ·7· ·guide that's provided to coworkers.· Is that
·8· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Post-release ·8· ·right?
·9· · · ·supervision. ·9· · · ·A.· Yes.
10· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Post-release, yeah, 10· · · ·Q.· And that voting guide did not mention
11· · · ·supervision.· Thank you. 11· ·post-release supervision, right?
12· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 12· · · ·A.· I believe that's correct.· Yes.
13· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So let me clarify that.· Which 13· · · ·Q.· And are you aware of any current
14· ·forms did you say are being amended? 14· ·modifications being made to that guide to
15· · · ·A.· The new iterations of our voter 15· ·include post-release supervision?
16· ·registration forms.· And you showed the old 16· · · ·A.· We are not scheduled to do revisions to
17· ·version of our absentee by mail envelope that I 17· ·that, but that does not mean that we would not.
18· ·indicated we had a new version.· That's in the 18· · · ·Q.· Okay.
19· ·process now, and that's been updated with that 19· · · ·A.· These other things had to be sent to
20· ·phrase. 20· ·printers and so forth, so they are first in the
21· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is the One Stop form being 21· ·order.
22· ·updated as well; do you know? 22· · · ·Q.· And we looked at this document a moment
23· · · · · ·I'll just show you. 23· ·ago titled -- you know, a document that's put
24· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' G premarked.) 24· ·out or has been put out by the State Board of
25· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 25· ·Elections, you know, to inform individuals


Page 114 Page 116
·1· ·convicted of felonies of (inaudible)? ·1· ·very first sentence of this document says:
·2· · · ·A.· I should state that this is actually an ·2· ·"When you are convicted of a felony in North
·3· ·older brochure.· We have a flyer that we have ·3· ·Carolina, you cannot register" -- sorry -- "you
·4· ·been working to substitute.· I do know that ·4· ·cannot vote or register to vote until you have
·5· ·there are actually more current versions of ·5· ·completed all the terms of your felony
·6· ·this -- even this brochure, because this does ·6· ·sentence, including any probation or parole."
·7· ·not have our correct website address, and there ·7· · · · · ·Do you see that?
·8· ·are versions that do have the correct website ·8· · · ·A.· I do.
·9· ·address. ·9· · · ·Q.· And that does not mention post-release
10· · · ·Q.· I will pull up what's been marked as 10· ·supervision, right?
11· ·Exhibit J, which I think might be the current 11· · · ·A.· It does not.
12· ·version.· It's one of the documents 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And if we scroll down to the
13· ·(inaudible). 13· ·fourth row here titled "Am I eligible to vote."
14· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Sorry, Dan.· You trailed off 14· · · · · ·Do you see that row?
15· · · ·there. 15· · · ·A.· I do.· Yes.
16· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· All right.· I'm pulling 16· · · ·Q.· And do you see that it says:· "You must
17· · · ·up what's been marked as Exhibit J, which 17· ·not be serving an active felony sentence,
18· · · ·is one of the documents I skipped earlier. 18· ·including any probation or parole"?
19· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' J premarked.) 19· · · ·A.· That's correct.· That is what it
20· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 20· ·states.
21· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, do you recognize this 21· · · ·Q.· And it does not mention post-release
22· ·document? 22· ·supervision?
23· · · ·A.· Could you make more of the page 23· · · ·A.· It does not.
24· ·visible?· Reduce? 24· · · ·Q.· And I think you said a moment ago,
25· · · ·Q.· Sure. 25· ·you're planning on putting this document into
Page 115 Page 117

·1· · · ·A.· Thank you. ·1· ·circulation or you've sort of started that
·2· · · · · ·Yes, that is the flyer that was ·2· ·process?
·3· ·designed and is being substituted for that ·3· · · ·A.· It has been introduced.
·4· ·brochure. ·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.
·5· · · ·Q.· And to the best of your knowledge, is ·5· · · ·A.· It's just a matter of getting
·6· ·this a document that was produced -- a true and ·6· ·everything updated.
·7· ·accurate copy of a document produced by the ·7· · · ·Q.· And you're not aware of any current
·8· ·State Board in discovery? ·8· ·intentions to modify this document, are you?
·9· · · ·A.· Yes, I believe so. ·9· · · ·A.· It is not scheduled, to my knowledge,
10· · · ·Q.· And I think you just said this, but is 10· ·no.
11· ·this the more current version of the document 11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'll switch gears now.
12· ·that the State Board makes available to 12· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, beyond the documents that we
13· ·individuals convicted of felonies to notify 13· ·just looked at, just now and before the break,
14· ·them of their voting rights? 14· ·beyond those documents, isn't it the case that
15· · · ·A.· Yes, it is intended that this would be 15· ·the information provided to felons about their
16· ·introduced into the system over the brochure. 16· ·voting rights is not standard and often
17· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And if we go -- and so this 17· ·excludes references to loss of voting rights?
18· ·document is intended specifically for people 18· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Assume facts not
19· ·convicted of felonies as sort of an educational 19· · · ·in evidence.· Calls for speculation.
20· ·document?· Do I have that right? 20· · · ·A.· Actually, would you restate your
21· · · ·A.· It would serve for someone convicted of 21· ·question or ask it again, please?
22· ·a felony.· Or if someone is not, and is serving 22· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Isn't it the case that the
23· ·a misdemeanor, it would clarify for them as 23· ·information provided to felons about their
24· ·well. 24· ·voting rights is not standard and often
25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Fair enough.· So do you see the 25· ·excludes references to the loss of voting


Page 118 Page 120
·1· ·rights? ·1· · · ·A.· Uh-huh.
·2· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for ·2· · · ·Q.· -- and the director of the
·3· · · ·speculation. ·3· ·Administrative Office of the Courts?
·4· · · ·A.· Actually, I do think that's a rather ·4· · · ·A.· I believe you asked if it was from
·5· ·broad statement.· I can only indicate what is ·5· ·Kim Westbrook Strach to Secretary Hooks and
·6· ·done in elections. ·6· ·Administrative Officer Warren?· You cut out, so
·7· · · ·Q.· So do you disagree with that statement? ·7· ·I was just clarifying.
·8· · · ·A.· I neither agree or disagree. I ·8· · · ·Q.· Yes.· Is that what this is?
·9· ·don't -- I can't speak for what other entities ·9· · · ·A.· Yes, it is.
10· ·might provide to felons. 10· · · ·Q.· And Kim Strach is your predecessor as
11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Isn't it the case that when 11· ·executive director of the State Board of
12· ·registered to vote, or actually voting, not all 12· ·Elections; is that right?
13· ·voters read the language that we looked at 13· · · ·A.· You cut out again, but I believe you
14· ·earlier requiring them to affirm that they are 14· ·asked if she was my predecessor.· Yes, she is
15· ·not serving a felony sentence? 15· ·my predecessor.
16· · · ·A.· We provide the information to any 16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· She was the previous executive
17· ·voter, and it is up to that individual whether 17· ·director of the State Board of Elections?
18· ·they read all the material or not. 18· · · ·A.· That's correct.
19· · · ·Q.· So I'll just ask it one more time. 19· · · ·Q.· Are you able to hear me?· Is this
20· · · · · ·Isn't it the case that when registering 20· ·better?
21· ·to vote or actually voting, not all voters read 21· · · ·A.· Yes.
22· ·the language requiring them to affirm that they 22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· For the record, I -- last -- a
23· ·are not serving a felony sentence? 23· ·couple days ago, I went to four different
24· · · ·A.· I can't determine if an individual or 24· ·stores in DC to try to buy a microphone to fix
25· ·all individuals read all of the information. 25· ·these issues, and they were all sold out
Page 119 Page 121

·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to pull up now what's ·1· ·because, apparently, everyone in the world is
·2· ·been marked as Exhibit Q. ·2· ·trying to buy microphones for their computer.
·3· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' Q premarked.) ·3· ·So just for the record, efforts were made to
·4· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: ·4· ·address the situation.
·5· · · ·Q.· And this is not a document produced in ·5· · · ·A.· Understood.
·6· ·discovery, but it's a document of the State ·6· · · ·Q.· But I apologize.
·7· ·Board of Elections that's just available from ·7· · · · · ·So the subject line of this letter is
·8· ·other sources.· And I'll zoom out to try to let ·8· ·"Uniform notice to felons regarding voting
·9· ·you see it, Ms. Bell. ·9· ·rights in North Carolina."· Correct?
10· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, just for the record, I 10· · · ·A.· Correct.
11· · · ·believe that document was provided in 11· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, can I ask you to read the
12· · · ·discovery.· It's an attachment to the audit 12· ·second paragraph of this letter, the one that
13· · · ·report for 2017. 13· ·starts with the word "Beyond," into the record?
14· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· Fair enough.· We 14· · · ·A.· Read aloud or read it --
15· · · ·will -- fair enough. 15· · · ·Q.· Read it aloud, please.
16· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's appendix 7 of that 16· · · ·A.· Okay.· The paragraph that begins with
17· · · ·document. 17· ·"Beyond"?
18· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay. 18· · · ·Q.· Correct.
19· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 19· · · ·A.· Okay.· "Beyond the promising future in
20· · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, have you seen this 20· ·our data-sharing relationship, I want to make
21· ·document before? 21· ·sure you are aware that the State Board's
22· · · ·A.· I have. 22· ·in-house investigations staff have become aware
23· · · ·Q.· And is this a letter from Kim Westbrook 23· ·that the information provided to felons serving
24· ·Strach to the secretary of the Department of 24· ·active sentences does not appear to be standard
25· ·Public Safety -- 25· ·and often excludes references to the loss of


Page 122 Page 124
·1· ·voting rights.· This issue arises at the ·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Can you tell me how that's
·2· ·referral phase of our investigations, when some ·2· ·wrong?
·3· ·district attorneys express understandable ·3· · · ·A.· This -- a letter written in 2017 cannot
·4· ·concern that a felon who has voted may not have ·4· ·assert what the status is from '17 until 2020.
·5· ·been aware of the unlawfulness of his actions. ·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So as of 2017, at least, the
·6· ·Although individuals are required to affirm ·6· ·State Board of Elections was of the opinion
·7· ·that they are not serving an active felony ·7· ·that the information provided to voters -- to
·8· ·sentence, both when registering and presenting ·8· ·felons serving active sentences does not appear
·9· ·to vote, we have received feedback that not all ·9· ·to be standard and often excludes references to
10· ·voters read this language prior to signing. 10· ·the loss of voting rights?
11· ·Establishing that the subject of an 11· · · ·A.· That is what this states.· Correct.
12· ·investigation may have knowingly and willingly 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And as of 2017, the State Board
13· ·violated North Carolina election laws 13· ·of Elections determined that although
14· ·prohibiting felons from voting will support 14· ·individuals are required to affirm that they
15· ·successful prosecutions." 15· ·are not serving an active felony sentence, both
16· · · ·Q.· And this letter, Ms. Bell, is from 16· ·when registering to vote and presenting to
17· ·2017; is that right? 17· ·vote, not all voters read this language prior
18· · · ·A.· That's correct. 18· ·to signing?
19· · · ·Q.· So based on what you just read, isn't 19· · · ·A.· That is the feedback they had received
20· ·it the case that the State Board of Elections 20· ·at that time, yes.
21· ·has long known that the information provided to 21· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And does the State Board,
22· ·felons serving active sentences does not appear 22· ·sitting here today, in 2020, have any
23· ·to be standard and often excludes references to 23· ·information to change the conclusion reached in
24· ·loss of voting rights? 24· ·that sentence I just read?
25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· You trailed out, Dan. 25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
Page 123 Page 125

·1· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah. ·1· · · · · ·Sorry, Dan.· I just wanted to -- do you
·2· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: ·2· · · ·mind if I ask you to clarify which sentence
·3· · · ·Q.· Isn't it the case, Ms. Bell, that the ·3· · · ·you're talking about.
·4· ·State Board of Elections has long known that ·4· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I was about to ask
·5· ·the information provided to felons serving ·5· · · ·that.· Which part were you talking about?
·6· ·active sentences does not appear to be standard ·6· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
·7· ·and often excludes references to the loss of ·7· · · ·Q.· The sentence that read:· "Although
·8· ·voting rights? ·8· ·individual voters are required to affirm," dah,
·9· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the ·9· ·dah, dah, dah, "we have received feedback that
10· · · ·evidence. 10· ·not all voters read this language prior to
11· · · ·A.· I don't think that this paragraph says 11· ·signing."
12· ·that it's long known or shortly known. 12· · · · · ·That was the sentence written by the
13· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So this letter was written in 13· ·State Board in 2017, right?
14· ·2017? 14· · · ·A.· Correct.
15· · · ·A.· That's correct. 15· · · ·Q.· Does the State Board, sitting here
16· · · ·Q.· So since, at least, 2017, the State 16· ·today in 2020, have any new information that
17· ·Board of Elections has known that the 17· ·would alter this conclusion?
18· ·information provided to felons serving active 18· · · ·A.· The conclusion that not all voters read
19· ·sentences does not appear to be standard and 19· ·this language prior to signing?
20· ·often excludes references to the loss of voting 20· · · ·Q.· Correct.
21· ·rights; is that right? 21· · · ·A.· I don't believe we have any new
22· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the 22· ·information to that effect or against that.
23· · · ·evidence. 23· · · ·Q.· And how about the prior sentence, that
24· · · ·A.· Yeah.· I don't think that that's what 24· ·the State Board has become aware of
25· ·this states at all. 25· ·information -- sorry -- the State Board has


Page 126 Page 128
·1· ·become aware that the information provided to ·1· · · ·A.· You faded out.
·2· ·felons serving active sentences does not appear ·2· · · ·Q.· This document starts at Bates stamp
·3· ·to be standard and often excludes references to ·3· ·page 406?
·4· ·the loss of voting rights? ·4· · · ·A.· Yes.
·5· · · · · ·That was what they wrote as of 2017, ·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I'm going to turn now to
·6· ·right? ·6· ·409.· Do you see here the sentence I'm hovering
·7· · · ·A.· Correct. ·7· ·over that says:· "Under state law, felon voting
·8· · · ·Q.· Sitting here today in 2020, does the ·8· ·is a strict liability offense, and thus a felon
·9· ·State Board have any new information that would ·9· ·may be convicted of a crime even if he or she
10· ·alter this conclusion? 10· ·does not know that voting while serving an
11· · · ·A.· I believe we have information that 11· ·active sentence is wrong"?· Do you see that?
12· ·would say that there do appear to be standards 12· · · ·A.· I do.
13· ·that have been implemented since this time. 13· · · ·Q.· And so you understand that to mean that
14· · · ·Q.· And we just discussed, Ms. Bell, that 14· ·a person can be convicted of this crime even if
15· ·some of your forms are being updated to include 15· ·he or she did not know that they were
16· ·the reference to post-release supervision, but 16· ·ineligible to vote when they voted?
17· ·some are not; is that correct? 17· · · ·A.· I do see that.· I did not recall when
18· · · ·A.· That's correct. 18· ·you asked the previous question.
19· · · ·Q.· So, at least, as to that issue, the 19· · · ·Q.· Sure.· But that's -- you understand
20· ·information provided is not standard? 20· ·that that's what the current law provides?
21· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Argumentative. 21· · · ·A.· Yes.
22· · · ·A.· I don't believe that the question of 22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And this same paragraph says
23· ·standard, given that this is being written to 23· ·that the State Board refers suspected cases of
24· ·Secretary Hooks and Judge Warren, I don't 24· ·voting by persons who are serving felony
25· ·believe that the State Board is questioning the 25· ·sentences to local district attorneys for
Page 127 Page 129

·1· ·uniformity of State Board documents.· I think ·1· ·potential prosecution; is that right?
·2· ·they're questioning the uniformity of documents ·2· · · ·A.· That's correct.
·3· ·that would be DPS and AOC. ·3· · · ·Q.· And is that something the State Board
·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, do you understand that ·4· ·still does, refer people who are suspected of
·5· ·under the current law, if a person votes while ·5· ·illegally voting with felony sentences to the
·6· ·on felony probation or post-release ·6· ·local prosecutors?
·7· ·supervision, that's a crime for which a person ·7· · · ·A.· That would be the process, yes.
·8· ·can face up to two years in prison? ·8· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And does the State Board refer
·9· · · ·A.· That is my understanding, yes. ·9· ·everyone who it believes may have voted
10· · · ·Q.· And do you understand this is what's 10· ·illegally while serving a felony sentence to
11· ·known as a strict liability crime, meaning that 11· ·local prosecutors, or does it use any sort of
12· ·it does not matter whether or not the person 12· ·discretion in deciding who to refer?
13· ·knew he was ineligible to vote to be convicted? 13· · · ·A.· We actually have developed a policy
14· · · ·A.· Actually, I don't know it by that 14· ·about our priority areas and how we determine
15· ·terminology. 15· ·investigations.
16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I'm going to go back now to 16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And how does the State Board --
17· ·what was Exhibit C, which was the Post Election 17· ·scratch that.
18· ·Audit. 18· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, are you aware that local
19· · · · · ·And I'm going to -- well, I should say, 19· ·prosecutors have, in fact, prosecuted people in
20· ·at the top, Ms. Bell, this is one of the 20· ·recent years for voting while on probation or
21· ·documents we looked at earlier titled 21· ·post-release supervision?
22· ·"Post-Election Audit Report"; is that right? 22· · · ·A.· Yes, I am aware that such prosecutions
23· · · ·A.· It is, yes. 23· ·have taken place.
24· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And this is a document that 24· · · ·Q.· Are you familiar with the so-called
25· ·starts at Bates stamp page 406? 25· ·Alamance 12?


Page 130 Page 132
·1· · · ·A.· I am. ·1· ·the Huffington Post.
·2· · · ·Q.· And so that you're aware that 12 people ·2· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' D premarked.)
·3· ·in Alamance County were criminally prosecuted ·3· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
·4· ·for voting in the 2016 general election while ·4· · · ·Q.· Do you see this on the screen?
·5· ·they were serving probation or post-release ·5· · · ·A.· I do.· I don't -- it's -- you can zoom
·6· ·supervision? ·6· ·out some, because I don't see "Huffington" or
·7· · · ·A.· That is my understanding of the case -- ·7· ·anything to identify that.· But, yes.
·8· ·or the -- the reference. ·8· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Do you see here in the top right
·9· · · ·Q.· Are you aware that 9 of those 12 people ·9· ·corner it says "HuffPost"?
10· ·are African American? 10· · · ·A.· Yes, I do.
11· · · ·A.· I believe I have some knowledge of 11· · · ·Q.· And so this is an article written by a
12· ·that, yes. 12· ·journalist named Sam Levine dated August 13,
13· · · ·Q.· And are you aware that most or maybe 13· ·2018, titled "They Didn't Know They Were
14· ·even all of those 12 people said that they did 14· ·Ineligible to Vote.· A Prosecutor Went After
15· ·not know that they were ineligible to vote? 15· ·Them Anyway."· Do you see that?
16· · · ·A.· That is my recollection from these 16· · · ·A.· I do.
17· ·articles, yes. 17· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to scroll down now to
18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And are you aware that the 18· ·the bottom five paragraphs of this article.
19· ·district attorney in Hoke County has prosecuted 19· ·And so starting with the paragraph that says:
20· ·four people referred by the State Board of 20· ·"The cases of the 12 voters."· Do you see that?
21· ·Elections for allegedly voting before their 21· · · ·A.· I do.
22· ·rights were restored? 22· · · ·Q.· So I'm going to give you a moment to
23· · · ·A.· I am familiar with that, yes. 23· ·read from there to the end of the story.· And
24· · · ·Q.· Are you aware that all four persons 24· ·just let me know whenever you're ready.
25· ·indicted in Hoke County are African American? 25· · · ·A.· (Reviewing.)· Okay.
Page 131 Page 133

·1· · · ·A.· I do believe I had that understanding, ·1· · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, you see in those
·2· ·yes. ·2· ·paragraphs there's quotes reflecting that
·3· · · ·Q.· You would agree that those prosecutions ·3· ·individuals with felony convictions said they
·4· ·in Alamance and Hoke County were very high ·4· ·wouldn't vote again because they were afraid of
·5· ·profile?· Received a lot of media attention? ·5· ·being prosecuted?· Do you see that?
·6· · · ·A.· I won't determine whether they're high ·6· · · ·A.· I do.
·7· ·profile, but they did receive media attention, ·7· · · ·Q.· And wouldn't you agree that that's a
·8· ·yes. ·8· ·reasonable fear given the potential of going to
·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· They were "in the news," as we ·9· ·prison if you're prosecuted for mistakenly
10· ·say? 10· ·voting while ineligible?
11· · · ·A.· There was news coverage, yes. 11· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope
12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Can you understand how, given 12· · · ·of this deposition.· Calls for speculation.
13· ·those prosecutions that received news coverage, 13· · · ·A.· I don't think I can determine
14· ·someone who was previously convicted of a 14· ·reasonable fear when I know that there are
15· ·felony, who is not 100 percent certain of their 15· ·people who have continued to register who are
16· ·voting rights, might be afraid to vote? 16· ·former felons.
17· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Outside the scope 17· · · ·Q.· Could you understand the fear?
18· · · ·of the deposition notice and calls for 18· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Same objection.
19· · · ·speculation. 19· · · ·A.· Personally, I can't say one way or the
20· · · · · ·Karen, if you have knowledge and are 20· ·other.· I am not a former felon, so I don't
21· · · ·able to answer it, you can. 21· ·know what that fear would be.
22· · · ·A.· I don't know if I have knowledge of 22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· In your capacity as the
23· ·what would cause fear for someone. 23· ·executive director of the State Board of
24· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to pull up what's been 24· ·Elections, if one of these individuals came to
25· ·marked as Exhibit D, which is an article from 25· ·you and told you that they were afraid of


Page 134 Page 136
·1· ·voting, for the reasons set forth in this ·1· ·the executive director of the State Board of
·2· ·article, would you tell that person that ·2· ·Elections, do you have a general familiarity
·3· ·they're being irrational? ·3· ·with the reasons why voters may or may not
·4· · · ·A.· I would not tell any voter that they're ·4· ·vote?
·5· ·being irrational. ·5· · · ·A.· Are you -- is this a general question
·6· · · ·Q.· Would you tell that voter that you ·6· ·to any -- to all voters or voters in general
·7· ·think that their fears are unreasonable? ·7· ·that may or may not vote?
·8· · · ·A.· Again, that's not how I would work with ·8· · · ·Q.· Yeah.
·9· ·any voter. ·9· · · ·A.· Yes, I think that falls within our
10· · · ·Q.· Would you agree with me, Ms. Bell, that 10· ·capacity.
11· ·if individuals are uncertain or confused about 11· · · ·Q.· And you have -- just, generally
12· ·their eligibility to vote with a felony 12· ·speaking, you have familiarity with the reasons
13· ·conviction, that could be a deterrent to them 13· ·why an individual may or may not register to
14· ·voting? 14· ·vote?
15· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.· Calls for 15· · · ·A.· Yes, we have a general familiarity with
16· · · ·speculation. 16· ·that.
17· · · ·A.· Would you restate your question or 17· · · ·Q.· And as a matter of -- based on that
18· ·state it again? 18· ·familiarity, in your role as the executive
19· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Would you agree that if an 19· ·director, wouldn't you agree that if a person
20· ·individual who has a felony conviction is 20· ·is unsure about whether they're lawfully
21· ·uncertain or confused about whether they're 21· ·allowed to vote, that may deter them from
22· ·eligible to vote, that may deter them from 22· ·voting?
23· ·voting? 23· · · ·A.· Yeah, I think the way that I have to
24· · · ·A.· I think the best answer I can give you 24· ·answer that question is that we -- we
25· ·is to not state one way or the other except to 25· ·facilitate voter registration as the State
Page 135 Page 137

·1· ·express my own personal experience as an ·1· ·Board of Elections and the county boards of
·2· ·elections director. ·2· ·elections.· And we do so in a manner that we
·3· · · · · ·I vividly recall -- from time to ·3· ·continue to see individuals register to vote.
·4· ·time -- one of the greatest experiences of my ·4· ·We try to make that opportunity available in as
·5· ·life as an elections administrator was the ·5· ·many ways as possible, and we continue to have
·6· ·trust that a gentleman instilled in me when he ·6· ·registration.· So it is not deterring people
·7· ·finished his felony conviction, came into our ·7· ·from registering to vote.
·8· ·board of elections, was of the minority race in ·8· · · ·Q.· And is it your goal as the executive
·9· ·the county where I worked, and yet trusted that ·9· ·director of the Board of Elections to educate
10· ·I would help him in his application to 10· ·as many people as possible about their
11· ·reregister to vote.· And even learned that he 11· ·eligibility to vote?
12· ·was still illiterate, and yet trusted that I 12· · · ·A.· Yes, that is one of the goals I have
13· ·would help him through that process, and I did. 13· ·set as executive director of the State Board of
14· ·That's the best answer that I can give you to 14· ·Elections.
15· ·these questions, is that there have certainly 15· · · ·Q.· And is one of the reasons you do that
16· ·been individuals who have entrusted in me to 16· ·is because you want to make sure, as much as
17· ·ensure that they became a registered individual 17· ·possible, that everyone who is eligible to vote
18· ·after completing their felony. 18· ·does vote, and everyone who is not eligible to
19· · · ·Q.· As the executive director of the State 19· ·vote doesn't mistakenly vote?· Fair?
20· ·Board of Elections, you're familiar with -- 20· · · ·A.· Even in the mission statement that was
21· ·give me a moment.· Let me make sure I can ask 21· ·in the county where I was a county director, we
22· ·this question in a way that, hopefully, will 22· ·had within that, and I still hold, that it is
23· ·not prompt your counsel to object.· But I might 23· ·our job as an election administrator to ensure
24· ·be wrong about that no matter what. 24· ·everyone's fundamental right to vote.
25· · · · · ·In your capacity as the director, as 25· · · ·Q.· And is one of the reasons why you try


Page 138 Page 140
·1· ·to educate everybody, as many people as ·1· · · ·Q.· Are you aware that many states have
·2· ·possible, about their eligibility to vote is ·2· ·such a regime?
·3· ·because eliminating confusion promotes more ·3· · · ·A.· I'm aware that there are states with
·4· ·voting? ·4· ·such a regime.
·5· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Confusing. ·5· · · ·Q.· And election officials in those states
·6· · · ·Q.· Would you agree with me that the less ·6· ·implement those systems, right?
·7· ·confused people are about their eligibility to ·7· · · ·A.· Just as we do as election
·8· ·vote, the more likely they are to vote? ·8· ·administrators, they administer as their law is
·9· · · ·A.· I don't know that there's a direct ·9· ·written.
10· ·correlation there.· We inform people about 10· · · ·Q.· I'm going to show you now a few
11· ·voting, about the voter registration processes. 11· ·examples of the forms that election officials
12· ·There can be other influences that keep someone 12· ·in those states use to implement the type of
13· ·from voting, including -- I mean, they may not 13· ·regime that plaintiffs are seeking.
14· ·like any of the candidates, quite frankly. 14· · · ·A.· Okay.
15· · · ·Q.· Yeah.· Okay.· I'll move on, Ms. Bell. 15· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' M premarked.)
16· · · · · ·Are you aware of the relief that 16· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
17· ·plaintiffs are seeking in this case? 17· · · ·Q.· I'm going to call up now what's been
18· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. 18· ·marked as Exhibit M.
19· · · ·A.· I have read some of the court 19· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, this is a voter registration
20· ·documents.· It might be best if you state to me 20· ·form used in Michigan.· Do you see that?
21· ·what the relief is that plaintiffs seek. 21· · · ·A.· I do see that, and the title implies
22· · · ·Q.· Sure.· So are you aware that plaintiffs 22· ·that, yes.
23· ·are seeking -- that plaintiffs are asking that 23· · · ·Q.· I'll represent to you that to the best
24· ·people who are not incarcerated, but are on 24· ·of my knowledge this is Michigan's current
25· ·some form of community supervision, be allowed 25· ·version of their voter registration
Page 139 Page 141

·1· ·to vote? ·1· ·application.
·2· · · ·A.· That is my understanding. ·2· · · ·A.· Okay.
·3· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to refer, for the ·3· · · ·Q.· I'm going to point you to the left side
·4· ·remainder of this deposition, to what I just ·4· ·of this page, which says -- which is titled
·5· ·described as the regime that plaintiffs seek in ·5· ·"Criminal convictions and registering to vote."
·6· ·this case.· Is that fair? ·6· ·Do you see that?
·7· · · ·A.· That's fine. ·7· · · ·A.· I do.
·8· · · ·Q.· I'll use that as shorthand just so I ·8· · · ·Q.· And do you see that it says:· "If you
·9· ·don't have to repeat that whole thing every ·9· ·have a past criminal conviction and are no
10· ·time for all of my questions. 10· ·longer in jail or prison, you can register and
11· · · ·A.· Understandable. 11· ·vote.· You also can register and vote if you
12· · · ·Q.· Okay. 12· ·are in jail and awaiting trial and sentencing.
13· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, could I ask a 13· ·If you are currently serving a sentence in jail
14· · · ·clarification question?· Did you say the 14· ·or prison you can't register to vote."
15· · · ·"regime" that plaintiffs seek? 15· · · · · ·Do you see that?
16· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Correct. 16· · · ·A.· I do.
17· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay. 17· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, if the Court ruled for
18· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 18· ·plaintiffs in this case, your office could
19· · · ·Q.· Are you aware that at least 17 states, 19· ·change its form to say something like this,
20· ·plus the District of Columbia, have a regime 20· ·right?
21· ·like the one plaintiffs are seeking where 21· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
22· ·you're eligible to vote if you're not in 22· · · ·speculation.
23· ·prison? 23· · · ·A.· I think the best way for me to answer
24· · · ·A.· I have not researched to determine 24· ·is that when laws are changed, we do change the
25· ·exact number. 25· ·laws to reflect what the law allows for, and


Page 142 Page 144
·1· ·the same would be true if there were a court ·1· ·on a felony conviction"?
·2· ·decision. ·2· · · ·A.· I do.
·3· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Would you agree with me that the ·3· · · ·Q.· Would you agree that's pretty
·4· ·three short sentences I just read are ·4· ·straightforward and clear?
·5· ·language -- is language that is used by ·5· · · ·A.· It is clear to me.· I don't know
·6· ·election officials in a state that had a regime ·6· ·whether it's clear to everyone.
·7· ·like the one plaintiffs are seeking? ·7· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then the last one I'll show
·8· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for ·8· ·you here, I'm going to pull up, is Exhibit O.
·9· · · ·speculation. ·9· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' O premarked.)
10· · · ·A.· I will agree that you've indicated to 10· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
11· ·me that the state of Michigan allows that this 11· · · ·Q.· And this is a voter application -- or
12· ·is the regime that they allow for and, 12· ·voter registration form for New Jersey.· Do you
13· ·therefore, they have provided this information 13· ·see that?
14· ·on their voter registration form. 14· · · ·A.· I do.
15· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Fair enough.· I'm going to pull 15· · · ·Q.· And I'll represent to you that, to the
16· ·up now Exhibit N. 16· ·best of my knowledge, this is the current
17· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' N premarked.) 17· ·version of New Jersey's voter registration
18· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 18· ·application.· Okay?
19· · · ·Q.· And I will represent to you, Ms. Bell, 19· · · ·A.· Okay.
20· ·that this is a voter -- the most recent copy of 20· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, are you aware that New Jersey
21· ·the voter registration form used in the 21· ·changed its laws in December of 2019 -- so last
22· ·District of Columbia, where I live.· Do you see 22· ·year -- from a system that was like the one
23· ·that? 23· ·that North Carolina currently uses to one
24· · · ·A.· I do. 24· ·that's like plaintiffs seek in this case?
25· · · ·Q.· And I will also represent to you that, 25· · · ·A.· I actually did not recall that
Page 143 Page 145

·1· ·at least as of last week -- I think they ·1· ·New Jersey had done that.
·2· ·actually just voted to change it this week -- ·2· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So you're not aware and you've
·3· ·the District of Columbia has had a system like ·3· ·not heard of any problems that New Jersey
·4· ·the one plaintiffs -- a regime like the one ·4· ·election officials have had in transitioning to
·5· ·plaintiffs seek in this case. ·5· ·such a regime, are you?
·6· · · · · ·Will you accept that representation? ·6· · · ·A.· That has not been discussed with me.
·7· · · ·A.· I will. ·7· · · ·Q.· Okay.
·8· · · ·Q.· And I think they -- just, ·8· · · ·A.· Nor have I read anything to that
·9· ·incidentally -- I think they actually just ·9· ·effect, one way or the other.
10· ·voted to allow people in prison to vote.· But 10· · · ·Q.· And so I'm going to point your
11· ·that is not -- 11· ·attention to section 14 here of this
12· · · ·A.· Okay.· That's what I was going to ask 12· ·application.
13· ·is, what was the change?· But, okay. 13· · · · · ·And do you see here in the
14· · · ·Q.· Yeah.· If that -- 14· ·"Declaration" section, in the middle, there's a
15· · · ·A.· So it is beyond the regime that 15· ·bullet that says:· "I am not serving a sentence
16· ·you're -- you're seeking. 16· ·of incarceration as the result of a conviction
17· · · ·Q.· Exactly.· Exactly.· But that's -- I'll 17· ·of any indictable offense under the laws of
18· ·represent to you that that is not yet reflected 18· ·this or another state or of the United States"?
19· ·on this form.· Okay? 19· · · ·A.· I see that bullet point, yes.
20· · · ·A.· Okay. 20· · · ·Q.· So, Ms. Bell, we've now looked at three
21· · · ·Q.· Do you see here -- I'm going to point 21· ·different examples of how states implement a
22· ·you to section 13 here.· Do you see that? 22· ·regime like the one plaintiffs are seeking.
23· · · ·A.· I do. 23· · · · · ·Isn't it fair to say that the Board
24· · · ·Q.· And do you see that there's a box for 24· ·would have a number of ways to implement such a
25· ·voters to check that says:· "I am not in jail 25· ·regime on its forms if the Court did rule for


Page 146 Page 148
·1· ·plaintiffs in this case? ·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Sitting here today, however, you
·2· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for ·2· ·can't give me a reason why the State Board of
·3· · · ·speculation. ·3· ·Elections wouldn't be able to change and
·4· · · ·A.· The method by which we change forms in ·4· ·implement a change to its forms if the Court
·5· ·North Carolina is based upon the law or the ·5· ·said you had to implement a regime like the one
·6· ·decision of the Court.· And we would alter or ·6· ·plaintiffs seek, right?
·7· ·change our forms based upon the wording of the ·7· · · ·A.· Actually, depending on when that
·8· ·law or the decision of the Court in ·8· ·occurred, I might be able to give you reasons
·9· ·North Carolina and not based upon another ·9· ·why that could be difficult to implement or
10· ·state. 10· ·change, or feasible.· There is nothing about
11· · · ·Q.· Sure.· But if the Court -- just using 11· ·this discussion that is in a vacuum or in a
12· ·these as examples -- if the Court said, "Yes 12· ·bubble.
13· ·we're going to implement the regime that 13· · · ·Q.· Okay.
14· ·plaintiffs seek in this case," just from an 14· · · ·A.· There are other court cases.· There are
15· ·administrative perspective, you would be able 15· ·other deadlines.· There are other variables
16· ·to administer that on your forms, correct? 16· ·that can impact our ability to implement
17· · · ·A.· I would like you to state your question 17· ·anything in elections administration.
18· ·again.· I'm sorry. 18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· We talked earlier about how
19· · · ·Q.· Sure.· So, currently, your forms 19· ·you -- and by "you," I mean the State Board of
20· ·implements North Carolina's current law with 20· ·Elections -- receives data on an ongoing basis
21· ·respect to when felons are allowed to vote, 21· ·from the Department of Public Safety; is that
22· ·right? 22· ·right?
23· · · ·A.· Correct. 23· · · ·A.· That's correct.
24· · · ·Q.· If the Court ruled for plaintiffs in 24· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, are you aware that people who
25· ·this case and said North Carolina has to 25· ·are sentenced to probation in North Carolina do
Page 147 Page 149

·1· ·implement a regime like the one plaintiffs seek ·1· ·not receive a term of incarceration before
·2· ·in this case, it wouldn't be very difficult for ·2· ·their probation begins?
·3· ·you to make that change on your forms, right? ·3· · · ·A.· Again, I don't work in the probation --
·4· · · ·A.· I actually need to give some, I guess, ·4· ·I don't work in the court system.· I don't --
·5· ·clarity to the word "difficult." ·5· ·that's -- that's out of my knowledge.
·6· · · · · ·Altering a form may be as simple as ·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Fair enough.· I'll just
·7· ·changing it in a word-processing program. ·7· ·represent to you -- and, again, I'll just ask
·8· ·Printing it and making it available, the level ·8· ·you to accept my representation.· And if I'm
·9· ·of difficulty can vary. ·9· ·wrong about this, then it's on me, and my
10· · · ·Q.· Okay. 10· ·questions are worthless.
11· · · ·A.· I can give you an example, that even 11· · · ·A.· Okay.
12· ·trying to update the current forms, the printer 12· · · ·Q.· But I'll represent to you that people
13· ·has difficulty because of COVID-19 and the 13· ·in North Carolina who are sentenced to
14· ·ability for their workers to be available.· So 14· ·probation do not receive a term of
15· ·what could cause difficulty or not cause 15· ·incarceration in prison before their probation
16· ·difficulty could vary at a given time. 16· ·begins.
17· · · ·Q.· Is it fair to say it would be feasible, 17· · · · · ·Will you accept that representation?
18· ·though? 18· · · ·A.· Fair enough.
19· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and 19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So under the regime that
20· · · ·answered. 20· ·plaintiffs seek in this case, such people
21· · · ·A.· I think feasibility is, as well, 21· ·wouldn't be ineligible to vote for any period
22· ·about -- the feasibility to change a form is 22· ·of time, right, because they've never been
23· ·very different than implementing a form.· So 23· ·incarcerated?
24· ·there could be variables that could impact the 24· · · ·A.· I believe that's what you've described.
25· ·ability to immediately pivot and do that. 25· ·Right.


Page 150 Page 152
·1· · · ·Q.· And for such people, then, if we're ·1· · · ·A.· And they -- and your regime is -- it
·2· ·living in a world where it's the regime that ·2· ·moves forward.
·3· ·plaintiffs seek, the Department of Public ·3· · · ·Q.· Right.· Plaintiffs' dream comes true
·4· ·Safety wouldn't need to send you any data about ·4· ·and our regime is implemented.· That means
·5· ·those people at all, right, because they would ·5· ·everyone who is on probation is allowed to
·6· ·never be subject to the period of ·6· ·vote.
·7· ·disenfranchisement? ·7· · · · · ·Will you accept that for my
·8· · · ·A.· I think I would need to know more ·8· ·hypothetical?
·9· ·information and work with those agencies to ·9· · · ·A.· Yes.
10· ·ensure that we're properly -- I don't know that 10· · · ·Q.· So in that world, you wouldn't need to
11· ·process well enough to say that we would not 11· ·receive information from the Department of
12· ·need to receive information. 12· ·Public Safety about people on probation, right?
13· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Am I correct that under the 13· · · ·A.· That seems logical.· Correct.
14· ·current system, you only receive information 14· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'm going to also represent
15· ·from the Department of Public Safety about 15· ·to you -- again, I'll just ask you to accept
16· ·people who are ineligible to vote because of 16· ·this representation -- that about half the
17· ·their convictions?· Right? 17· ·people convicted of felonies in North Carolina
18· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the 18· ·are sentenced to probation and no terms of
19· · · ·evidence. 19· ·incarceration.
20· · · ·A.· Actually, what I think we've 20· · · · · ·Will you accept that representation?
21· ·established is that they provide us a list of 21· · · ·A.· Sure.
22· ·who are active felons, and then we determine 22· · · ·Q.· Roughly half, I'll say.
23· ·their eligibility. 23· · · ·A.· I don't know any different.
24· · · ·Q.· Sure.· You don't receive a list of 24· · · ·Q.· Sure.· We talked earlier about how the
25· ·people convicted of misdemeanors in 25· ·State Board has a list of all the people who
Page 151 Page 153

·1· ·North Carolina, right? ·1· ·are serving an active felony sentence and are
·2· · · ·A.· That's correct. ·2· ·ineligible to vote; is that right?
·3· · · ·Q.· And is the reason you don't receive a ·3· · · ·A.· Yes.
·4· ·list of people convicted of misdemeanors ·4· · · ·Q.· So under the regime that plaintiffs
·5· ·because such people are still allowed to vote, ·5· ·seek, there would be about half as many people
·6· ·so you don't need to know their information? ·6· ·who the Board would need to put on that list,
·7· · · ·A.· That sounds correct, yes. ·7· ·right?
·8· · · ·Q.· So if somebody convicted of probation ·8· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
·9· ·never becomes ineligible to vote, then like the ·9· · · ·speculation.
10· ·people convicted of misdemeanors, you would 10· · · ·A.· I'll answer yes based upon what you
11· ·never need to receive their information from 11· ·represented.
12· ·DPS, right? 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And we talked earlier about how
13· · · ·A.· I think the answer to your question is 13· ·the county boards of elections take that list
14· ·that seems reasonable.· What we have 14· ·that we just mentioned, and then they notify
15· ·established that there are other factors that 15· ·people that their registration is canceled, or
16· ·I'm not aware of in probation that would make 16· ·has been denied if they're trying to register
17· ·them ineligible to vote. 17· ·for the first time; is that right?
18· · · ·Q.· And let's say, hypothetically, that 18· · · ·A.· I would answer to your -- the way you
19· ·under the regime plaintiffs seek, everyone who 19· ·stated it, yes.
20· ·is on probation is allowed to vote.· So there's 20· · · ·Q.· So under the regime that the plaintiffs
21· ·no other factors that might prevent them as it 21· ·seek, the county boards of elections would only
22· ·relates to their conviction.· Okay? 22· ·need to send such notifications to about half
23· · · ·A.· Okay.· Meaning there's no fees or 23· ·the people that they currently do, right?
24· ·anything associated with that? 24· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
25· · · ·Q.· Right. 25· · · ·speculation.


Page 154 Page 156
·1· · · ·A.· The county boards of elections would ·1· ·that?
·2· ·send notice to those who are being removed or ·2· · · ·A.· I do.
·3· ·denied, no matter whether that's 50 percent ·3· · · ·Q.· Under the regime that plaintiffs seek,
·4· ·or -- ·4· ·instead of adding people to that list when they
·5· · · ·Q.· Right. ·5· ·finish their post-release supervision, you
·6· · · ·A.· -- or 80 percent. ·6· ·could just add them to that list when they
·7· · · ·Q.· And just as a logical matter, as you ·7· ·finish their term of incarceration, right?
·8· ·put it before, if only about half the people ·8· · · ·A.· I think -- it's not -- well, I would
·9· ·become ineligible to vote from what is the case ·9· ·rely on DPS to provide the correct status to --
10· ·currently, then the county boards of elections 10· ·in order for us to receive that data on that
11· ·would only need to send about half the number 11· ·list.
12· ·of notification letters, right? 12· · · ·Q.· Sitting here today, you're not aware of
13· · · ·A.· I mean, you are in a hypothetical, but 13· ·any reason that, instead of using the date that
14· ·if it's -- I mean, like, whatever the list is 14· ·somebody finishes their post-release
15· ·is what they're going to -- to mail. 15· ·supervision, you couldn't use the date that
16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'm going to transition now 16· ·they finished their term of incarceration; is
17· ·from people who are on probation and talk about 17· ·that right?
18· ·people who did receive a term of incarceration. 18· · · ·A.· Provided that -- again, I think I would
19· · · · · ·And as we talked before, people in 19· ·need to have more information of what the
20· ·North Carolina, currently, who are released 20· ·decision by the Court or the law allowed for
21· ·from incarceration are released on something 21· ·and whether there are any other conditions in
22· ·called "post-release supervision."· I'm sure 22· ·that.
23· ·you recall that discussion? 23· · · ·Q.· Okay.
24· · · ·A.· Yes. 24· · · ·A.· But provided that that's the, you know,
25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And are you aware that the 25· ·the criteria, and that's -- but that status
Page 155 Page 157

·1· ·Department of Public Safety maintains data on ·1· ·conveys that criteria, then we could receive it
·2· ·when such people are released from prison under ·2· ·and process.
·3· ·post-release supervision? ·3· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, sitting here today, you have
·4· · · ·A.· Well, actually, I'm not aware of what ·4· ·no basis to believe that the State Board
·5· ·they maintain.· I know what we receive. ·5· ·couldn't implement the regime that plaintiffs
·6· · · ·Q.· Sure.· You have no reason to doubt, ·6· ·seek in this case, right?
·7· ·though, that the Department of Public Safety ·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
·8· ·keeps data of when people are let out of ·8· · · ·A.· Actually, I think I stated that there
·9· ·prison, right? ·9· ·probably is information that we would need to
10· · · ·A.· That seems logical. 10· ·learn in order to know whether we could
11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And so if, in fact, the 11· ·implement.· I think -- I think that -- but to
12· ·Department of Safety has that data, that's 12· ·do the caliber of job that I would want to do,
13· ·information that the Board could receive from 13· ·I would want to have other conversation to make
14· ·the Department of Safety if it needed to, 14· ·sure that we all understand the definitions and
15· ·right? 15· ·what that status means.· I would not want to
16· · · ·A.· To the best of my knowledge, yes. I 16· ·say that we could just immediately implement.
17· ·don't know if there's any restrictions on us 17· ·I think there's additional steps in there.
18· ·receiving that data or anything that might 18· · · ·Q.· But sitting here today, you can't cite
19· ·prohibit it. 19· ·for me any information that you wouldn't be
20· · · ·Q.· Fair enough.· We talked earlier about 20· ·able to obtain that would make it impossible
21· ·the, quote, Felon Completed List, I believe it 21· ·for you to implement that regime, right?
22· ·was called, that the State Board maintains 22· · · ·A.· I have no knowledge, but I would want
23· ·about people who had been ineligible to vote 23· ·to assert that there's nothing.
24· ·but have since completed their felony sentences 24· · · ·Q.· Okay.· There's nothing specific you can
25· ·and are now reeligible to vote.· Do you recall 25· ·cite for me today that would prevent you from


Page 158 Page 160
·1· ·implementing that regime? ·1· ·of this interrogatory asks the State Board to:
·2· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and ·2· ·"State with specificity the purported
·3· · · ·answered. ·3· ·governmental interests in denying
·4· · · ·A.· As I said, there's -- there's -- I do ·4· ·disenfranchised persons the right to vote"?
·5· ·not have knowledge of that, no. ·5· · · · · ·Do you see that?
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Thank you. ·6· · · ·A.· I do.
·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Dan, what were you thinking ·7· · · ·Q.· Can you hear me?
·8· · · ·in terms of timing?· This might be a good ·8· · · ·A.· I can.
·9· · · ·time for a break. ·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And, Ms. Bell, I'll represent to
10· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Yeah.· I was about to 10· ·you that in the actual interrogatories
11· · · ·say.· I suspect I have somewhere in the 11· ·themselves, which is not part of this document,
12· · · ·area of a half hour left. 12· ·the definition section at least, the term
13· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay. 13· ·"Disenfranchised Persons," with a capital D and
14· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Although, I hate giving 14· ·a capital P, that was defined as persons on
15· · · ·quotes, because I might be wrong, but 15· ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision
16· · · ·that's what I would suspect. 16· ·who are not eligible to vote in North Carolina.
17· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Well, let me ask Karen, then. 17· · · · · ·Will you accept that representation?
18· · · · · ·Karen, do you want to take a break and 18· · · ·A.· I will.
19· · · ·come back, if it's going to be half an 19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So this interrogatory asks the
20· · · ·hour, plus or minus?· Do you want to take a 20· ·State Board to identify the governmental
21· · · ·break for lunch and come back? 21· ·interest in denying the right to vote to
22· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Is it within reason to 22· ·persons on probation, parole, or post-release
23· · · ·ask Brian if he -- the amount of time that 23· ·supervision for a felony conviction; is that
24· · · ·he would need? 24· ·right?
25· · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Would you like to stay 25· · · ·A.· That is what it states, yes.
Page 159 Page 161

·1· · · ·on the record here? ·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And then the interrogatory --
·2· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· We can go off the ·2· ·I'm going to scroll down here to page 4. I
·3· · · ·record. ·3· ·think this is page 4.
·4· · · · · ·(Brief discussion off the record.) ·4· · · · · ·And right above where the bullet point
·5· · · · · ·(Recess from 12:24 to 12:32 p.m.) ·5· ·starts, do you see that it says, for the
·6· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Everybody ready to go ·6· ·record:· "The State Board" -- I'm sorry -- "The
·7· · · ·back on the record? ·7· ·State Board responds that the State may have a
·8· · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes, sir. ·8· ·number of legitimate governmental interests in
·9· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Good to go. ·9· ·enacting and enforcing the citizenship
10· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 10· ·restoration statute in question."· And it then
11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, this will be the final 11· ·lists nine such governmental interests.· Do you
12· ·exhibit I show you today, I promise. 12· ·see that?
13· · · · · ·(Plaintiffs' P premarked.) 13· · · ·A.· I do.· I see three of them, yes.
14· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 14· · · ·Q.· Okay.· There's four and then there's
15· · · ·Q.· So this exhibit has been marked as 15· ·the other five.· Do you see that?
16· ·Exhibit P.· And it is the State Board's Amended 16· · · ·A.· Yes, I see that.
17· ·Response to Interrogatory Number 7 of the 17· · · ·Q.· Did you contribute to putting together
18· ·Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. 18· ·this list of --
19· · · · · ·Do you see that, Ms. Bell? 19· · · · · ·(Interruption.)
20· · · ·A.· I do. 20· · · ·A.· I'm sorry.· I didn't hear your
21· · · ·Q.· Have you seen this document before? 21· ·question.
22· · · ·A.· I believe I have, yes. 22· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, did you contribute to putting
23· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to scroll down now to 23· ·together this list of purported governmental
24· ·Interrogatory Number 7. 24· ·interests?
25· · · · · ·And do you see that the first sentence 25· · · ·A.· No, I did not.


Page 162 Page 164
·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Other than your attorneys from ·1· ·Elections reviewed this list before it was
·2· ·the Attorney General's Office, who else was ·2· ·provided to plaintiffs?
·3· ·involved in putting this list together? ·3· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and
·4· · · ·A.· I'm not aware of who outside of the ·4· · · ·answered.
·5· ·Attorney General's Office. ·5· · · ·A.· I don't know.· I do not know.
·6· · · ·Q.· Was anyone at the State Board of ·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm going to, for the purposes
·7· ·Elections involved in putting this list ·7· ·of my next questions, I'm going to exclude what
·8· ·together? ·8· ·you see here as the first and the third
·9· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and ·9· ·bullets.· Do you want to just take a second to
10· · · ·answered. 10· ·read those bullets?
11· · · ·A.· I would have to ask the counsel from 11· · · ·A.· So you want me to read the first and
12· ·the Attorney General's Office who they worked 12· ·the third bullets?
13· ·with.· I don't... 13· · · ·Q.· Just to yourself, so you know what I'm
14· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is it fair to say that to the 14· ·talking about.
15· ·best of your knowledge sitting here today, 15· · · ·A.· But just those two, is what you're
16· ·nobody from the Attorney General's Office -- 16· ·saying?
17· ·sorry.· To the best of your knowledge sitting 17· · · ·Q.· Correct.· Correct.
18· ·here today, nobody from the State Board of 18· · · ·A.· Okay.· (Reviewing.)· Okay.
19· ·Elections was involved in putting this list 19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So my next questions are going
20· ·together? 20· ·to relate to only the other seven bullets --
21· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and 21· ·interests listed in the other seven bullets,
22· · · ·answered. 22· ·but not those two.· Okay?
23· · · ·A.· I don't know one way or the other. 23· · · ·A.· Okay.· So you just asked me to read two
24· · · ·Q.· So you're not affirmatively aware of 24· ·that you don't want me to refer to?
25· ·anyone from the State Board in particular who 25· · · ·Q.· How about this?· Do you want me to --
Page 163 Page 165

·1· ·was involved? ·1· ·do you want to just take a second to read all
·2· · · ·A.· Again, I would have to -- I would want ·2· ·nine bullets so we make sure we're on the same
·3· ·to ask counsel from the Attorney General's ·3· ·page?
·4· ·Office who they worked with. ·4· · · ·A.· I think that's the better method, if
·5· · · ·Q.· Did you review this list before -- even ·5· ·you don't mind.· If I'm going to answer
·6· ·though you weren't involved in putting it ·6· ·questions, I'd like to know what I'm answering
·7· ·together, did you review this list before it ·7· ·the questions about.· So, yes, I'd like to read
·8· ·was sent to the plaintiffs as part of this ·8· ·the others.
·9· ·interrogatory response? ·9· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Just tell me when you want me to
10· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and 10· ·scroll to the next page.
11· · · ·answered. 11· · · ·A.· Okay.· (Reviewing.)
12· · · ·A.· I don't recall reviewing this list, and 12· · · · · ·You can scroll to the next page.
13· ·it's in a draft form. 13· · · ·Q.· (Scrolling.)
14· · · ·Q.· To the best of your knowledge, did 14· · · ·A.· (Reviewing.)· Okay.
15· ·anyone from the State Board of Elections review 15· · · · · ·MR. COX:· And, Dan, just for
16· ·this list before it was sent to plaintiffs? 16· · · ·clarification, are you going to be asking
17· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and 17· · · ·questions about the last bullet as well?
18· · · ·answered. 18· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· This bullet?
19· · · ·A.· I do not know if that would have been 19· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Yeah.
20· ·a -- if the -- who the AG's office would have 20· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· I believe that's --
21· ·worked with from our agency on that matter -- 21· · · ·yeah, the seven of -- the seven of the
22· ·on this matter, sorry. 22· · · ·nine.
23· · · ·Q.· But sitting here today, you can't tell 23· · · · · ·MR. COX:· So the Court's order said you
24· ·me that you affirmatively know that any 24· · · ·can ask questions about A through F, and
25· ·individual person from the State Board of 25· · · ·that's number G in your notice of


Page 166 Page 168
·1· · · ·deposition. ·1· · · ·Dan, can I ask a clarifying question?
·2· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· I hadn't picked ·2· · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, I was going to say,
·3· · · ·up on that.· But how about this?· I'll ·3· ·I need you to clarify that.
·4· · · ·exclude those three, then.· So include the ·4· · · ·But go ahead, Paul.
·5· · · ·first, the third, and the last bullet. ·5· · · ·MR. COX:· Well, Dan, do you mind if I
·6· · · ·Okay? ·6· ·ask you to clarify?
·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Exclude those three, right? ·7· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Yeah.· Go ahead.· Go
·8· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Exclude those three.· So ·8· ·ahead.
·9· · · ·I'm only asking about the other six.· Okay? ·9· · · ·MR. COX:· When you said the State
10· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay. 10· ·Board, are you referring to the Board as
11· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: 11· ·the board, or the Board as a whole agency
12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, putting aside any 12· ·or what?· Because --
13· ·research that was done by your lawyers at the 13· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure.
14· ·Attorney General's Office, did the State Board 14· · · ·MR. COX:· Do you understand the
15· ·of Elections do any factual research or 15· ·difference?
16· ·investigation into the interests served by the 16· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Yeah.· So I'm
17· ·current disenfranchisement scheme -- today, in 17· ·referring -- when I say the State Board,
18· ·present day -- in order to generate this list 18· ·I'm referring to the entire agency that you
19· ·of six bullets? 19· ·oversee.
20· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection. 20· · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· And now will you
21· · · · · ·Karen, if answering this question might 21· ·state your question?
22· · · ·require you to divulge any communication 22· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure.
23· · · ·between the State Board and its outside 23· · · ·THE WITNESS:· I might need you to
24· · · ·counsel in creating this document, then 24· ·clarify something that you're asking me.
25· · · ·don't answer that.· If you have knowledge 25· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure.
Page 167 Page 169

·1· · · ·otherwise, you can answer it. ·1· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Go ahead.
·2· · · ·A.· Dan, if you'll state your question ·2· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
·3· ·again. ·3· · · ·Q.· Putting aside any discussions with your
·4· · · ·Q.· Yeah. ·4· ·lawyers at the Attorney General's Office, did
·5· · · ·A.· I don't know if I can say "yes" or "no" ·5· ·the State Board engage in any discussions about
·6· ·to it, but... ·6· ·the interests that the current
·7· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Subject to Mr. Cox's ·7· ·disenfranchisement scheme actually serves in
·8· ·qualification, and putting aside any research ·8· ·practice today before providing this list?
·9· ·that was done by your lawyers at the Attorney ·9· · · ·A.· I don't know what the right process for
10· ·General's Office, did the State Board of 10· ·me to do here is, but that -- you're -- you're
11· ·Elections itself conduct any factual research 11· ·asking a question in a very legal format, but I
12· ·or investigation into the interests served by 12· ·don't know if I need clarification from my
13· ·the current disenfranchisement scheme, in 13· ·counsel to understand or if I need you to
14· ·present day, in order to generate this list of 14· ·clarify more.
15· ·six government interests listed in those six 15· · · ·Q.· How about I try to ask it a little bit
16· ·bullets? 16· ·differently?
17· · · ·A.· I do not know. 17· · · ·A.· Thank you.
18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Putting aside any discussions 18· · · ·Q.· Are you aware of any discussions,
19· ·with your lawyers at the Attorney General's 19· ·internal discussions within the State Board of
20· ·Office, did the State Board engage in any 20· ·Elections, about the interests -- that occurred
21· ·discussions about the interests that the 21· ·about the interests that the current
22· ·current disenfranchisement scheme actually 22· ·disenfranchisement scheme serves in practice
23· ·serves in practice today before providing this 23· ·today before this list was provided?
24· ·list? 24· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. 25· · · ·A.· Yeah.· I mean, what do you mean by the


Page 170 Page 172
·1· ·practices? ·1· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
·2· · · ·Q.· We talked about a moment ago that the ·2· · · ·A.· In this case do you mean the agency or
·3· ·interrogatory asks about the governmental ·3· ·the Board?
·4· ·interests that support the current ·4· · · ·Q.· The agency.
·5· ·disenfranchisement scheme, right? ·5· · · ·A.· Then I do not know of such, no.
·6· · · ·A.· That we administer the law as it's ·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'm now going to turn to each of
·7· ·written. ·7· ·the interests, the six interests that we're
·8· · · ·Q.· Right.· But the interrogatory that we ·8· ·talking about.
·9· ·talked about up here asks for to state with ·9· · · · · ·Can you hear me?
10· ·specificity the purported government interests 10· · · ·A.· Now we can.
11· ·in denying disenfranchisement, right? 11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I have a mumbling problem that I
12· · · ·A.· Correct. 12· ·try to fight as much as I can.
13· · · ·Q.· And so my question is:· Are you aware 13· · · · · ·So do you see these interests listed
14· ·of any discussions within the State Board of 14· ·here on the bottom of page 4, onto page 5, that
15· ·Elections about what are the current -- the 15· ·says:· "Regulating, streamlining, and promoting
16· ·purported government interests in denying 16· ·voter registration and electoral participation
17· ·disenfranchised persons the right to vote today 17· ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies
18· ·before this list was provided? 18· ·who have been reformed"?
19· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Same objection.· Vague. 19· · · ·A.· I see that bullet point, yes.
20· · · ·A.· The only way I know -- the best answer 20· · · ·Q.· The State Board of Elections is the
21· ·I can give you is no.· The reason I asked about 21· ·primary agency in North Carolina that oversees
22· ·practices is because -- so we've established 22· ·voter registration, right?
23· ·that we are updating some of our forms.· So 23· · · ·A.· That's correct, along with the county
24· ·that would indicate discussion, but I don't 24· ·boards of elections.
25· ·believe it's to -- I don't think it is to the 25· · · ·Q.· And the State Board is an agency that
Page 171 Page 173

·1· ·legal framework that you're presenting. ·1· ·is knowledgeable about, quote, electoral
·2· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Did the State Board undertake ·2· ·participation of North Carolinians?
·3· ·any research or investigation into whether the ·3· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
·4· ·regime that plaintiffs seek would better serve ·4· · · ·A.· I was going to ask:· What do you define
·5· ·the interests listed in those six bullets that ·5· ·"electoral participation"?· Does that mean the
·6· ·we're talking about in the current ·6· ·percentage of turnout, or do you have another
·7· ·disenfranchisement scheme? ·7· ·definition?
·8· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection. ·8· · · ·Q.· Well, so this -- this -- you understand
·9· · · · · ·Karen, in answering this, if you have ·9· ·this bullet point was written by the State
10· · · ·knowledge about any research that was done 10· ·Board of Elections, right?
11· · · ·in connection with representation in this 11· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague and calls
12· · · ·case, then don't answer that question.· If 12· · · ·for a legal conclusion.
13· · · ·you have information independent of that, 13· · · ·A.· Actually, my assumption is that it was
14· · · ·that you can provide, you can answer that 14· ·written by the Attorney General's Office and
15· · · ·question. 15· ·not by the State Board of Elections.
16· · · ·A.· Actually, I do not have knowledge of 16· · · ·Q.· What was meant in this bullet point by
17· ·such. 17· ·the words "electoral participation"?
18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Putting aside any discussions 18· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
19· ·you had with your counsel at the Attorney 19· · · ·speculation.
20· ·General's Office, has the State Board engaged 20· · · ·A.· Any explanation of electoral
21· ·in any deliberations about whether the regime 21· ·participation would be voter turnout and
22· ·that plaintiffs seek in this case would better 22· ·participation in an election, what percentage
23· ·serve the interests listed in those six bullets 23· ·of participation.
24· ·than the current disenfranchisement scheme? 24· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So is the State Board of
25· · · ·A.· And in this case -- 25· ·Elections asserting that, as a factual matter


Page 174 Page 176
·1· ·in present day, that disenfranchisement of ·1· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Or may I request a break
·2· ·persons on probation, parole, or post-release ·2· · · ·to speak with my general counsel and not
·3· ·supervision regulates, streamlines, and ·3· · · ·with Mr. Cox?
·4· ·promotes voter registration and electoral ·4· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Paul, I will agree to
·5· ·participation among North Carolinians convicted ·5· · · ·that, that you can talk with her and I
·6· ·of felonies? ·6· · · ·won't seek that information.
·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Compound.· Vague. ·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay.
·8· · · ·A.· Actually, I would like to take a ·8· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay?
·9· ·moment.· I would like to speak with counsel to ·9· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you.
10· ·make sure that I'm understanding what I'm 10· · · · · ·(Recess from 12:51 to 12:55 p.m.)
11· ·representing here.· Not to your question, but 11· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm back.· I apologize.
12· ·to this line of questioning. 12· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· That's okay.
13· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Karen, do you need to talk to 13· · · · · ·Madam Court Reporter, are you ready?
14· · · ·make sure that you're not revealing any 14· · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes.
15· · · ·attorney-client information? 15· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· Would you like me
16· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's right. 16· · · ·to ask the question again, Ms. Bell?
17· · · · · ·MR. COX:· All right. 17· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, please.· Thank you.
18· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Paul, my understanding 18· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Sure.
19· · · ·is that communications during depositions 19· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
20· · · ·are not privileged.· So I want to find that 20· · · ·Q.· Is the State Board of Elections
21· · · ·out. 21· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present
22· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Well, if that's your -- if 22· ·day, the disenfranchisement of persons on
23· · · ·that's what you're -- if that's the 23· ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision
24· · · ·position you're going to take, then I won't 24· ·regulates, streamlines, and promotes voter
25· · · ·have a conversation with my client, but I 25· ·registration and electoral participation among
Page 175 Page 177

·1· ·will instruct her, if she is worried that ·1· ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies?
·2· ·she is going to reveal attorney-client ·2· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague and
·3· ·communications, not to answer the question. ·3· · · ·compound.
·4· ·And then I can find out whether she's wrong ·4· · · ·A.· I know you're going to get tired of
·5· ·with that. ·5· ·repeating, but I'd like to make sure that I'm
·6· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· So, Paul, under the ·6· ·hearing you correctly.· Will you state it
·7· ·protective order that was issued yesterday, ·7· ·again?
·8· ·Ms. Bell has to answer questions about ·8· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Sure.· And before I state it
·9· ·these bullet points as they relate to ·9· ·again, maybe I'll just -- what I'm asking is,
10· ·factual assertions, and that's exactly what 10· ·is the State Board asserting -- well, I'll just
11· ·my question was.· So she can't -- you can't 11· ·read the question again, actually --
12· ·instruct her not to answer. 12· · · ·A.· Okay.
13· · · ·MR. COX:· I can instruct her -- I can 13· · · ·Q.· -- rather than characterizing my own
14· ·always instruct her not to answer a 14· ·questions.
15· ·question if it's going to reveal 15· · · · · ·Is the State Board of Elections
16· ·attorney-client communications.· Nothing 16· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present
17· ·about this court order abridges the 17· ·day, the disenfranchisement of persons on
18· ·attorney-client privilege. 18· ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision
19· · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· Do you want to 19· ·regulates, streamlines, and promotes voter
20· ·take a break to talk with Ms. Bell, and 20· ·registration and electoral participation among
21· ·then we can resume? 21· ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies?
22· · · ·MR. COX:· Yeah.· Do you agree that I 22· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Compound.· Vague.
23· ·can talk with Ms. Bell and you're not going 23· · · ·A.· If you're asking whether the State has
24· ·to seek the information disclosed between 24· ·had a policy -- the State Board has developed a
25· ·us? 25· ·policy about this, I would answer no.


Page 178 Page 180
·1· · · ·Q.· Could you define to me what you mean by ·1· ·talking about promotes voter registration and
·2· ·the word "policy"? ·2· ·electoral participation among North Carolinians
·3· · · ·A.· Outside of administering the law, as it ·3· ·convicted of felonies -- so let's say somebody
·4· ·is written, the State Board has not developed ·4· ·asserts that -- and then the question is:· What
·5· ·other policy. ·5· ·factual evidence do you have to support that
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· How about this?· I'm going to ·6· ·assertion?
·7· ·take the three verbs in here one at a time. ·7· · · · · ·And so what I'm asking is:· Does the
·8· ·Because you see there's three verbs in here. ·8· ·State Board have any factual evidence that the
·9· · · ·A.· I do. ·9· ·disenfranchisement of people on community
10· · · ·Q.· Regulating, streamlining, and 10· ·supervision promotes voter registration and
11· ·promoting.· So I'm going to start with 11· ·electoral participation among North Carolinians
12· ·"promoting" or "promotes." 12· ·convicted of felonies?
13· · · · · ·Is the State Board asserting that, as a 13· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
14· ·factual matter, in present day, the 14· · · ·A.· So my previous response to you is that
15· ·disenfranchisement of persons on probation, 15· ·I don't believe the State Board has asserted or
16· ·parole, or post-release supervision promotes 16· ·taken a position that disenfranchisement
17· ·voter registration and electoral participation 17· ·promotes voter registration.
18· ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies? 18· · · ·Q.· Okay.
19· · · ·A.· I don't believe the State Board has 19· · · ·A.· So if we have not taken a position or
20· ·asserted one way or the other.· So I would 20· ·asserted, then I don't believe I can say that
21· ·defer to the Attorney General's Office who 21· ·we have factual information one way or the
22· ·wrote this interrogatory. 22· ·other either.
23· · · ·Q.· But, Ms. Bell, respectfully, I'm asking 23· · · ·Q.· So when you say "one way or the other,"
24· ·for the State Board's position, not the 24· ·am I correct that sitting here today, you do
25· ·position of the Attorney General's Office. 25· ·not have factual evidence you can cite to me
Page 179 Page 181

·1· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and ·1· ·that would support such an assertion?
·2· · · ·answered. ·2· · · ·A.· Not that I'm aware of.
·3· ·BY MR. JACOBSON: ·3· · · ·Q.· Okay.· In fact, Ms. Bell, doesn't
·4· · · ·Q.· Is the State Board asserting that, as a ·4· ·disenfranchising people on probation, parole,
·5· ·factual matter, sitting here today, the ·5· ·or post-release supervision prevent such people
·6· ·disenfranchisement of people on community ·6· ·registering to vote and participating in
·7· ·supervision promotes voter registration and ·7· ·elections?
·8· ·electoral participation among North Carolinians ·8· · · ·A.· I believe when you asked this earlier
·9· ·convicted of felonies? ·9· ·in your questioning, I identified that I don't
10· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and 10· ·know whether it promotes or discourages.· We
11· · · ·answered. 11· ·administer the law as it's written.
12· · · ·A.· I believe I stated that I don't believe 12· · · ·Q.· Ms. Bell, if somebody is
13· ·the State Board has asserted that one way or 13· ·disenfranchised, they're not allowed to vote,
14· ·the other -- has asserted or not. 14· ·right?
15· · · ·Q.· Does the State Board of Elections have 15· · · ·A.· That's correct.
16· ·any factual evidence that the 16· · · ·Q.· And they're not allowed to register to
17· ·disenfranchisement of people on probation, 17· ·vote?
18· ·parole, or post-release supervision promotes 18· · · ·A.· They can complete a voter registration
19· ·voter registration and electoral participation 19· ·form, but they may not be processed as a
20· ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies? 20· ·registered voter.
21· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. 21· · · ·Q.· So if you disenfranchise a person, it
22· · · ·A.· What do you mean by "factual 22· ·prevents them from registering to vote and
23· ·information"? 23· ·voting, correct?
24· · · ·Q.· So if one were to say, as an assertion, 24· · · ·A.· It prevents them from voting.
25· ·that the disenfranchisement of the people we're 25· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And wouldn't the regime that


Page 182 Page 184
·1· ·plaintiffs seek in this case, in which persons ·1· ·parole, or post-release supervision streamlines
·2· ·on community supervision are allowed to vote, ·2· ·voter registration and electoral participation
·3· ·wouldn't that better promote voter registration ·3· ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies?
·4· ·and electoral participation among such persons? ·4· · · ·A.· I don't know that we are asserting
·5· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for ·5· ·that.
·6· · · ·speculation. ·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board have any
·7· · · ·A.· I do believe you're asking me to make a ·7· ·factual evidence that disenfranchising people
·8· ·correlation that I don't know if there's a ·8· ·on probation, parole, or post-release
·9· ·direct correlation or not. ·9· ·supervision streamlines voter registration and
10· · · ·Q.· What does the word "promote" mean to 10· ·electoral participation among North Carolinians
11· ·you? 11· ·convicted of felonies?
12· · · ·A.· "Promote" means to encourage or to 12· · · ·A.· I cannot say yes to the question that
13· ·publicize -- it depends on what -- in what 13· ·you're asking.
14· ·context, but to promote means to -- it's -- 14· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board of
15· ·it's a forward motion.· It's a -- it's a move 15· ·Elections believe that the current
16· ·in that direction, so... 16· ·disenfranchisement scheme streamlines voter
17· · · ·Q.· So if you take somebody who is 17· ·registration and electoral participation among
18· ·currently not allowed to vote, and you tell 18· ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies more
19· ·them that they are allowed to vote, doesn't 19· ·than the regime sought by plaintiffs?
20· ·that promote their voter registration and 20· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· And this is
21· ·electoral participation? 21· · · ·outside the scope and it violates the
22· · · ·A.· Yes. 22· · · ·Court's order.
23· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So I'd like to now think of it 23· · · · · ·Karen, I'm going to instruct you not to
24· ·from the standpoint under the current law after 24· · · ·answer that question, because it requires
25· ·somebody's rights have been restored.· So when 25· · · ·you to do some legal analysis.
Page 183 Page 185

·1· ·they finish their felony probation, for ·1· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Paul, I'm asking as a
·2· ·instance, or post-release supervision. ·2· · · ·factual matter with the word
·3· · · · · ·Does the State Board have any factual ·3· · · ·"streamlining."
·4· ·evidence that having withheld that person's ·4· · · · · ·MR. COX:· I understand, Dan.· But
·5· ·voting rights for the duration of their ·5· · · ·you're asking her to interpret two
·6· ·community supervision promotes their voter ·6· · · ·different legal schemes and to apply those
·7· ·registration or electoral participation after ·7· · · ·legal schemes to a set of facts.· That's
·8· ·their rights are restored? ·8· · · ·why I'm objecting.· If you want to ask a
·9· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague and ·9· · · ·question that's purely factual in nature, I
10· · · ·confusing. 10· · · ·won't object.
11· · · ·A.· I don't know that we have that 11· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
12· ·information.· No, I do not know. 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· You recall how I defined the
13· · · ·Q.· I'll move on now to "streamline," the 13· ·regime that plaintiffs are seeking in this
14· ·verb "streamline" or "streamlining." 14· ·case; is that right?
15· · · · · ·Is the State Board asserting that, as a 15· · · ·A.· I do.
16· ·factual, in present day, the disenfranchisement 16· · · ·Q.· Does the State Board have any reason to
17· ·of persons on probation, parole, or 17· ·doubt that such a regime would streamline voter
18· ·post-release supervision streamlines voter 18· ·registration and electoral participation among
19· ·registration and electoral participation among 19· ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies?
20· ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies? 20· · · ·A.· The Board has not taken a position on
21· · · ·A.· I think -- actually, will you state 21· ·that regime, because that is not the law as we
22· ·your question one more time, please? 22· ·would administer.· So our ability to streamline
23· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Is the State Board of Elections 23· ·that process is not determined.
24· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, today, the 24· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And finally on the verb
25· ·disenfranchisement of people on probation, 25· ·"regulates."· Would you agree with me,


Page 186 Page 188
·1· ·Ms. Bell, that the regime that plaintiffs seek ·1· · · ·A.· State your question again, please.
·2· ·in this case would also, quote, regulate the ·2· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Is the State Board of Elections
·3· ·voter registration and electoral participation ·3· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present
·4· ·among North Carolinians convicted of felonies? ·4· ·day, the disenfranchisement of persons on
·5· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for ·5· ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision
·6· · · ·speculation. ·6· ·simplifies the administration of the process of
·7· · · ·A.· Be it your regime, or as it stands, ·7· ·restoring voting rights to people with felony
·8· ·that that is the administrative capacity of our ·8· ·convictions?
·9· ·agency, is to regulate the law in that -- as ·9· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
10· ·it's written. 10· · · ·A.· I don't -- I don't know that that's the
11· · · ·Q.· Okay. 11· ·assertion that's being made here.
12· · · ·A.· So that's all I can answer to is, we 12· · · ·Q.· What is the assertion that's being made
13· ·would administer the law as it's written. 13· ·here, in your view?
14· · · ·Q.· That's fine.· I'll move on now to 14· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
15· ·another bullet point.· And let's look at the 15· · · ·conclusion.
16· ·second one here, which is:· "Simplifying the 16· · · ·Q.· Let me ask it this way:· Ms. Bell, are
17· ·administration of the process to restore the 17· ·you -- I just want to make sure I understand
18· ·rights of citizenship to North Carolinians 18· ·your last answer -- are you saying that the
19· ·convicted of felonies who have served their 19· ·second bullet point listed here is asserting
20· ·sentences."· Do you see that one? 20· ·something different from what I asked?
21· · · ·A.· I do. 21· · · ·A.· I'm saying that what you may define as
22· · · ·Q.· And, Ms. Bell, isn't it the case that 22· ·simplifying may not be what I define as
23· ·the State Board of Elections administers the 23· ·simplifying.
24· ·process of both preventing people with felony 24· · · ·Q.· Okay.· How would you define
25· ·convictions from voting and then allowing them 25· ·"simplifying"?
Page 187 Page 189

·1· ·to reregister to vote once they've completed ·1· · · ·A.· My perspective, as the executive
·2· ·their sentences? ·2· ·director, is that simplifying could be
·3· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. ·3· ·efficiencies in how we administer a process.
·4· · · ·A.· That is -- we do administer. ·4· ·Or it could be -- simplified could be the fact
·5· · · ·Q.· Okay. ·5· ·that we use technology even though that's not a
·6· · · ·A.· Yes. ·6· ·simple process.
·7· · · ·Q.· And is the State Board of Elections ·7· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And so under your definition of
·8· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·8· ·"simplify," whatever that is, is the State
·9· ·day, the disenfranchisement of persons on ·9· ·Board of Elections asserting that, as a factual
10· ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision 10· ·matter, in present day, the disenfranchisement
11· ·simplifies the administration of the process of 11· ·of people on community supervision simplifies
12· ·restoring voting rights to persons with felony 12· ·the administration of the process of restoring
13· ·convictions? 13· ·voting rights to people with felony
14· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. 14· ·convictions?
15· · · ·A.· As I read this bullet point, what the 15· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
16· ·State Board is asserting is that we are charged 16· · · ·A.· I will state that I don't believe the
17· ·with the administration of the process. 17· ·State Board has issued a policy or made an
18· · · ·Q.· Well, Ms. Bell, the bullet point says 18· ·assertion to that.
19· ·"simplify."· And so what I'm asking is:· Is the 19· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board of
20· ·State Board asserting, as a factual matter, 20· ·Elections have any factual evidence that
21· ·today, disenfranchising people on community 21· ·disenfranchising people on probation, parole,
22· ·supervision, simplifies the administration of 22· ·or post-release supervision simplifies the
23· ·the process of restoring voting rights? 23· ·administration of the process of restoring
24· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.· Misstates 24· ·voting rights?
25· · · ·the evidence. 25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.


Page 190 Page 192
·1· · · ·A.· I do not know. ·1· ·simplify the process or reduce the process.
·2· · · ·Q.· So sitting here today, there's no ·2· ·There may be other elements introduced.
·3· ·factual evidence you could point me to? ·3· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll turn now to another bullet
·4· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and ·4· ·in the top -- the first full bullet on page 5,
·5· · · ·answered. ·5· ·which says:· "Avoiding confusion among North
·6· · · ·A.· I do not know.· I would defer to the ·6· ·Carolinians convicted of felonies as to when
·7· ·Attorney General's Office. ·7· ·their rights are restored."
·8· · · ·Q.· But in your capacity -- and I'm sorry ·8· · · · · ·Do you see that?
·9· ·to keep asking -- but in your capacity as, you ·9· · · ·A.· I do.
10· ·know, a designated witness for the State Board 10· · · ·Q.· And is it correct, Ms. Bell, that the
11· ·of Elections, sitting here today, you can't 11· ·State Board of Elections interacts with voters
12· ·personally point me to any evidence, factual 12· ·who may have confusion about their eligibility
13· ·evidence, that disenfranchising people on 13· ·to vote due to a felony conviction?
14· ·community supervision simplifies administration 14· · · ·A.· It's correct that the State Board of
15· ·of the process of restoring voting rights? 15· ·Elections interacts with voters, felon or not
16· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.· Asked and 16· ·felon.
17· · · ·answered. 17· · · ·Q.· But including voters who may have
18· · · ·A.· I cannot.· To me, the question is about 18· ·confusion about their eligibility, right?
19· ·the administration of elections. 19· · · ·A.· Yes.
20· · · ·Q.· Okay. 20· · · ·Q.· Is the Board of Elections asserting
21· · · ·A.· Or bullet point, rather.· I'm sorry. 21· ·that, as a factual matter, in present day, the
22· · · ·Q.· That's okay.· You recall that we talked 22· ·disenfranchisement of people on probation,
23· ·about earlier about how, under the regime that 23· ·parole, or post-release supervision avoids
24· ·plaintiffs seek, the state and county boards of 24· ·confusion among North Carolinians convicted of
25· ·elections may need to process data on far fewer 25· ·felonies as to when their rights are restored?
Page 191 Page 193

·1· ·people, maybe as much as half as many people, ·1· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
·2· ·because those people wouldn't be sentenced to a ·2· · · ·A.· State your question again, please.
·3· ·term of imprisonment?· Do you remember that? ·3· · · ·Q.· Is the North Carolina Board of
·4· · · ·A.· I believe you presented that as a ·4· ·Elections asserting that, as a factual matter,
·5· ·hypothetical. ·5· ·in present day, the disenfranchisement of
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So assuming, again, that that ·6· ·people on probation, parole, or post-release
·7· ·hypothetical, you know, under that ·7· ·supervision avoids confusion among North
·8· ·hypothetical, processing data on fewer people ·8· ·Carolinians convicted of felonies as to when
·9· ·makes administration of the process easier, ·9· ·their rights are restored?
10· ·right? 10· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
11· · · ·A.· I believe I answered your previous 11· · · ·A.· I don't believe that the State Board
12· ·question to say that I would want to look into 12· ·has stated one way or the other that the
13· ·that more and make sure that I understand what 13· ·disenfranchisement of felons avoids confusion,
14· ·those changes would mean and whether that would 14· ·if that's your question.
15· ·change our processes. 15· · · ·Q.· So I just want to clarify, because you
16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· But everything else being 16· ·said the disenfranchisement of felons, and my
17· ·equal -- and I hear what you're saying -- but 17· ·question is specific to the disenfranchisement
18· ·everything else being equal, processing data on 18· ·of people with felony convictions who are on
19· ·fewer people makes administration of any 19· ·some form of community service.
20· ·process easier, right? 20· · · ·A.· Okay.· So your clarification, go ahead,
21· · · ·A.· I don't believe I can concur with that, 21· ·please.
22· ·because it -- are we comparing apples to 22· · · ·Q.· So with that clarification, is the
23· ·apples?· Are the procedures going to change in 23· ·State Board asserting that, as a factual
24· ·terms of what we would need to administer? 24· ·matter, in present day, the disenfranchisement
25· ·Reducing the quantity doesn't necessarily 25· ·of such people who are on community supervision


Page 194 Page 196
·1· ·avoids confusion among North Carolinians ·1· · · ·A.· Yes.
·2· ·convicted of felonies as to when their rights ·2· · · ·Q.· And you can correct me if I'm wrong,
·3· ·are restored? ·3· ·but I think you've acknowledged that it's at
·4· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. ·4· ·least possible that some persons would be -- on
·5· · · ·A.· I don't believe that the State Board ·5· ·post-release supervision would be confused by
·6· ·has asserted that disenfranchising such persons ·6· ·that omission?
·7· ·avoids confusion. ·7· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates prior
·8· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board have any ·8· · · ·testimony.
·9· ·factual evidence that disenfranchising people ·9· · · ·A.· I don't -- I don't recall that I stated
10· ·on probation, parole, or post-release 10· ·that.
11· ·supervision avoids confusion among persons 11· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll just ask you, then.· Do you
12· ·convicted of felonies about their eligibility 12· ·believe it's, at least, possible that some
13· ·to vote? 13· ·people on post-release supervision could be
14· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. 14· ·confused by the omission of post-release
15· · · ·A.· I don't know of factual evidence about 15· ·supervision on those forms and manuals?
16· ·the enfranchise or disenfranchisement, if such 16· · · ·A.· I believe I stated that I don't know
17· ·person exists. 17· ·whether that creates confusion or not.
18· · · ·Q.· So my question was a little bit 18· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Ms. Bell, do you agree that
19· ·different.· It was about avoiding confusion. 19· ·compared to the current disenfranchisement
20· · · · · ·And so my question is:· Does the State 20· ·scheme, a much less confusing role would be
21· ·Board have any factual evidence that 21· ·that if you're not in prison, you're allowed to
22· ·disenfranchising people on community 22· ·vote?
23· ·supervision avoids confusion? 23· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
24· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. 24· · · ·speculation.
25· · · ·A.· I don't know of factual evidence -- 25· · · ·A.· Would you state your question one more
Page 195 Page 197

·1· · · ·Q.· Okay. ·1· ·time, please?
·2· · · ·A.· -- that we have to that effect of ·2· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Would you agree that compared to
·3· ·disenfranchising such persons avoids confusion. ·3· ·the current scheme, a much less confusing role
·4· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And do you recall that we talked ·4· ·would be that if you're not incarcerated or in
·5· ·earlier about the examples and high-profile ·5· ·prison, you're allowed to vote?
·6· ·examples of whether people who voted who ·6· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
·7· ·weren't allowed to vote and were prosecuted who ·7· · · ·speculation.
·8· ·said that they just didn't know that they ·8· · · ·A.· I don't -- one, I don't think I have a
·9· ·ineligible?· Do you remember that? ·9· ·point of comparison, because we have not had
10· · · ·A.· I remember that news article, yes. 10· ·the regime that you suggest to determine
11· · · ·Q.· And, you know, with the Alamance 12 and 11· ·whether that would create confusion or not.
12· ·the four individuals in Hoke County?· Do you 12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Well, let's think about this
13· ·remember that? 13· ·from the perspective of election administrators
14· · · ·A.· Yes. 14· ·and poll workers and so on.· And, actually, I
15· · · ·Q.· So as to those individuals, the current 15· ·think they're active workers.
16· ·disenfranchisement scheme did not avoid 16· · · · · ·Wouldn't it be much less confusing for
17· ·confusion, right? 17· ·them to just know that if somebody is not
18· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for 18· ·incarcerated, they're allowed to vote?
19· · · ·speculation. 19· · · ·A.· As compared to?
20· · · ·A.· I don't think I can make that 20· · · ·Q.· Just in general.· If somebody shows up
21· ·determination based upon one news article. 21· ·to vote in person, that means they're not
22· · · ·Q.· Okay.· You recall that we talked 22· ·incarcerated, right?
23· ·earlier about how some of the State Board's 23· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Is that a question?
24· ·forms and manuals failed to mention 24· ·BY MR. JACOBSON:
25· ·post-release supervision, right? 25· · · ·Q.· I'll ask a question.· If somebody shows


Page 198 Page 200
·1· ·up at a polling place, they're not ·1· · · ·evidence and is vague.
·2· ·incarcerated, right?· We can agree on that? ·2· · · · · ·Actually, I'll withdraw the "Misstates
·3· · · ·A.· We would assume that. ·3· · · ·the evidence," because I don't think that
·4· · · ·Q.· I mean, unless -- ·4· · · ·you're referring to that.· My bad, Dan.
·5· · · ·A.· There was a gentleman who was ·5· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· No problem.
·6· ·incarcerated who was out and about last week, ·6· · · ·A.· State your question one more time.
·7· ·so... ·7· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Is the State Board of Election
·8· · · ·Q.· Okay.· As a general matter, unless the ·8· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present
·9· ·State Board of Elections is planning on opening ·9· ·day, the disenfranchisement of people on
10· ·polling places in prisons, we can agree that if 10· ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision
11· ·a person shows up at a polling place, they're 11· ·eliminates burdens on North Carolinians
12· ·not physically incarcerated, right? 12· ·convicted of felonies to take extra steps to
13· · · ·A.· That would -- I think that would be the 13· ·have their rights restored after having
14· ·assumption, yes. 14· ·completed their sentences?
15· · · ·Q.· And so wouldn't it be very simple for 15· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.
16· ·election officials to know that because that 16· · · ·A.· I don't believe the State Board is
17· ·person is not incarcerated, they're not 17· ·asserting that.· I think -- I don't believe the
18· ·disqualified by virtue of a felony conviction? 18· ·State Board is asserting that.
19· · · ·A.· Did you ask if it would be easier?· Was 19· · · ·Q.· Does the State Board of Elections have
20· ·that your question? 20· ·any factual evidence that disenfranchising
21· · · ·Q.· Would it be straightforward?· You're an 21· ·people on probation, parole, or post-release
22· ·election official, right?· You can just know, 22· ·supervision eliminates burdens on North
23· ·if the person is here physically, they're not 23· ·Carolinians convicted of felonies to take extra
24· ·incarcerated, and so they're not disqualified 24· ·steps to have their rights restored?
25· ·because of any felony conviction. 25· · · ·A.· I do not know.
Page 199 Page 201

·1· · · ·A.· No matter -- ·1· · · ·Q.· So sitting here today, you can't point
·2· · · ·Q.· When that -- ·2· ·me to any factual evidence of such?
·3· · · ·A.· No matter the circumstance, it's going ·3· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Asked and
·4· ·to still be our job to ensure that they meet ·4· · · ·answered.
·5· ·the qualifications. ·5· · · · · ·Karen, you can answer that question
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay. ·6· · · ·again.
·7· · · ·A.· So I don't determine -- just like I ·7· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I'm reading the
·8· ·don't determine age by looking at someone. I ·8· · · ·statement.
·9· ·ask that question. ·9· · · ·A.· I do not know.
10· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll turn to the next bullet -- 10· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Under the regime that plaintiffs
11· ·or a bullet here:· "Eliminating burdens on 11· ·seek in this case, where you're eligible to
12· ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies to take 12· ·vote if you're not in prison, does the State
13· ·extra steps to have their rights restored after 13· ·Board have any evidence or reason to believe
14· ·having completed their sentences." 14· ·that that would impose additional burdens on
15· · · · · ·Do you see that? 15· ·North Carolinians convicted of felonies to take
16· · · ·A.· I do. 16· ·extra steps to have their rights restored?
17· · · ·Q.· Is the State Board of Elections 17· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
18· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present 18· · · ·speculation.
19· ·day, the disenfranchisement of people on 19· · · ·A.· Since that has not been the law, we
20· ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision 20· ·would not have anything to come to for that.
21· ·eliminates burdens on North Carolinians 21· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll turn to the second-to-last
22· ·convicted of felonies to take extra steps to 22· ·one now:· "Encouraging compliance with court
23· ·have their rights restored after having 23· ·orders."
24· ·completed their sentence? 24· · · · · ·Do you see that?
25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Misstates the 25· · · ·A.· I do.


Page 202 Page 204
·1· · · ·Q.· Is the State Board of Elections ·1· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board have any
·2· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·2· ·factual evidence that withholding voting rights
·3· ·day, the disenfranchisement of people on ·3· ·to people on probation, parole, or post-release
·4· ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision ·4· ·supervision leads to greater compliance with
·5· ·encourages compliance with court orders? ·5· ·court orders?
·6· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. ·6· · · ·A.· I don't know that we have evidence one
·7· · · ·A.· Do you want to clarify? ·7· ·way or the other.
·8· · · ·Q.· I can repeat the question. ·8· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Does the State Board have any
·9· · · ·A.· Okay. ·9· ·evidence that the disenfranchisement regime
10· · · ·Q.· Does the State Board of Elections -- 10· ·that plaintiffs are seeking in this case would
11· ·I'm sorry.· Is the State Board of Elections 11· ·be to less compliance with court orders?
12· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present 12· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for
13· ·day, the disenfranchisement of people on 13· · · ·speculation.
14· ·probation, parole, or post-release supervision 14· · · ·A.· I don't know that we have anything one
15· ·encourages compliance with court orders? 15· ·way or the other.
16· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague. 16· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Last one:· "Ensuring that all
17· · · ·A.· I don't think that there's an assertion 17· ·persons convicted of felonies fully satisfy
18· ·here.· I think that what this states is that we 18· ·their obligations before their citizenship
19· ·are ensuring the compliance with court orders 19· ·rights are restored."
20· ·that would not allow someone to vote if they 20· · · · · ·Do you see that?
21· ·are a felon as the law is written. 21· · · ·A.· Yes.
22· · · ·Q.· So I'm going to ask you to assume that 22· · · ·Q.· What does "obligations" mean in this
23· ·"court orders" in this sentence refers to the 23· ·bullet point?
24· ·terms of somebody's probation or parole or 24· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
25· ·post-release supervision.· You know, you have 25· · · ·conclusion.· Calls for speculation.
Page 203 Page 205

·1· ·to be present once a week before your officer, ·1· · · ·A.· The way I read this bullet point is
·2· ·you owe this amount of money, et cetera, ·2· ·that the State Board and, therefore, the county
·3· ·et cetera. ·3· ·boards of elections, ensure that all persons
·4· · · · · ·Will you accept that representation? ·4· ·convicted of felony offenses fully satisfy
·5· · · ·A.· I will. ·5· ·their obligations before their rights of
·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So if that's what "court orders" ·6· ·citizenship are restored.· So if they are
·7· ·means here, is the State Board asserting that, ·7· ·registering to vote, if they are able to answer
·8· ·as a factual matter, in present day, the ·8· ·the question regarding their status of -- their
·9· ·disenfranchisement of people on community ·9· ·felony status.
10· ·supervision encourages compliance with court 10· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And that's -- and just to
11· ·orders? 11· ·clarify, that's what "obligation" means here?
12· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for 12· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Call for a legal
13· · · ·speculation.· Vague. 13· · · ·conclusion.· Calls for speculation.
14· · · ·A.· If the court order is that they have 14· · · ·A.· That would be my interpretation, that
15· ·not completed their sentence, then we are 15· ·that is not -- I don't know what the legal
16· ·administering the law as it's written. 16· ·definition would be.
17· · · ·Q.· But is the State Board asserting that 17· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Is the State Board of Elections
18· ·the fact that disenfranchisement encourages 18· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present
19· ·individuals convicted of felonies to comply 19· ·day, disenfranchising people on community
20· ·with the terms of their probation, parole, or 20· ·supervision ensures that all people convicted
21· ·post-release supervision? 21· ·of felonies fully satisfy their obligations
22· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Calls for 22· ·before their rights of citizenship are
23· · · ·speculation.· Vague. 23· ·restored?
24· · · ·A.· I don't know that the State Board has 24· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Objection.· Vague.· Calls for
25· ·asserted that. 25· · · ·speculation.


Page 206 Page 208
·1· · · ·A.· State your question one more time, ·1· · · ·Q.· Do you know whether those investigators
·2· ·please. ·2· ·were relying on the same data that the State
·3· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Is the State Board of Elections ·3· ·Board of Elections gets to identify people
·4· ·asserting that, as a factual matter, in present ·4· ·serving an active sentence and are registered
·5· ·day, ensuring that disenfranchising people on ·5· ·voters when they perform that audit to make
·6· ·community supervision ensures that all people ·6· ·those determinations about people who voted
·7· ·convicted of felony offenses fully satisfy ·7· ·while serving a felony sentence?
·8· ·their obligations before their rights of ·8· · · ·A.· I don't know precisely what all data
·9· ·citizenship are restored? ·9· ·was used.· I would assume that that was part of
10· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Same objections. 10· ·the data, if not all.· I don't know.
11· · · ·A.· As the law is written currently, which 11· · · ·Q.· But you don't know for sure?
12· ·we administer, community supervision or 12· · · ·A.· I don't know for sure.
13· ·community -- I believe you said community 13· · · ·Q.· Just a couple of quick questions.
14· ·supervision or community service? 14· · · · · ·Roughly how long do you think you spent
15· · · ·Q.· Community supervision, yeah. 15· ·preparing for this deposition between
16· · · ·A.· Community supervision would mean that 16· ·conversations with attorneys, conversations
17· ·they had not fulfilled their obligations and, 17· ·with staff, reviewing the materials, and any
18· ·therefore, would not be allowed to register to 18· ·other preparation you undertook?
19· ·vote. 19· · · ·A.· I would say, including the time that I
20· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Okay.· I believe I'm 20· ·spent reading documents, 8 to 10, maybe
21· · · ·done with questions, but I'd like to take 21· ·12 hours.
22· · · ·two minutes just to confer with my 22· · · ·Q.· And if you can just kind of give us a
23· · · ·colleagues to make sure I didn't miss 23· ·general synopsis of the things you weren't able
24· · · ·anything. 24· ·to do today because you were preparing -- or
25· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay. 25· ·today or yesterday or any day before that --
Page 207 Page 209

·1· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Let's go off the record ·1· ·because you were preparing for this deposition
·2· · · ·for two minutes. ·2· ·or upon conducting your deposition?
·3· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Sure. ·3· · · ·A.· I postponed meetings pertaining to the
·4· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Thanks. ·4· ·absentee by mail envelope that we need to have
·5· · · · · ·(Recess from 1:33 to 1:36 p.m.) ·5· ·sent to printers this week.
·6· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Back on the record. ·6· · · · · ·I've postponed a meeting dealing with
·7· · · · · ·Plaintiffs have no further questions ·7· ·voter registration and enhancements in our
·8· · · ·for now subject to reserving the right to ·8· ·SEIMS system that we need to have out.· We need
·9· · · ·re-cross if anyone else asks questions. ·9· ·to have tested, developed -- or excuse me --
10· · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION 10· ·developed, tested, and ready to go out during
11· ·BY MR. COX: 11· ·our release on August 28th.
12· · · ·Q.· Okay.· I'll ask just a couple of 12· · · · · ·I postponed a meeting dealing with our
13· ·questions, Karen. 13· ·help desk process improvement and incident
14· · · · · ·And for the record, this is Paul Cox 14· ·escalation.
15· ·from the Attorney General's Office. 15· · · · · ·I am not able to work on the tracking
16· · · · · ·Do you recall that you and Mr. Jacobson 16· ·of our responses to COVID-19.
17· ·were discussing a 2017 audit report produced by 17· · · · · ·We have numerous follow-ups after
18· ·the State Board of Elections? 18· ·awarding our CARES Act funds to the counties.
19· · · ·A.· I do. 19· · · · · ·I am currently trying to work with
20· · · ·Q.· Do you recall that there was a 20· ·possible income contributions for our PPE, and
21· ·discussion about false positives in terms of 21· ·I can't do that while I'm in depositions.
22· ·the number of people that the investigators 22· · · · · ·We have a new director of training
23· ·determined had voted illegally because they 23· ·going on that I could not further participate
24· ·were serving a felony sentence? 24· ·in.
25· · · ·A.· I do. 25· · · · · ·We have a state conference that's


Page 210
·1· ·coming up that I need to be prepared for.
·2· · · · · ·I could go on, but that's some of the
·3· ·things that immediately come to mind.
·4· · · · · ·MR. COX:· Okay.· Thank you.· No further
·5· · · ·questions.
·6· · · · · ·Brian, do you have any questions?
·7· · · · · ·MR. RABINOVITZ:· There are no questions
·8· · · ·from the legislative defendants.
·9· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· Nothing further from the
10· · · ·plaintiffs.
11· · · · · ·Ms. Bell, I truly do appreciate your
12· · · ·time today.· Thank you.
13· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you.
14· · · · · ·MR. JACOBSON:· So plaintiffs will take
15· · · ·one copy, and you can send it to me.
16· · · · · ·MR. COX:· And defendants will take one
17· · · ·copy, electronic.
18· · · · · ·(Time noted: 1:42 p.m.)
19· · · · · ·(Signature waived.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 211
·1· · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
·2
·3· ·NORTH CAROLINA· )
·4· ·WAKE COUNTY· · ·)
·5
·6· · · · · · I, Denise Y. Meek, a Court Reporter and
· · ·Notary Public in and for the State of North Carolina,
·7· ·do hereby certify that prior to the commencement of
· · ·the examination, KAREN BRINSON BELL, was duly
·8· ·remotely sworn by me to testify to the truth, the
· · ·whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
·9
· · · · · · · I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is a
10· ·verbatim transcript of the testimony as taken
· · ·stenographically by me at the time, place, and on the
11· ·date hereinbefore set forth, to the best of my
· · ·ability.
12
· · · · · · · I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a
13· ·relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any
· · ·of the parties to this action, and that I am neither
14· ·a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel
· · ·hereto, and that I am not financially interested in
15· ·the action.
16· · · · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my
· · ·hand this 31st day of July 2020.
17
18
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
19· · · · · · · · · · · · · · DENISE Y. MEEK
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Court Reporter/Notary Public
20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · State of North Carolina
21
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · COMMISSION:· 201519500202
22· · · · · · · · · · · · · · EXPIRATION:· July 8, 2025
23
24
25


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: 1..7
132 102:10 207:17 23 92:5
1 161:2,3
14 145:11 2018 132:13
172:14
1 7:23 8:25 17 124:4 2019 12:23
12:23 139:19 16:4 40 96:10
83:13 144:21 405 112:3
1994 83:20,
86:23
25 84:16 2020 72:12 406 127:25
1.a 7:25 99:9 128:3
1:33 207:5
1.f 8:1 124:4,22 408 76:16
1:36 207:5 125:16
10 91:2 409 72:24
1:42 210:18 126:8
208:20 128:6
21 71:22
100 13:8,10 2 441 76:19
77:19,20, 256 103:6 77:4,20
25 78:5 2 51:20 282 34:7
131:15 5
20 78:4 283 39:18
10:02 52:3 80:1,8
286 28:13 5 83:13
11:16 110:6 81:19 82:4
40:16 86:23
11:26 110:4 2006 19:13, 172:14
28th 209:11
24 192:4
11:28 110:6
2011 17:12 3 50 154:3
12 19:21 19:14
129:25 3 72:23 537 98:4,12
130:2,9,14 2015 17:12
30 96:10 541 77:3,4,
132:20 2016 16:3 16,20 78:5
195:11 71:20 30(b)(6)
208:21 72:1,3 7:22 8:3, 557 99:13
12:24 159:5 80:21 13 558 100:3
81:17 303 106:24
12:32 159:5 130:4 6
12:51 176:10 333 53:10
2017 71:22
351 91:1 6 99:20
12:55 176:10 119:13
13 132:12 122:17 352 83:11
123:14,16 7
143:22
124:3,5,12 4
13-1 8:7,9, 7 119:16
125:13
15 159:17,24
126:5 4 91:5,21,


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: 8..advising
accept 124:8,15 186:23
8 65:19,21, 126:2 administration
23 143:6 128:11 13:7
8 208:20
149:8,17 150:22 16:13,16,
80 154:6 152:7,15, 153:1 21 17:23
20 160:17 197:15 22:25
9 203:4 208:4 45:10
access 39:5 actual 20:2 148:17
9 130:9
accurate 160:10 186:17
9:55 52:3 187:11,17,
10:8 add 156:6
27:12,20 22 188:6
A adding 156:4 189:12,23
52:25 53:5
71:15 83:1 additional 190:14,19
a.m. 52:3 157:17 191:9,19
110:6 92:3 95:1
98:25 201:14 administrative
abbreviated 102:17 14:12
address
73:11 115:7 42:11,17, 120:3,6
abbreviation acknowledged 25 114:7,9 146:15
73:12 196:3 121:4 186:8
ability administer administrator
Act 83:20
27:12,20 84:17 14:6,7 135:5
43:17 209:18 17:21 18:9 137:23
52:24 53:5 45:6 140:8 administrators
87:9 actions 146:16 16:12
102:17 122:5 170:6 140:8
147:14,25 active 181:11 197:13
148:16 31:10,20 185:22
185:22 32:5,9,20 186:13 admit 73:16
33:15,19 187:4 75:5
abridges
175:17 34:2 38:6, 189:3 advice 93:23
17 42:7,8 191:24 advisable
absentee 74:9 75:11 206:12
94:22 93:13,18,
76:1 78:23 administering 22
95:11 96:1 116:17
110:21 178:3 advise 54:19
121:24 203:16
111:17 122:7,22 advising
209:4 123:6,18 administers 41:2,6


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: affirm..application
affirm 133:7 156:20 and/or 83:17
118:14,22 134:10,19 181:13,16 86:5 87:1
122:6 136:19 182:2,18, another's
124:14 138:6 19 195:7 48:12
125:8 142:3,10 196:21
144:3 197:5,18 answering
affirmation
175:22 206:18 50:20
91:4 104:21
176:4 allowing
affirmatively 185:25 165:6
80:25 186:25 166:21
196:18
162:24 197:2 aloud 76:20 171:9
163:24 198:2,10 121:14,15 answers
afraid ahead 32:14 alter 125:17 24:19
131:16 59:21 126:10 105:19
133:4,25 97:19 146:6 AOC 127:3
African 106:22 altered apologize
130:10,25 168:4,7,8 93:19 94:4 121:6
169:1
AG's 163:20 Altering 176:11
193:20
age 199:8 147:6 apparently
Alamance
agencies amend 110:15 121:1
129:25
150:9 130:3 amended appears
agency 15:20 131:4 110:19,20 82:25
17:5,8 195:11 111:14 appendix
50:4,18 159:16 119:16
allegedly
51:11 130:21 American Apple 106:19
73:17 130:10,25
allowed apples
163:21 amount
13:25 15:5 191:22,23
168:11,18 158:23
58:13
172:2,4, 203:2 application
59:19,24
21,25 54:21
85:22 analogous
186:9 94:22
105:14,20, 63:1
agree 48:1,6 112:11
23 136:21
96:8 analysis 135:10
138:25
104:23 81:10 141:1
146:21
118:8 184:25 144:11,18
151:5,20
131:3 145:12
152:5


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: applies..attorney's
applies 180:15,20 19:19 attention
93:15 194:6 assisted 83:12
apply 85:21 203:25 20:14 96:16
95:10 96:1 asserting 107:19
associate 131:5,7
185:6 173:25 109:8
176:21 145:11
April 71:22 association
177:10,16 attest 36:3
area 158:12 178:13 104:18 59:22 60:3
areas 129:14 179:4 assume 56:7, 61:4 76:7
183:15,24 11 77:25 100:24
Argumentative
184:4 82:1,2 attested
126:21
187:8,16, 104:9 61:7 62:9
arises 122:1 20 188:3, 117:18
19 189:9 attesting
Arnold 6:10 198:3
192:20 202:22 63:10
article
193:4,23 208:9 attests
131:25
199:18 60:2,10
132:11,18 assumed 16:3
200:8,17,
134:2 attorney
18 202:2, Assumes
195:10,21 13:20 6:5,22 9:9
12 203:7,
48:21 95:4 21:24
articles 17 205:18
22:13
130:17 206:4 assuming 44:15
asks 101:2 assertion 81:12 130:19
160:1,19 49:3 191:6 162:2,5,
170:3,9 179:24 assumption 12,16
207:9 180:6 104:22 163:3
aspect 15:4 181:1 173:13 166:14
21:5 188:11,12 198:14 167:9,19
189:18 169:4
Assembly assurance
202:17 171:19
84:1 50:19,23
assertions 173:14
assert 80:17 Atkinson 178:21,25
7:25
90:7 124:4 6:13 26:18 190:7
175:10
157:23 attachment 207:15
asserts
asserted 119:12 attorney's
180:4
178:20 attempts 53:15,24
179:13,14 assigned
58:18 54:8 57:21


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: attorney-client..Bates
58:10 209:11 126:1 95:11
59:9,16 authority 129:18,22 ballots 20:4
60:12 61:3 55:24 130:2,9, 96:1
attorney- 93:10 13,18,24
138:16,22 ballpark
client
Authorization 139:19 35:23
174:15
99:21 140:1,3 based 18:10,
175:2,16,
18 avoid 73:21 144:20 12 40:12
195:16 145:2 44:7,8
attorneys
148:24 62:16 63:5
122:3 avoiding
151:16 78:2 82:5
128:25 192:5
154:25 93:3
162:1 194:19
155:4 122:19
208:16 avoids 156:12 136:17
audio 27:15 192:23 162:4,24 146:5,7,9
193:7,13 169:18 153:10
audit 71:8,
194:1,7, 170:13 195:21
19 72:2,
11,23 181:2
10,12,19 basis 36:6,
195:3
74:12 12 56:24
75:20 awaiting B 74:16 75:9
76:4,5,6 141:12 78:22
back 34:6
79:25 awarding 80:18
38:1 40:16
80:5,15, 209:18 148:20
62:13
22,24 157:4
aware 9:21 76:15
81:25
10:5 23:13 90:25 Bates 28:13
119:12
44:19,25 109:11 34:7 53:10
127:18,22
45:12 66:5 110:4,8,14 72:24
207:17
69:20 112:1 76:16
208:5
83:25 127:16 83:11
audits 72:8, 97:10 158:19,21 97:24 98:4
17 74:1,5 108:15,25 159:7 99:13
75:19,23 112:24 176:11 100:3
76:8 78:12 113:13 207:6 102:10
79:5 81:6, 117:7 103:5
bad 46:2
9 82:13,14 121:21,22 106:24
200:4
August 122:5 112:3
125:24 ballot 20:9 127:25
132:12


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Bear..board
128:2 88:12,18 175:8,20, 18 43:2
Bear 78:18 90:3 91:2, 23 176:16 44:4 46:5,
22 92:12 178:23 12,13,17,
began 12:23 93:8 94:18 181:3,12 23 47:3,7,
begin 111:5 95:9,24 186:1,22 17,20,21
98:5,18 187:18 49:17,24
begins
99:3,19 188:16 50:12
121:16
100:4 192:10 53:1,6,13
149:2,16
102:12 196:18 55:4,12,16
begun 11:8 103:7 210:11 56:2,12,
behalf 6:23 104:1 Biennial 17,18,22
107:2 52:10 57:5,10
believes
108:15 62:4,5,25
129:9 bit 26:14
110:7 64:2 67:4,
Bell 7:1,9 112:4 52:17 53:3 14,22 68:3
9:2,7,12 114:21 82:16 69:7,17
13:23 117:12 103:12 70:4,5,18,
14:24 119:9,20 169:15 19 71:16,
15:11 121:11 194:18 19 72:2,7,
23:12 34:8 122:16 blanket 11,13,20
35:16 123:3 80:14 73:7,13
39:19 126:14 75:9 77:2,
board 6:6
40:23 41:5 127:4,20 15 78:10,
8:5,22
49:10 129:18 21,25
12:20
51:14 133:1 79:13
13:6,9
52:6,14 134:10 83:2,6
14:10
53:11 138:15 89:7 90:5
15:3,11
62:4,10 140:19 93:9,14,25
19:12 21:6
63:19 141:17 94:3 95:2,
23:14,22
64:17 142:19 9 97:6
25:4,5,13
66:15 144:20 99:1,4
26:2
71:2,7,18, 145:20 102:18
27:13,21,
25 73:1 148:24 103:1,3
23 28:2,3,
78:15,17, 157:3 107:6,10,
18,24
20 82:22 159:11,19 13 112:9
29:11,23
83:5,12,19 160:9 113:24
36:19 37:1
84:7,15 161:22 115:8,12
40:9,14
85:19 86:1 166:12 119:7
41:10,17,


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Board's..bullet
120:11,17 13,19 boards 13:8, briefed
122:20 179:4,13, 10 43:12 21:12
123:4,17 15 180:8, 44:10 45:1 bring 23:4
124:6,12, 15 183:3, 53:21
21 125:13, 15,23 54:5,11 Brinson 9:2,
15,24,25 184:6,14 56:3,6 12 90:2
126:9,25 185:16,20 67:15 broad 118:5
127:1 186:23 68:13
broadly 16:9
128:23 187:7,16, 69:15,20
129:3,8,16 20 188:2 72:21 brochure
130:20 189:9,17, 137:1 114:3,6
133:23 19 190:10 153:13,21 115:4,16
135:8,20 192:11,14, 154:1,10 brochures
136:1 20 193:3, 172:24 47:14
137:1,9,13 11,23 190:24
bubble
145:23 194:5,8,21 205:3
148:12
148:2,19 198:9 book 112:15
152:25 199:17 bullet 30:14
153:6 200:7,16, border 68:9 41:25
155:13,22 18,19 bottom 95:7 76:18,22,
157:4 201:13 132:18 25 77:13
160:1,20 202:1,10, 172:14 78:3
161:6,7 11 203:7, 103:20
bounds 8:21
162:6,18, 17,24 145:15,19
25 163:15, 204:1,8 box 143:24 161:4
25 166:14, 205:2,17 break 10:10, 165:17,18
23 167:10, 206:3 11 51:23 166:5
20 168:10, 207:18 106:8,12, 172:19
11,17 208:3 16 109:23 173:9,16
169:5,19 110:18 175:9
Board's 7:22
170:14 117:13 186:15
8:3,8,12
171:2,20 158:9,18, 187:15,18
13:13,17
172:3,20, 21 175:20 188:19
14:3 21:17
25 173:10, 176:1 190:21
121:21
15,24 192:3,4
159:16 Brian 6:21
176:20 199:10,11
178:24 158:23
177:10,15, 204:23
195:23 210:6
24 178:4, 205:1


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: bullets..Carolina's
bullets 104:5,15 cancellation 22,23
164:9,10, 105:8 79:2 33:6,8,13,
12,20,21 108:20 candidates 21 34:3
165:2 109:4,5,16 138:14 45:16
166:19 117:19 51:16 55:5
167:16 118:2 capability 56:2 57:10
171:5,23 131:18 43:18 59:1 62:17
burdens 133:12 capacity 64:1 65:9
199:11,21 134:15 10:17,19 66:13,19,
200:11,22 141:21 12:3,9 25 67:2,17
201:14 142:8 14:18 68:8,10,
146:2 15:8,17 11,12,14,
buy 120:24 153:8,24 16:2 19:8 16,19,21,
121:2 173:11,18 20:23 24,25
182:5 133:22 69:1,2,4,
C 186:5 135:25 18 70:11,
188:14 136:10 12 73:13
caliber
195:18 186:8 84:1,9,17
157:12 196:23 99:6
190:8,9
call 140:17 197:6 108:17
capital
205:12 201:17 109:1
160:13,14
called 30:24 203:12,22 116:3
204:12,24, capitals 121:9
32:16 33:9
25 205:13, 73:5 122:13
37:7 62:13
64:3 84:18 24 careful 45:9 144:23
154:22 campaign 146:5,9,25
CARES 209:18
155:22 13:11 148:25
Carolina 149:13
calls 34:25 17:22
6:5,22 151:1
36:1 43:6 cancel 53:22 12:20 152:17
44:13 54:6 57:24 13:5,25 154:20
45:22 canceled 17:10,17, 160:16
47:10 74:19 24 18:4,12 172:21
48:10 65:2 79:10 80:9 28:19 193:3
84:11 87:8 81:5,20 29:1,13
93:2 Carolina's
82:5,7 30:5,8,20
100:21 19:23
153:15 31:11,21,
101:7,15 69:13
25 32:1,6,
85:20


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Carolinians..clarify
146:20 117:14,22 112:18 checklist
Carolinians 118:11,20 cetera 50:6,8
172:17 122:20 203:2,3 chief 13:4
173:2 123:3
130:7 challenge choice 15:25
174:5 103:18 16:18
177:1,21 138:17
178:18 139:6 challenged circulation
179:8,20 141:18 103:10 117:1
180:2,11 143:5
change 60:17 circumstance
183:20 144:24
85:1 94:6 199:3
184:3,10, 146:1,14,
95:15,17 circumstances
18 185:19 25 147:2
97:7,11 79:1
186:4,18 149:20
124:23
192:6,24 154:9 cite
141:19,24
193:8 157:6 157:18,25
143:2,13
194:1 171:12,22, 180:25
146:4,7
199:12,21 25 172:2
147:3,22 citizen 88:2
200:11,23 182:1
148:3,4,10
185:14 citizenship
201:15 191:15,23
186:2,22 61:24
Carpenter 201:11 changed 108:2
6:17 204:10 88:4,9 161:9
case 9:9 97:9,17 186:18
cases 12:1
10:25 141:24 204:18
73:25
11:2,3,9, 144:21 205:6,22
76:19
10,12,17 changing 206:9
77:20
12:8 21:13 128:23 147:7 city 16:15
22:7,10 132:20 characterizing clarification
23:16,24 148:14 92:1 48:24
25:14,20
cast 20:3,8 177:13 89:5,8,10
26:2 27:22
charge 93:24 139:14
53:2,7 Center 15:25
165:16
71:16 83:3 Certificate charged 169:12
99:1 94:23 16:18 193:20,22
102:19 187:16
104:20 Certification clarify
96:16 check 113:4 30:21
107:7
143:25 37:25 39:8
109:13 certify


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: clarifying..conclusion
68:5,20 common 85:4 191:22 completing
73:6 93:14 communication comparison 107:24
111:13 45:18 197:9 135:18
115:23 47:6,16 completion
125:2 complete
48:3,15 10:4,7 65:7
168:3,6,24 50:5,18
169:14 51:6 compliance
166:22 181:18 13:10 94:8
193:15
202:7 communications completed 201:22
205:11 50:23 14:25 15:6 202:5,15,
174:19 33:10,11, 19 203:10
clarifying 175:3,16 25 41:7 204:4,11
120:7
168:1 community 42:1 47:15 comply
66:18,24 50:3,9 203:19
clarity 49:8 138:25 55:7,14,18
100:24 components
179:6 61:4,18 20:8
147:5 180:9 62:13,15,
clear 58:14 182:2 16 63:4,12 compound
87:13 183:6 64:3,4 174:7
109:6,21 187:21 70:6,23 177:3,22
144:4,5,6 189:11 72:10 computer
client 190:14 83:16 121:2
174:25 193:19,25 85:24
concede
194:22 86:4,25
colleagues 100:18
203:9 88:25
206:23 205:19 89:19 92:8 concern
collecting 206:6,12, 96:24 122:4
23:19 13,14,15, 100:11 conclusion
16 106:3 44:14
Columbia
company 17:2 112:20 84:11
139:20
116:5 108:21
142:22 comparable 155:21,24 109:5
143:3 64:12 187:1 124:23
column compared 199:14,24 125:17,18
107:21 196:19 200:14 126:10
committed 197:2,19 203:15 173:12
57:7 comparing completes 188:15
78:23 60:1 204:25


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: concur..convicted
205:13 confuse 11:22 continues
concur 100:18 17:17 56:22
191:21 confused 33:15,19 contribute
48:8,18 34:2 42:8 161:17,22
conditions
156:21 90:20 consult 94:7 contributions
134:11,21 101:5,9 209:20
conduct 138:7 consultant
11:14 13:8 196:5,14 conversation
72:7,16 15:24 157:13
confuses
78:25 contact 174:25
82:14 49:4 42:10,16, conversations
167:11 confusing 24 43:3, 24:10
conducted 41:13 49:7 10,13 44:5 208:16
24:15 72:2 138:5 contacting
183:10 conveys
80:23 81:9 44:10,20 157:1
196:20 45:2
conducting 197:3,16 convicted
209:2 contents 13:13,18
confusion
conducts 93:10 18:2
48:25
15:12 90:8,9 context 28:19,25
confer 100:24 62:11 29:12
206:22 138:3 63:8,25 30:4,8,11
192:5,12, 78:17,20, 31:13
conference 24 79:25 34:14
18,24
22:23 182:14 45:16
193:7,13
209:25 46:4,9,11,
194:1,7, continual
confirm 11,19,23 36:12 16 51:18
27:11,19 195:3,17 74:15 75:9 52:7 53:16
44:16 196:17 78:22 54:14
52:23 53:4 197:11 80:18 55:7,18
71:13 81:14 56:14
connection
79:16 57:13,25
171:11 continue 58:8,18
82:25
94:25 consent 6:8, 56:7 59:5 64:1
98:23 11,15,19, 137:3,5 65:10,17
102:16 24 continued 66:11,16,
110:18 considered 133:15 22 68:7,23
70:10


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: conviction..correct
74:16 205:4,20 193:18 40:18 41:9
79:17 206:7 copied 24:7 42:7,9,15,
83:15 conviction 23 43:1
91:6,7 copies 26:19 46:7,14,20
31:11,15, 29:23,24
92:6,7 16,25 49:15,16
96:22,23 32:5,21 copy 7:17 56:21
100:9,10 33:12 8:17 26:22 57:15
107:16 34:20,23 27:12,20 58:20
108:16 35:5,25 52:25 53:5 62:10
109:1 37:16 71:15 83:1 64:16,21
112:19,20 38:25 40:2 95:2 98:25 65:1 66:20
114:1 61:3 62:2, 102:18 67:3 68:22
115:13,19, 11 63:9 115:7 69:3 70:3,
21 116:2 69:1 72:4 142:20 17 71:23,
127:13 77:4,17 210:15,17 24 72:6
128:9,14 103:23 74:21
corner
131:14 134:13,20 75:17
107:11
150:25 135:7 76:23 78:8
132:9
151:4,8,10 141:9 79:21
152:17 coronavirus 92:4,16
144:1
172:17 11:13,15 93:21
145:16
174:5 95:16 94:24
151:22
177:1,21 160:23 correct 96:3,13
178:18 192:13 10:24 12:5 97:3,4
179:9,20 198:18,25 14:22 98:20 99:7
180:3,12 15:7,11 100:17
183:20 convictions 101:10
17:16
184:3,11, 14:14 102:6,21
23:11 26:5
18 185:19 40:25 41:2 103:4
27:17
186:4,19 51:16 55:2 105:24
28:11
192:6,24 57:23 106:5
29:5,25
193:8 133:3 107:14,18
30:5,19
194:2,12 141:5 108:6,7
31:7,22
199:12,22 150:17 113:4,12
32:25
200:12,23 186:25 114:7,8
34:5,20,21
201:15 187:13 116:19
35:16,20,
203:19 188:8 120:18
21 36:17,
204:17 189:14 121:9,10,
18,21


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Corrections..coverage
18 122:18 7:14 9:22, 44:4,9 51:16
123:15 24 21:3,7, 45:1 46:5, 53:17 55:2
124:11 17 24:1,5, 17,23 62:11 63:8
125:14,20 6 25:18,21 47:3,7,17, 64:2,18
126:7,17, 26:18 21 53:21 66:13
18 129:2 44:16 94:7 54:5,11 69:12,18
139:16 135:23 56:3,18 89:3
146:16,23 162:11 61:17 62:5 108:18
148:23 163:3 67:14,22 109:2,13
150:13 166:24 68:3,13 110:10
151:2,7 169:13 69:7,15,20 138:19
152:13 171:19 70:5,19 141:17
156:9 174:9 102:25 142:1
164:17 176:2 130:3,19, 145:25
170:12 counties 25 131:4 146:6,8,
172:23 19:21 135:9 11,12,24
180:24 20:14 137:1,21 148:4,14
181:15,23 36:6,23 153:13,21 149:4
192:10,14 37:5,11,20 154:1,10 156:20
196:2 38:23 172:23 175:17
Corrections 39:3,11 190:24 176:13
29:19 40:18 195:12 201:22
44:20 205:2 202:5,15,
correctly 19,23
33:4 92:2 209:18 couple
120:23 203:6,10,
177:6 county 13:8, 14 204:5,
10 17:10, 207:12
correlation 208:13 11
138:10 16,23
Court's
182:8,9 18:18 court 7:13,
19:2,4,7, 17 8:16 165:23
correspondence 13 28:2 11:2,3 184:22
55:24 30:24 28:20 courts
costs 108:18 31:13,15 29:1,13 66:12,17,
109:2 36:11,19, 30:5,9,12, 23 120:3
20 37:22 20 31:12 cover 27:24
council
39:6 40:9, 32:1,22 99:8
16:15
19 41:10, 33:13
counsel 18 43:12 47:24 coverage
6:14,18 131:11,13


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: COVID..current
COVID 22:22 108:13,20 175:13,22 creating
COVID-19 109:4,16 176:3,7 166:24
147:13 114:14 177:2,22 crime 53:16
209:16 117:18 179:1,10, 55:7 57:7,
118:2 21 180:13 8 58:9
coworkers 119:10 182:5
113:7 59:5 64:1
122:25 183:9 68:8,23
Cox 6:4 123:9,22 184:20 106:1
7:10 13:20 124:25 185:4 127:7,11
21:15,19 126:21 186:5 128:9,14
24:5 26:24 131:17 187:3,14,
28:21 29:3 133:11,18 24 188:9, crimes 51:18
34:25 36:1 134:15 14 189:15, 52:8 54:15
41:13 43:6 138:5,18 25 190:4, 55:18
44:13 139:13,17 16 193:1, 65:11,17
45:22 141:21 10 194:4, 66:11,16
46:25 142:8 14,24 74:17
47:10 146:2 195:18 criminal
48:10,21 147:19 196:7,23 141:5,9
49:21 150:18 197:6,23
criminally
53:25 153:8,24 199:25
130:3
63:13 65:2 157:7 200:15
69:22 70:1 158:2,7, 201:3,17 criteria
75:2 78:6 13,17 202:6,16 75:16
80:12 81:7 162:9,21 203:12,22 76:10
82:9 83:21 163:10,17 204:12,24 79:4,5,7
84:10,22 164:3 205:12,24 156:25
86:10,15 165:15,19, 206:10,25 157:1
87:6 90:12 23 166:7, 207:3,11, CSI_NCSBE_
92:25 20 167:25 14 210:4, 000048 25:1
93:17 95:4 168:5,9,14 16 cumbersome
97:13,22 169:24 Cox's 167:7 26:15
100:21 170:19
101:7,15 171:8 create 48:24 current 8:8
102:4,7 172:1 197:11 12:10,18
104:5,15 173:3,11, creates 15:21,23
105:2,8,16 18 174:7, 196:17 17:4 19:8
106:7,17 13,17,22 28:1 31:1,


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: cut..defendants'
9,24 32:19 Dan 7:10 database 206:5
33:11 34:1 97:22 29:9 33:3, 208:25
38:16 57:5 106:7 7 37:6,16 days 35:8,
72:21 110:14 56:11 11 120:23
73:15 114:14 58:22
81:3,23 119:10 74:6,14, DC 120:24
113:13 122:25 18,24 deadline
114:5,11 125:1 75:13,24 11:20
115:11 139:13 78:24
deadlines
117:7 158:7 80:10
148:15
127:5 165:15 databases
128:20 167:2 dealing
28:2,17,24
140:24 168:1,5 11:1,12,
42:9,15,23
144:16 185:4 13,15
56:7 62:12
146:20 200:4 209:6,12
64:3,5
147:12 Daniel 6:9 dealt 19:22
150:14 date
9:8 156:13,15 December
166:17
Darryl 6:13 144:21
167:13,22 dated 71:22
169:6,21 Daryl 101:23 132:12 deciding
170:4,15 129:12
data 37:11 day 23:2
171:6,24 decision
62:16 166:18
182:24 44:17
73:25 74:5 167:14
184:15 142:2
75:18,23 174:1
195:15 146:6,8
77:1,14 176:22
196:19 156:20
78:2,4,12 177:17
197:3
80:3,17 178:14 Declaration
cut 42:12 148:20 183:16 145:14
53:3 150:4 187:9
Defendant
120:6,13 155:1,8, 188:4
7:21 8:2,
cutting 38:8 12,18 189:10
5,7,12
156:10 192:21
190:25 193:5,24 defendants
D
191:8,18 199:19 6:24
dah 125:8,9 208:2,8,10 200:9 210:8,16
data-sharing 202:3,13 defendants'
daily 29:8,
121:20 203:8 8:25
11 36:6
205:19


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: defer..differently
defer 178:21 160:3,21 133:12 93:5 97:16
190:6 170:11,16 139:4 99:24
define 173:4 Department 166:1 118:24
178:1 29:18,20 208:15 129:14
188:21,22, 49:11,18, 209:1,2 131:6
24 25 55:6 depositions 133:13
62:17 42:14 139:24
defined 150:22
89:10 64:19,23 174:19
65:9 68:1 209:21 197:10
160:14 199:7,8
185:12 119:24 deputy 21:21
148:21 25:17,23 determined
definition 150:3,15 104:17
31:4 33:16 152:11 describe 124:13
160:12 155:1,7, 29:6 185:23
173:7 12,14 describes 207:23
189:7 75:18
depending deterrent
205:16
105:10 designated 134:13
definitions 148:7 190:10 deterring
157:14
depends designed 137:6
Degraffenreid 182:13 115:3 develop
25:3
depicting designee 95:21
deliberations 34:16 7:22 8:3, developed
171:21 13
deposed 40:13 99:4
denial 39:20 10:13,16 desk 209:13 103:2
40:4,17 12:6 129:13
54:13 details 42:4
deposition 177:24
60:13 deter 134:22 178:4
6:8,12,16,
denied 54:22 136:21 209:9,10
20,25 7:24
57:4 60:6 10:20 11:7 determination develops
153:16 12:2,8 99:20 37:2
154:3 21:2,9 195:21
difference
deny 56:18 22:4 23:6 determinations 168:15
57:12,16, 86:11 87:7 208:6
93:1 differently
19 58:3
determine 34:17
101:25
denying 74:18 76:3 82:14
131:18


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: difficult..disqualified
169:16 25 136:1, 77:2,15 177:17
difficult 19 137:9, 126:14 178:15
13:1 90:7 13,21 145:6 179:6,17,
147:2,5 189:2 discussing 25 180:9,
148:9 209:22 51:15 16 183:16,
directors 207:17 25 184:16
difficulty 187:9
147:9,13, 17:18 discussion 188:4
15,16 disagree 148:11 189:10
direct 118:7,8 154:23 192:22
20:13,15 disclosed 159:4 193:5,13,
83:12 175:24 170:24 16,17,24
96:15 207:21 194:16
discourages
138:9 discussions 195:16
181:10
182:9 167:18,21 196:19
discovery 169:3,5, 199:19
directed 22:11,16 18,19 200:9
72:14 23:15,24 170:14 202:3,13
direction 25:14,24 171:18 203:9,18
182:16 27:14,22 204:9
disenfranchise
directly 53:1 71:16
181:21 disenfranchisi
48:4 82:18 83:2
ng 181:4
95:3 99:1 disenfranchise
director 184:7
102:5,19 d 160:4,13
10:18,19 187:21
107:7 170:17
12:4,19 189:21
112:9 181:13
14:19 190:13
115:8 disenfranchise
15:9,18 194:6,9,22
119:6,12 ment 20:24
17:9,14 195:3
discretion 25:6,9 200:20
19:14 85:20
21:21 129:12 205:19
150:7 206:5
25:17,23 discuss
166:17
72:15,18 51:17 167:13,22 displayed
76:6 85:8 discussed 169:7,22 35:11
93:8 94:2 20:18 55:4 170:5,11 displays
120:2,11, 56:12 63:7 171:7,24 29:5
17 133:23 74:7,13,14 174:1
135:2,19, disqualified
75:1,8 176:22 198:18,24


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: distinction..efficiencies
distinction 72:1,23 114:12,18 41:24
89:13 76:4,17 117:12,14 54:13 55:4
109:10 82:23 83:1 127:1,2,21 62:12
distributes 94:19,22 138:20 64:17
49:19 95:2 98:3, 208:20 74:13,14
50:1,14 18,21,25 Doe 58:17, 75:1
51:5 101:5,10 25 60:8,19 78:15,21
102:4,9, 104:17
distributing 12,14,18 double-check 113:5
50:24 106:23 55:20,23 114:18
district 107:3,6,9, doubt 155:6 118:14
19:17 15,20 185:17 127:21
122:3 112:2,5,8, 148:18
DPS 29:20
128:25 15 113:22, 152:24
47:13,24
130:19 23 114:22 153:12
49:25
139:20 115:6,7, 155:20
50:11,13,
142:22 11,18,20 181:8
23 51:5
143:3 116:1,25 190:23
74:6,7,15,
117:8 195:5,23
division 24 127:3
119:5,6, early
15:15,19, 151:12
11,17,21 112:13,14
20 19:4 156:9
127:24
79:23 84:6 draft 163:13 easier 88:5
128:2
divulge 159:21 191:9,20
dream 152:3
166:22 160:11 198:19
due 31:10,
DOC 28:15 166:24 educate
20,25 32:5
39:7 documents 137:9
72:4 77:3,
21:6 22:4, 138:1
document 16 95:14
27:5,6,9, 6,8,14,16, 192:13 educational
13,17,21, 20 23:4,7, 115:19
duly 9:3
23,25 28:7 14,19,23
effect
41:6 24:4,12 duration
125:22
52:13,20, 26:1,7 183:5
145:9
25 53:6 28:5,8
195:2
55:11 29:22 E
51:10 efficiencies
61:11,14
71:8,11,15 55:11 earlier 189:3
108:11 11:11


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: efforts..eligible
efforts 19:13,14, 124:6,13 17 206:3
13:13 17 28:3,24 130:21 207:18
112:25 33:22 133:24 208:3
121:3 36:8,20 135:2,5,8, electoral
election 37:1 40:10 20 136:2 172:16
15:16 41:10,11, 137:1,2,9, 173:1,5,
16:11,12, 18 44:4,10 14 148:3, 17,20
16,21 45:2 46:6, 17,20 174:4
17:18,22 13,17,23 153:13,21 176:25
22:25 27:7 47:3,4,7, 154:1,10 177:20
40:24 8,17,18, 162:7,19 178:17
45:19 20,21 163:15 179:8,19
48:4,15 53:1,22 164:1 180:2,11
64:8 71:20 54:6,12 166:15 182:4,21
72:1,3,12 56:3 57:11 167:11 183:7,19
74:24 76:2 64:2 67:2, 169:20 184:2,10,
80:21 14,15,17, 170:15 17 185:18
81:18 22,23 172:20,24 186:3
89:16 68:3,13,16 173:10,15,
69:7,16, 25 176:20 electronic
102:23 24:12,16,
122:13 17,21 177:15
70:5,18,19 179:15 21 210:17
127:17
130:4 71:20 181:7 elements
137:23 72:8,17 183:23 192:2
140:5,7,11 73:7,14 184:15
eligibility
142:6 75:9 89:8, 186:23
28:20 29:2
145:4 17 90:5 187:7
48:8,19
173:22 93:9,14,25 188:2
89:9 99:21
197:13 94:3 95:10 189:9,20
100:7
198:16,22 96:2 190:11,19,
103:9
200:7 103:1,3 25 192:11,
134:12
107:10 15,20
elections 137:11
113:25 193:4
6:6 11:14 138:2,7
118:6 198:9
12:20 150:23
119:7 199:17
13:4,6,7,9 192:12,18
120:12,17 200:19
17:2,9,14 194:12
122:20 202:1,10,
18:10 123:4,17 11 205:3, eligible


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: eliminated..evidence
31:18 else's 194:16 entitled
32:4,11 87:12,25 engage 27:7
33:21,23 109:19 167:20 entity 85:17
41:8,20 email 24:18, 169:5 88:3
42:6 43:4, 20,22
15 44:11, engaged 88:1 entrusted
25:1,5,8, 171:20 135:16
21 45:4,20 10,11
46:7,18,24 26:18,20 enhancements envelope
47:9 48:17 209:7 110:21
56:8 60:10 emailing
ensure 49:25 111:17
62:6,23 7:16 209:4
50:13 94:8
64:9 66:19 emails 24:7 135:17 equal 81:24
68:15 69:9 25:13 137:23 191:17,18
70:21 86:8
enabling 150:10 erroneously
87:3,20
18:19 199:4 80:11 82:7
88:19,23
enacting 205:3
89:23 error 78:9
90:21 161:9 ensures
205:20 escalation
92:22 enactment
206:6 209:14
99:25 8:14
100:20 ensuring essentially
encourage
101:12 49:18 84:2,8
182:12
109:14 202:19 established
116:13 encourages 204:16 150:21
134:22 202:5,15 206:5 151:15
137:17,18 203:10,18 170:22
entail 19:18
139:22 Encouraging
enter 7:17 Establishing
160:16 201:22
201:11 122:11
entered
end 16:4 estate 111:4
eliminated 42:18 7:13,16
84:2 132:23 8:17 everyone's
eliminates entire 27:5 7:19 99:17
enforcement
199:21 168:18 137:24
8:6,14
200:11,22 entities evidence
enforcing
eliminating 16:14 13:21
161:9 48:22 54:1
138:3 118:9
199:11 enfranchise 84:11 95:5


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: exact..factual
117:19 117:17,25 144:8 extra
123:10,23 121:25 159:12,15, 199:13,22
150:19 122:23 16 200:12,23
179:16 123:7,20 exhibits 201:16
180:5,8,25 124:9 26:10
183:4 126:3 F
184:7 exist 84:8
excuse 38:7
187:25 existing face 127:8
209:9
189:20 38:18 facilitate
190:3,12, executive
exists 136:25
13 194:9, 10:17,19
12:4,19 194:17 fact 39:11
15,21,25
200:1,3,20 14:19 expanding 49:5 79:17
201:2,13 15:8,18 16:23 87:25
204:2,6,9 72:14,18 129:19
expect
76:6 85:8 155:11
exact 35:8 95:18,25
93:8 94:2 181:3
54:25 70:9 120:11,16 expecting 189:4
113:6 133:23 96:10 203:18
139:25 135:19 experience factors
examination 136:1,18 16:20 151:15,21
7:21 8:2 137:8,13 135:1
9:5 207:10 189:1 facts 13:20
experiences 48:21
examined 9:4 exhibit 8:17 135:4 84:10 95:4
examining 51:20,21 117:18
explain 31:6
8:12 52:10 71:3 185:7
49:1 50:21
82:19
examples 94:15 explanation factual 7:25
140:11 97:20 98:3 173:20 166:15
145:21 101:19 167:11
express
146:12 106:22,23 173:25
122:3 175:10
195:5,6 112:2 135:1 176:21
exceed 45:10 114:11,17
119:2 expressed 177:16
exclude 72:20 90:6 178:14
127:17
164:7 179:5,16,
131:25 extends
166:4,7,8 22 180:5,
140:18 94:11
excludes 142:16 8,21,25


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: faded..felons
183:3,16, 162:14 24 54:8,14 122:4
24 184:7 fairly 78:8 55:2,13, 128:7,8
185:2,9 14,17,18, 133:20
187:8,20 falls 14:19 24 56:4,9, 155:21
188:3 136:9 14 57:2,7, 192:15,16
189:9,20 false 78:3 9 58:9,12 202:21
190:3,12 80:4,11,19 59:5,18 felonies
192:21 81:2,13, 60:19,20 13:14,19
193:4,23 16,20,23 62:7,22 18:2 56:15
194:9,15, 82:3,7 63:2,3 107:16
21,25 207:21 64:13,16, 108:16
199:18 25 65:5,6, 109:1
familiar
200:8,20 11,13,18, 114:1
24:3 83:19
201:2 24 66:7,20 115:13,19
84:24,25
202:2,12 feedback 152:17
85:5,9
203:8 122:9 172:17
129:24
204:2 124:19 174:6
130:23
205:18 125:9 177:1,21
135:20
206:4 178:18
familiarity fees 108:17
faded 27:15 109:2,8,12 179:9,20
136:2,12,
128:1 151:23 180:3,12
15,18
failed 183:20
fault 65:21 felon 28:15 184:3,11,
195:24 30:24
fear 131:23 18 185:19
fair 23:1 32:16 186:4,19
133:8,14,
35:23 33:10,19, 192:6,25
17,21
72:22 25 37:7 193:8
76:9,13,14 fears 134:7 38:4,15 194:2,12
95:24 feasibility 39:4,6,7, 199:12,22
115:25 147:21,22 16 40:19 200:12,23
119:14,15 42:1 57:10 201:15
feasible
137:19 59:23 61:6 203:19
147:17
139:6 62:13,15 204:17
148:10
142:15 63:11 205:21
145:23 federal 64:3,4
147:17 11:1,2 65:14 felons 13:16
149:6,18 52:8 67:25 14:8 33:15
155:20 53:14,16, 88:25 34:2 42:8


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: felony..finishes
65:5,6 56:6 57:2, 155:24 185:24
73:4,25 14,22 160:23 finance
74:9 75:25 58:1,18 183:1 13:11
117:15,23 61:5,18 186:24 17:22
118:10 62:1 64:14 187:12
121:8,23 65:17 188:7 find 55:10
122:14,22 66:23 189:13 60:5 61:11
123:5,18 67:23 72:4 192:13 174:20
124:8 74:17 193:18 175:4
126:2 75:12 198:18,25 fine 35:9
133:16 76:11 205:4,9 78:19
146:21 77:4,17 206:7 110:5
150:22 78:23 207:24 139:7
193:13,16 79:18 208:7 186:14
felony 13:24 83:15 felt 55:22 finish 46:21
14:14,25 85:20
fewer 80:19 49:13
15:6,14 88:25
190:25 64:18,25
18:8,14,19 91:6,7
191:8,19 66:6
19:1 92:6,7
156:5,7
20:12,24 96:22,23 field 16:13 183:1
25:6,9 100:9,10
fight 172:12 finished
28:19 103:22
106:4 figure 71:6 18:19 42:5
29:1,12
112:19,20 file 24:21 45:17
30:4,8,11
115:22 101:22 47:23
31:3,10,
116:2,5,17 102:2 48:19
11,14,20,
118:15,23 56:5,9
21 32:5,6, files 24:12
122:7 57:1,3
9,20 33:12
124:15 fill 82:17 62:8,21
34:9,15,19
127:6 112:12 63:2,10
37:15
128:24 64:7,13
38:6,17,25 fills 60:9
129:5,10 66:1 70:17
40:2,25 final 96:21
131:15 101:2
41:1,17 99:23
133:3 135:7
42:5 45:16 100:8
134:12,20 156:16
46:4,9,11 112:17
51:6,18 135:7,18 finishes
144:1 159:11
52:8 53:16 41:16
54:15 55:2 153:1 finally 8:10 60:19


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: firmware..gestures
156:14 format 95:22 front 24:18 25:18,20
firmware 169:11 26:22 71:20 72:3
20:5 forms 35:13 FTP 102:2 84:1 94:7
82:16 130:4
fix 120:24 fulfilled 136:2,5,6,
93:10 206:17
flagged 94:6,10 15 176:2
77:20 95:20 full 9:10 197:20
111:14,16 23:2 192:4 198:8
flyer 114:3
126:15 208:23
115:2 full-time
140:11 16:2 General's
follow 18:22
145:25 6:5,23
follow-ups fully 83:16
146:4,7, 21:24
209:17 86:25
16,19 162:2,5,
204:17
form 47:18 147:3,12 12,16
205:4,21
57:12 148:4 163:3
206:7
59:23 170:23 166:14
195:24 function 167:10,19
60:2,5
83:6 86:4 196:15 26:11 169:4
87:17 forward fundamental 171:20
93:19 94:3 6:14,18 137:24 173:14
95:10,12, 152:2 178:21,25
funds 209:18
13,18 182:15 190:7
96:17 future 72:17 207:15
found 81:24 98:15
97:7,11 generally
110:22 fourth 33:24 121:19
136:11
111:21 41:25
generate
112:25 103:19 G
116:13 166:18
138:25
gather 24:4 167:14
140:20 frame 36:8
141:19 gathering gentleman
framework 23:23 135:6
142:14,21
143:19 171:1 198:5
gears 51:25
144:12 frankly 82:15 gesture
147:6,22, 138:14 117:11 91:19
23 163:13 frequently general gestures
181:19 25:5,7
193:19 21:17 91:13
88:10 24:1,5,6


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: give..hundreds
give 7:4 8:4 16:14 happened highlighted
10:3 14:7 88:2 81:17 107:22
35:7 50:15 160:3,20 happy 52:19 historical
67:23 161:8,11, 63:20 8:14
78:16 23 170:3
87:15,23 hardware hit 79:8
greater
89:10 20:6 Hoke
204:4
100:4 hate 158:14 130:19,25
132:22 greatest
he'll 26:20 131:4
134:24 135:4 195:12
135:14,21 group 16:11 head 97:18
hold 11:6
147:4,11 hear 10:23
guess 37:25 15:22
148:2,8 17:13
147:4 19:16
170:21 38:7,9
guide 98:19 137:22
208:22 42:20
99:3 63:24 home 36:20
giving 10:7
113:7,10, 91:10,16, honestly
158:14
14 20 120:19 11:4
goal 137:8
160:7 Hooks 120:5
goals 137:12 H 161:20 126:24
God 7:6 172:9
hairs 32:2 hope 96:7,9
191:17
good 7:9 half
heard 42:22 hour
9:7 30:18 152:16,22
49:11 158:12,20
51:22 52:1 153:5,22
109:24 91:21 hours 208:21
154:8,11
158:8 145:3
158:12,19 hovering
159:9 191:1 hearing 91:8 128:6
Gotcha 36:9 177:6
hand 7:2 Huffington
government 51:9 held 20:19 132:1,6
16:16 17:5 64:20,24 helpful Huffpost
19:8 65:25 97:23 132:9
20:18,19 handing high 13:2 hundred
55:17 49:12 131:4,6 51:10
167:15
handled 24:1 high-profile 77:6,22
170:10,16
happen 87:18 195:5 hundreds
governmental
88:16 95:25


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: hung..indication
hung 77:11 identifying 158:1 incidentally
hypo 59:2 23:19 implements 143:9
39:12 146:20 include 94:4
hypothetical
60:8,18,24 illegally implies 97:11
61:8 68:21 15:13 140:21 110:22
82:10 77:3,16 112:25
80:2,21 imply 43:17 113:15
87:16
89:22 106:1 impose 126:15
105:17 129:5,10 201:14 166:4
152:8 207:23 included
impossible
154:13 illiterate 157:20 18:13 24:7
191:5,7,8 135:12 includes
imprisonment
hypothetically immediately 191:3 30:10
88:14 147:25 including
improvement
100:25 157:16 8:7 83:16
209:13
151:18 210:3 86:5 87:1
in-house
impact 92:8 96:24
I 121:22
147:24 100:11
148:16 inaudible 107:25
ID 11:1 38:6 91:7
implement 108:5
identification 114:1,13 112:21
15:4
81:4 incarcerated 116:6,18
140:6,12
identified 145:21,24 138:24 138:13
77:2,15 146:13 149:23 192:17
80:2,11 147:1 197:4,18, 208:19
181:9 148:4,5,9, 22 198:2, income
16 157:5, 6,12,17,24 209:20
identify
24:24 11,16,21 incarceration Incomplete
37:8,14 implemented 84:20 82:9
39:12 126:13 145:16 105:16
40:20 72:2 152:4 149:1,15
independent
80:20 152:19
implementing 171:13
132:7 154:18,21
16:18,23 indicating
160:20 156:7,16
18:1,7 30:13
208:3 incident
147:23
209:13 indication


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: indictable..interchange
95:6 118:25 43:3,13 54:6
indictable 122:6 49:13,20 initiates
145:17 124:14 50:1 55:5, 73:24 79:2
133:3,24 13,16 56:4
indicted 134:11 57:5 62:7, instance
130:25 135:16 21 63:5 66:12
individual 137:3 64:20,25 183:2
18:21 51:6 195:12,15 65:25 66:6 instances
55:14 60:1 203:19 67:5 68:2 88:11
66:22 68:7 ineligible 69:15 70:6
instilled
88:24 31:2,21,24 81:2
135:6
90:17 32:8 34:19 117:15,23
104:20 118:16,25 instruct
40:1 67:2,
105:18 121:23 44:3
16 68:18
118:17,24 122:21 175:1,12,
72:4 74:9
125:8 123:5,18 13,14
127:13
134:20 124:7,23 184:23
128:16
135:17 130:15 125:16,22, instructing
136:13 132:14 25 126:1, 8:23
163:25 133:10 9,11,20
instruction
149:21 142:13
individual's 44:2 68:1
150:16 150:9,12,
63:10 83:12
151:9,17 14 151:6,
individuals 86:23
153:2 11 152:11
44:10 155:13 instructs
154:9
46:14 156:19 9:24
155:23
47:25 50:2 157:9,19
195:9 intend 97:6
51:17 171:13
54:14 influences intended
174:15
63:25 138:12 175:24 115:15,18
65:25 inform 64:8 176:6 intent 54:23
66:6,11,16 107:16 179:23 97:10
67:5,15 113:25 180:21 intentions
79:21 89:9 138:10 183:12 117:8
107:16
information initially interacts
108:16,25
19:3 36:5, 77:2,15,19 192:11,15
113:25
115:13 12 42:10, initiate interchange
16,24


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: interest..Jersey
88:9 26:21 134:3,5 10,13,25
interest introduced issue 122:1 111:8,12,
63:19 115:16 126:19 25 114:16,
160:21 117:3 20 119:4,
issued 175:7 14,18,19
interests 192:2 189:17 123:2
8:4 160:3 investigation issues 20:23 125:6
161:8,11, 18:25 77:6 25:6,8 132:3
24 164:21 79:1,15, 120:25 139:16,18
166:16 20,25 140:16
167:12,15, 122:12 items 7:25
142:18
21 169:6, 166:16 39:1 50:8
144:10
20,21 167:12 iteration 158:10,14
170:4,10, 171:3 95:12 159:2,6,
16 171:5, investigations 10,14
iterations
23 172:7, 15:12,15 165:18,20
73:10
13 19:4 73:24 166:2,8,11
111:15
internal 79:22 168:7,13,
169:19 121:22 J 16,22,25
122:2 169:2
interpret
129:15 Jacobson 6:9 174:18
185:5
7:9 9:6,8 175:6,19
investigative
interpretation 13:22 176:4,8,
205:14 78:12
26:17,25 12,15,18,
investigator 27:2 38:9, 19 179:3
interrogatorie
s 159:18 74:1 12,13 185:1,11
160:10 investigators 51:24 197:24
interrogatory 79:14 80:1 52:2,5 200:5
159:17,24 207:22 62:3 71:1 206:20
160:1,19 208:1 82:21 91:9 207:1,4,6,
161:1 94:17 16 210:9,
involved
163:9 98:1,2 14
17:25
170:3,8 101:21 jail
18:6,18,24
178:22 102:6,8,11 141:10,12,
23:18,22
106:13,18, 13 143:25
Interruption 162:3,7,19
21 107:1
161:19 163:1,6 Jersey
109:22,25
introduce irrational 110:3,7, 144:12,20


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Jersey's..left
145:1,3 207:13 158:5 127:5
Jersey's Katelyn 162:15,17 128:7,20
144:17 21:18 25:2 163:14 140:8
166:25 141:25
job 12:10, kickoff 171:10,16 146:5,8,20
18 15:21, 22:23 156:20
knowledgeable
22,23 Kim 119:23 170:6
16:1,24,25 65:5 173:1
120:5,10 178:3
17:4 19:9, 181:11
18 20:13, kind 11:16 L
182:24
15 137:23 208:22
land 73:22 185:21
157:12 knew 55:22 186:9,13
199:4 127:13 language
201:19
97:7,16 202:21
jobs 20:21 knowingly
109:9 203:16
John 58:17, 122:12
118:13,22 206:11
25 60:8,19 knowledge 122:10
23:25 28:6 124:17 lawfully
journalist
45:14 125:10,19 136:20
132:12
64:24 66:5 142:5 laws 13:11
judge 75:7 67:10,13,
large 22:19 85:20 94:8
126:24 19 69:20
79:22 122:13
judging 75:6 71:14 141:24,25
101:22
June 12:23 84:14 144:21
86:16 87:9 latest 28:6, 145:17
Justice 89:11 93:4 9
6:14,18 lawsuit
95:1 98:24 law 11:1 11:13
107:5 14:2,6,7
K 112:8 15:2,4,16 lawyers 21:8
115:5 18:5,12,16 166:13
Karen 9:2,12 117:9 167:9,19
20:11
90:2 130:11 169:4
43:22,25
131:20 131:20,22 44:3,8,19, leads 204:4
158:17,18 140:24 25 45:6,8,
166:21 144:16 learn 157:10
11,12
171:9 149:5 learned
84:1,16,
174:13 155:16 135:11
23,25 88:9
184:23 157:22 95:15 left 96:17
201:5


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: legal..logical
141:3 49:4,6 38:5,14, listed 53:23
158:12 54:25 15,16,22 77:5
legal 44:13 70:22 79:9 39:4,6,17 164:21
84:11 119:23 40:19 167:15
108:20 121:7,12 42:1,2 171:5,23
109:4 122:16 43:10 172:13
169:11 123:13 52:11 188:19
171:1 124:3 54:7,20 listing 29:7
173:12 letters 57:6,20
58:3,10 lists 29:7,
184:25 54:12,23 10,24 30:3
185:6,7 154:12 60:7
62:13,15, 37:19
188:14 level 13:2 39:12
204:24 16 63:1,3,
17:17 19:2 4 64:3,4, 41:25 42:4
205:12,15 147:8 44:7 45:2
12,16
legally 19:1 levels 16:15 74:7,8,9, 53:23
legislative 16 75:1, 56:7,13,
Levine 17,18,23
6:24 210:8 11,12,25
132:12 57:19,22
76:11,12,
legislature 63:12 64:6
liability 13 78:22
16:15 127:11 161:11
79:16
legitimate 128:8 97:23 live 68:9,
161:8 lieu 85:15 150:21,24 11,24 69:1
letter 151:4 142:22
life 135:5
34:11,18, 152:25
lives 68:21
23 35:5, limited 7:24 153:6,13
8:4 154:14 living
17,24
36:19,22, 155:21 66:18,25
lines 102:9
25 37:2,10 156:4,6,11 70:11
list 30:24 161:18,23 150:2
39:22,23
31:1,2,9, 162:3,7,19
40:4,8,9, loaded 16:9
23,24 163:5,7,
12,21 local 102:23
32:7,16, 12,16
41:6,21 128:25
17,19,20 164:1
43:10,11, 129:6,11,
33:5,9,10, 166:18
13 46:5, 18
11,20,24, 167:14,24
12,17,22
25 34:1,13 169:8,23 logical
47:2,8,19
37:8,9,17 170:18 152:13
48:23


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: long..matching
154:7 lower 81:6 44:5,17 marked 8:25
155:10 lunch 158:21 58:14 26:19
long 12:21 62:14 68:5 51:20 52:9
16:1 35:4 80:13 89:6 53:10 71:3
M
122:21 95:18,19 82:19
123:4,12 machines 98:14 94:15
208:14 20:3 114:23 97:20
121:20 99:12
longer Madam 8:16 135:21 101:19
33:14,16, 176:13 137:4,16 112:1
19 34:2 made 102:25 147:3 114:10,17
42:7 107:15 151:16 119:2
141:10 113:14 157:13,20 131:25
looked 121:3 165:2 140:18
40:18,23 188:11,12 174:10,14 159:15
54:12 55:1 189:17 177:5 match 32:23
91:14 mail 110:21 182:7 34:3 60:5,
108:9,11 111:17 188:17 11 61:1
113:22 154:15 191:13 74:23
117:13 209:4 195:20 75:10
118:13 206:23 76:10
127:21 main 11:23 208:5
matched
145:20 maintain makes 83:7
30:2 56:23 35:18
lose 73:16 87:13 38:17
62:12 115:12
loss 64:12 80:10 81:5
191:9,19
117:17,25 155:5 matches 38:5
121:25 making 91:13 74:16
maintains 147:8
122:24 79:15
123:7,20 28:18,25
29:23 manner 137:2 matching
124:10
126:4 64:2,6 manual 32:17
155:1,22 102:22 33:25 37:8
lot 52:16 38:5,15
Maintenance manuals
96:12 39:4,17
131:5 52:11 195:24
196:15 42:2 62:16
Love 21:18, make 7:11, 64:4 74:25
19 25:2 15 12:7 March 17:12 75:10,15,
14:13 38:2 23,24,25


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: material..misdemeanors
76:10 199:1,3,18 meetings Michigan
77:1,14 200:8 209:3 140:20
78:4 79:5, 202:2,12 members 6:7 142:11
7 80:3,17 203:8 24:8 25:5 Michigan's
81:15,17, 205:18 140:24
23 82:6 206:4 mention
87:2,21 microphone
material matters 8:13 88:20 120:24
118:18 meaning 89:24 microphones
materials 85:22 92:11,14 121:2
50:6,12, 95:20 97:2
14,24 127:11 101:13 middle
51:4,5 151:23 108:6,12 145:14
208:17 means 29:19 113:10 millions
math 78:7 152:4 116:9,21 96:4
96:5 157:15 195:24
mind 48:13
matter 7:4, 182:12,14 mentioned 91:24
23 12:5 197:21 9:8 22:2 125:2
109:7 203:7 44:15 165:5
117:5 205:11 49:10 52:6 168:5
127:12 meant 173:16 84:16 86:9 210:3
135:24 87:5 89:14
measure mine 73:22
136:17 92:24
82:12 153:14 minimum
154:3,7
measures 48:2,6
163:21,22 mentioning
173:25 50:13 86:6 minority
176:21 media 131:5, 100:15 135:8
177:16 7 mentions minus 158:20
178:14 108:9
medications minutes 58:3
179:5 109:15
10:6 106:14
183:24
meet 21:8, met 21:14 110:1,2
185:2
11 33:16 206:22
187:8,20 method
199:4 207:2
188:3 16:19,20,
189:10 meeting 22 37:12, misdemeanor
192:21 21:16,25 13 146:4 115:23
193:4,24 209:6,12 165:4 misdemeanors
198:8


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: misheard..North
150:25 91:24 73:17 22,23
151:4,10 100:4 75:12 33:6,8,13,
misheard 113:22 national 21 34:3
17:15 116:24 67:7 45:16
132:22 51:16 55:5
mission 135:21 nature 41:23 56:2 57:10
16:10 170:2 185:9 59:1 62:17
137:20 174:9 NCSBE 73:6, 64:1 65:9
Misstates Monday 22:23 24 66:19,25
53:25 67:2,17
money 203:2 necessarily
84:22 68:10,11,
29:8,21
105:2 month 31:16 12,14,16,
191:25
123:9,22 19,21,24
months 35:25 needed 39:8
150:18 69:2,4,18
187:24 morning 7:9 155:14 70:12
196:7 9:7 22:23 negatively 73:13
199:25 motion 80:25 84:1,9,17
200:2 182:15 85:20 99:6
network 67:8
108:17
mistakenly move 63:20 news 131:9, 109:1
133:9 94:13 98:7 11,13 116:2
137:19 138:15 195:10,21 121:9
misunderstood 182:15
no-contact 122:13
58:6 183:13
52:12 144:23
186:14
modifications 146:5,9,
moves 152:2 nonprofit
113:14 20,25
16:5,7 148:25
modify 117:8 mumbling
172:11 North 6:5,22 149:13
module 12:20 151:1
106:15 13:5,25 152:17
N
moment 12:14 17:10,17, 154:20
22:3 37:5 N.C.G.S. 24 18:4,12 160:16
52:6 8:6,9,15 19:23 172:17,21
53:12,21 28:19 173:2
named 132:12
55:20 29:1,13 174:5
63:15 names 37:9 30:5,8,20 177:1,21
76:17 54:19 31:11,21, 178:18
84:16 62:14 25 32:1,6, 179:8,20


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: notation..objection
180:2,11 notices 207:22 86:10,12
183:20 40:24 numbers 87:6,8
184:3,10, 54:16,17, 77:12 90:12
18 185:19 18 92:25
186:4,18 numerous 93:2,17
notification
192:5,24 11:18 95:4 97:13
41:11,19 73:11
193:3,7 69:8 70:20 100:21
194:1 209:17 101:7,15
154:12
199:12,21 nutshell 104:5,15
200:11,22 notifications 105:2,8,16
79:11
201:15 153:22 108:13,22
notation notify 13:13 O 109:4,16
95:7 67:9,11,15 117:18
68:17 oath 9:14 118:2
note 7:11 115:13 123:9,22
91:14 object 9:22
153:14 135:23 124:25
noted 39:4 185:10 126:21
notifying
210:18 131:17
18:1 34:12 objecting 133:11,18
notice 7:24 39:25 8:22 185:8 134:15
14:7 34:9 November objection 138:5,18
37:23 96:2 13:20 141:21
39:20
number 24:24 28:21 29:3 142:8
40:17
35:8,11 35:1 36:1 146:2
46:5,10
77:25 41:13 43:6 147:19
54:13,14
86:23 44:13 150:18
58:17
91:5,21,23 45:22 153:8,24
60:14
92:5 95:15 46:25 157:7
67:23
97:24 98:6 47:10 158:2
68:14
102:10 48:10,21 162:9,21
69:10,12,
106:24 49:21 163:10,17
14,21
112:3 53:25 164:3
86:11 87:7
139:25 63:13 65:2 166:20
93:1
145:24 69:22 70:1 167:25
109:18
154:11 75:2 78:6 169:24
121:8
159:17,24 80:12 81:7 170:19
131:18
161:8 82:9 83:21 171:8
154:2
165:25 84:10,22 172:1
165:25


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: objections..outset
173:3,11, 157:20 89:4,18 opinion
18 174:7 occurred 120:6 124:6
177:2,22 24:10 203:1 opportunity
179:1,10, 148:8 officers 137:4
21 180:13 169:20 65:18,25
182:5 opposing
October 16:3 89:2 26:17
183:9
184:20 Offices
offense order 7:14
186:5 66:20 53:24 54:9 8:21,22
187:3,14, 128:8 official 64:8
24 188:9, 145:17 13:4 48:5, 113:21
14 189:15, 16 89:16 156:10
offenses
25 190:4, 198:22 157:10
205:4
16 193:1, 165:23
206:7 officials
10 194:4, 166:18
offensive 40:24
14,24 167:14
91:18 45:19
195:18 175:7,17
55:13 56:5
196:7,23 office 6:5, 184:22
62:7 64:8
197:6 23 21:24 203:14
102:23
199:25 53:15 140:5,11 orders
200:15 57:21 142:6 201:23
201:3,17 58:10 145:4 202:5,15,
202:6,16 59:10,16 198:16 19,23
203:12,22 61:3 120:3
older 114:3 203:6,11
204:12,24 141:18 204:5,11
205:12,24 162:2,5, omission
organization
objections 12,16 196:6,14
163:4,20 16:5,7,10
206:10 ongoing
166:14 90:16,18
objects 9:23 50:18
167:10,20 56:23 81:3 organizational
obligation 169:4 21:5
82:6
205:11 171:20 148:20 organized
obligations 173:14 16:6
178:21,25 open 76:19
204:18,22
190:7 77:20 outlining
205:5,21
207:15 opening 58:15
206:8,17
officer 198:9 outset 8:19
obtain
51:12


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: oversee..people
oversee pardon 194:10 passed 84:1
13:10,12, 102:22 199:20 past 141:9
17 14:3 parentheses 200:10,21
15:9,18 202:4,14, Paul 6:4
52:11 7:10 69:25
168:19 24 203:20
Parker 21:21 204:3 86:14
overseeing
parole 47:13 101:21
14:20 part 19:20 106:13
51:12 20:13,15
oversees 83:17 168:4
172:21 22:11,16 174:18
84:2,4,8, 23:24 53:1
oversight 18 85:3,16 175:6
107:21 176:4
13:6 86:5 87:1 112:14
88:6 89:13 185:1
owe 203:2 125:5 207:14
91:25 160:11
owes 109:12 92:12,23 pay 108:17
163:8
96:25 208:9 109:2
P 100:12,15
participate people
103:22 13:13,18,
p.m. 159:5 104:11,18 209:23
176:10 23 14:4,
107:25 participating 13,24
207:5 108:5 181:6
210:18 15:5,12
110:23 participation 18:1,7,11,
pages 100:3 112:21 96:11 19,25
paid 109:11 116:6,18 172:16 20:11
160:15,22 173:2,5, 30:10 31:2
paper 24:11 174:2 17,21,22, 32:20
paragraph 176:23 23 174:5 33:7,21
53:11,20 177:18 176:25 34:1 35:17
54:3,5 178:16 177:20 37:14
96:21 179:18 178:17 38:5,16,24
121:12,16 181:4 179:8,19 39:12,23
123:11 183:17 180:2,11 40:5,20
128:22 184:1,8 182:4,21 42:4,16
132:19 187:10 183:7,19 43:3,14
paragraphs
188:5 184:2,10, 44:20 45:2
132:18 189:21 17 185:18 47:22
133:2 192:23 186:3 49:12 52:7
193:6 53:15


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: percent..persons
55:1,17 155:2,8,23 performed 194:17
56:5,14,19 156:4 76:7,8 197:21
57:19 58:4 179:6,17, 79:6 198:11,17,
63:1 64:7, 25 180:9 perils 42:13 23
13,18,25 181:4,5 person's
65:10,17 183:25 period
149:21 57:24
70:16 184:7 183:4
74:16,17, 186:24 150:6
23 75:11 187:21 person-by-
person 18:14
person 79:14
76:1,11,12 188:7 25:16
77:3,5,6, 189:11,13, 31:13 personal
16 78:22 21 190:13 41:16 12:5 86:16
80:2,8,21 191:1,2,8, 45:16 93:4 135:1
81:4,15,19 19 192:22 46:21 47:5 personally
82:4 83:7 193:6,18, 48:2,7,18 10:16 88:1
84:19 25 194:9, 55:6 56:8 109:7
85:21 22 195:6 57:1 62:5, 133:19
93:15 196:13 8 68:14,20 190:12
96:1,4,12 199:19 69:8,21
115:18 200:9,21 persons
70:6,9,19
129:4,19 202:3,13 79:2,8,15 28:18,25
130:2,9, 203:9 84:4 86:7 29:12 30:4
14,20 204:3 87:3,22 31:10,24
133:15 205:19,20 88:13,21 33:11 37:8
137:6,10 206:5,6 89:22 72:3
138:1,7, 207:22 90:19 128:24
10,24 208:3,6 92:21 130:24
143:10 100:19,25 160:4,13,
percent 78:4 14,22
148:24 80:1,8 104:24
149:12,20 105:4,5, 170:17
81:19 82:4 174:2
150:1,5, 96:10 21,25
16,25 109:11 176:22
131:15 177:17
151:4,5,10 154:3,6 127:5,7,12
152:12,17, 128:14 178:15
25 153:5, percentage 134:2 182:1,4
15,23 173:6,22 136:19 183:17
154:8,17, perform 76:5 163:25 187:9,12
18,19 208:5 181:21 188:4


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: perspective..polls
194:6,11 129:23 190:24 161:4
195:3 198:1,11 201:10 172:19
196:4 places 204:10 173:9,16
204:17 198:10 207:7 186:15
205:3 210:10,14 187:15,18
plaintiff's 188:19
perspective plaintiffs'
52:4 190:3,12,
146:15 159:18 7:21 8:2
189:1 23:15 27:1 21 197:9
197:13 plaintiffs 51:20 201:1
6:11,15,19 70:25 204:23
perspectives 205:1
8:11 9:9 82:20
73:19 11:17 94:16 points 30:14
pertain 22:11,15 97:21 41:25
13:16 138:17,21, 101:20 175:9
pertaining 22,23 106:25
139:5,15, policies 8:8
7:25 14:8, 111:24
16 209:3 21 140:13 114:19 policy
141:18 119:3 129:13
pertains 142:7 177:24,25
132:2
18:4 143:4,5 178:2,5
140:15
pertinent 144:24 142:17 189:17
24:9 145:22 144:9 poll 11:25
146:1,14, 152:3 99:5,23
phase 122:2
24 147:1 159:13 100:7,19
phone 24:9 148:6
planning 101:2,5,9,
phrase 149:20 11 102:23
150:3 72:11
110:16 103:8,20
151:19 116:25
111:6,20 105:15
153:4,20 198:9
physically 112:15
156:3 plans 72:19 197:14
198:12,23
157:5 point 10:10
picked 166:2 163:8,16 polling
11:4 26:11 99:5,25
pivot 147:25 164:2 51:14
171:4,22 103:10
place 14:11 76:18,22, 198:1,10,
182:1 25 107:13
34:24 35:5 184:19 11
99:5,25 141:3
185:13 143:21 polls 101:2
103:10 186:1 145:10,19


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: pops..preparing
pops 79:8 85:6,21,23 187:10 precise
Porter 6:10 86:3,6,8, 188:5 84:25
22 87:2,4, 189:22 precisely
position 17,21 192:23
11:6 12:22 208:8
88:15,20 193:6
19:19 89:24 194:10 precluded
20:19 90:22 195:25 8:11
174:24 91:25 196:5,13, predecessor
178:24,25 92:14,19, 14 199:20 120:10,14,
180:16,19 23 93:15 200:10,21 15
185:20 94:4 97:3, 202:4,14,
prefer 94:7
positions 12 100:15, 25 203:21
20:18 20 101:1, 204:3 premarked
4,13 26:19 27:1
positive Post-selection
104:2,10, 52:4 70:25
78:3 81:3, 71:8
13,25 82:20
14,16 82:3 post- 94:16
105:6,13,
positives sentencing 97:21
21 108:6
80:4,11,19 110:25 104:19 101:20
81:20,24 111:8,10 110:24 106:25
82:8 113:1,11, postponed 111:24
207:21 15 116:9, 209:3,6,12 114:19
possess 21 126:16 119:3
potential
29:16 63:1 127:6 132:2
129:1
129:21 140:15
possesses 133:8
130:5 142:17
29:11 potentially 144:9
154:22
post 111:6 155:3 77:22 96:4 159:13
127:17 156:5,14 PPE 209:20 preparation
132:1 160:15,22 208:18
practice
Post-election 174:2 167:23 prepare
127:22 176:23 169:8,22 21:1,9,13
177:18
post-licensing practices 22:4,17
178:16
88:6 89:13 179:18 16:21 prepared
111:4 181:5 170:1,22 210:1
post-release 183:2,18 precinct preparing
84:19 184:1,8 11:25 208:15,24


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: present..problem
209:1 13:18 14:4 103:15 107:25
present 8:6 18:7 122:10 108:5
21:16,20, 186:24 124:17 110:23
24 112:24 prevents 125:10,19, 112:21
166:18 181:22,24 23 196:7 116:6,18
167:14 priority 127:6
previous 129:20
174:1 37:7,19 129:14
176:21 130:5
120:16 prison 101:3 148:25
177:16 128:18 127:8
178:14 149:2,3,
180:14 133:9 14,15
183:16 191:11 139:23
187:8 151:8,16,
previously 141:10,14 20 152:5,
188:3 143:10
189:10 61:19,24 12,18
74:7 75:8 149:15 154:17
192:21 155:2,9
193:5,24 83:15 160:15,22
131:14 196:21 174:2
199:18 197:5
200:8 176:23
primarily 201:12
202:2,12 177:18
39:16
203:1,8 prisons 178:15
primary 198:10 179:17
205:18
16:10 181:4
206:4 privilege
19:21 183:1,17,
presented 37:21,24 175:18
25 184:8
191:4 39:5 privileged 187:10
presenting 172:21 174:20 188:5
122:8 printer probation 189:21
124:16 147:12 47:13 192:22
171:1 51:12 193:6
printers
65:18,24 194:10
pretty 144:3 113:20
68:11,25 199:20
prevent 10:7 209:5
70:13 200:10,21
45:1 Printing 83:17 87:1 202:4,14,
61:20,22 147:8 89:2,15 24 203:20
151:21 92:9 96:24 204:3
prior 40:8,
157:25 100:12,14
12 61:8 problem
181:5 103:22
73:7 91:1 99:14
preventing 95:12 104:11 172:11


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: problems..prosecutors
200:5 117:2 27:13,21 12,14,20
problems 129:7 52:25 53:6 promotes
145:3 135:13 55:11 138:3
150:11 71:15 174:4
procedural 157:2 80:15
22:6 176:24
169:9 82:18 83:2 177:19
procedure 185:23 95:3 99:1 178:12,16
43:9,22 186:17,24 102:5,18 179:7,18
63:14 187:11,17, 107:6,9,12 180:1,10,
23 188:6 112:8 17 181:10
procedures
189:3,6, 115:6,7 183:6
8:8 13:18
12,23 119:5
14:4,11, promoting
190:15,25 207:17
12,16,20 172:15
191:9,20 produces
15:3,9 178:11,12
192:1 80:19
18:1,7,18,
209:13 prompt
23 22:6 professional
26:15 35:7 processed 135:23
12:9 20:23
49:18,23 61:21 proof 97:15
65:6,14 profile
191:23 properly
181:19 131:5,7
proceed 150:10
processes program
86:13 prosecuted
16:23 147:7
process 21:4 106:1,4
20:14 prohibit
23:18 24:4 129:19
85:17 44:19
32:10 130:3,19
138:11 155:19
35:12 133:5,9
191:15
36:4,7 prohibiting 195:7
37:22 processing 122:14 prosecution
52:12 60:4 36:11
prohibits 129:1
70:14 37:20
44:9 45:13 prosecutions
74:25 61:23
75:24 191:8,18 promise 122:15
77:1,14 159:12 129:22
procurement
79:3,6 promising 131:3,13
19:23
80:20 121:19 Prosecutor
produced
81:14,17 132:14
23:14,20, promote
82:6 94:9
23 26:1,7 182:3,10, prosecutors
111:19


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: protective..question
129:6,11, 169:23 purported 14:17
19 170:18 160:2 18:11,13
protective providing 161:23 60:3 199:5
7:14 175:7 50:11 170:10,16 qualified
protocols 93:23 purposes 18:21
28:1 167:23 30:2 40:17 quantity
169:8 65:16,20, 191:25
prove 82:13 22 75:1,19
Public 29:20 quarterly
provide 42:4 49:12,19, 78:1 81:13
47:13,25 104:9 53:14
25 55:6 59:9,17
49:8 50:5, 62:18 164:6
23 89:8 61:2
64:19,23 purview
103:1 65:9 68:1 14:20 question
118:10,16 119:25 9:23,25
150:21 put 86:2,21 13:1 16:9
148:21 87:12,24
156:9 150:3,15 28:22
171:14 88:12 41:14
152:12 92:17,18
provided 155:1,7 42:19
113:23,24 43:16
21:6,7 publicize 153:6
22:7,9,10, 44:23
182:13 154:8 45:25
15 23:8
29:17,21 pull 26:9, putting 46:2,10
30:1 10 51:19 74:15 48:5 50:20
47:14,24 82:18 116:25 54:2 57:9
57:20 94:14 161:17,22 58:6
64:15 95:8 97:20 162:3,7,19 61:12,16
113:7 101:18 163:6 63:16,22,
117:15,23 114:10 166:12 24 65:16,
119:11 119:1 167:8,18 20,22
121:23 131:24 169:3 67:21
122:21 142:15 171:18 75:3,4
123:5,18 144:8 77:9 78:1
124:7 pulled 52:9 Q 81:13 82:2
126:1,20 86:20
pulling qualification 89:21
142:13 114:16 167:8 90:14,24
156:18,24
164:2 purely 185:9 qualifications 94:11
104:3,9,


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: questioning..reasonable
12,21 202:8 6:21,22 164:10,11,
105:1,14, 205:8 21:23 23 165:1,7
19 108:23 206:1 210:7 177:11
117:21 questioning race 135:8 187:15
126:22 126:25 205:1
128:18 raise 7:2
127:2 reading
134:17 174:12 ranked 15:24 88:18
135:22 181:9 16:18 91:14
136:5,24 201:7
questions rate 78:3,9
139:14 208:20
8:23 88:23 81:3 82:3
146:17
151:13 106:15 rates 81:14 reads 73:5,
161:10,21 110:15 23 86:3,23
rating 81:16
166:21 135:15 87:17
139:10 re-cross 88:16
167:2
149:10 207:9 92:20
168:1,21
169:11 164:7,19 reached 107:23
170:13 165:6,7, 24:1,8 108:3
171:12,15 17,24 124:23 109:13
174:11 175:8 ready 110:8
read 26:13
175:3,11, 177:14 132:24
31:8
15 176:16 206:21 159:6
53:12,21
177:11 207:7,9,13 176:13
54:3 57:23
180:4 208:13 209:10
76:18,20,
183:22 210:5,6,7
21 90:21 real 111:4
184:12,24 quick 106:8 100:4
185:9 208:13 reason 10:3
103:9
188:1 61:18 62:1
quote 84:2,8 118:13,18,
190:18 80:17
155:21 21,25
191:12 148:2
173:1 121:11,14,
193:2,14, 151:3
186:2 15 122:10,
17 194:18, 155:6
19 124:17,
20 196:25 quotes 133:2 156:13
24 125:7,
197:23,25 158:15 158:22
10,18
198:20 170:21
132:23
199:9 R 185:16
138:19
200:6 201:13
142:4
201:5 Rabinovitz
145:8 reasonable


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: reasons..reforms
105:5 150:12,14, 94:18 refer 129:4,
133:8,14 24 151:3, 102:13 8,12 139:3
151:14 11 152:11 107:2 164:24
reasons 154:18 112:4 reference
134:1 155:5,13 114:21 126:16
136:3,12 156:10 recollection 130:8
137:15,25 157:1 130:16 references
148:8 received record 6:3 117:17,25
recall 11:4 45:18 7:12,16,18 121:25
22:18 55:8 48:4,15 8:18 9:11 122:23
97:8 53:23 54:8 24:18 123:7,20
108:14 58:17 32:24 34:4 124:9
128:17 69:10,12 35:19 126:3
135:3 122:9 38:18
124:19 referral
144:25 98:11 122:2
154:23 125:9 110:8,16
155:25 131:5,13 113:4 referred
163:12 receives 119:10 130:20
185:12 53:14 120:22 referring
190:22 55:5,12 121:3,13 20:2 38:4
195:4,22 148:20 159:1,3,4, 168:10,17,
196:9 receiving 7 161:6 18 200:4
207:16,20 49:3 207:1,6,14
refers 74:4
receive 155:18 records 128:23
13:15 36:4 recent 28:8 81:15 202:23
46:4,10, 129:20 redesigned reflect 28:1
12,16,22 142:20 95:19 141:25
47:2,6
49:6 55:16 recently reduce reflected
56:4,13,25 88:3 114:24 143:18
57:22 58:9 recess 52:3 192:1
reflecting
59:8,15 110:6 Reducing 133:2
61:2 62:6, 159:5 191:25
reformed
17 67:4 176:10 reeligible 172:18
68:2 69:16 207:5 15:1 41:12
70:5 131:7 reforms
recognize 155:25
149:1,14 35:12,13
82:22


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: regime..released
regime 24 60:3,9, 32:24 34:4 registrations
139:5,15, 21 83:8 35:12,19 13:15
20 140:2, 116:3,4 38:18 53:22
4,13 133:15 39:13 40:4 56:20
142:6,12 136:13 49:5,9 57:20 58:4
143:4,15 137:3 54:7 56:19 74:19
145:5,22, 141:10,11, 57:4,11,25 80:9,19
25 146:13 14 153:16 58:24 81:19 82:5
147:1 181:16 59:22 regulate
148:5 206:18 60:2,4,6,7 186:2,9
149:19 registered 61:20,23
150:2 79:10 regulates
33:6,8 174:3
151:19 34:13 81:4,15
152:1,4 82:7 83:6 176:24
35:18 177:19
153:4,20 37:10,14 110:22
156:3 111:16 185:25
39:24
157:5,21 46:8,15 136:25 Regulating
158:1 49:7 54:20 137:6 172:15
171:4,21 58:22,25 138:11 178:10
181:25 59:11 69:5 140:19,25
relate 30:4
184:19 74:8,17 142:14,21
164:20
185:13,17, 118:12 144:12,17
175:9
21 186:1,7 135:17 153:15
190:23 172:16,22 relates
181:20
197:10 174:4 151:22
208:4
201:10 176:25 relating
204:9 registering 177:20 7:23 8:9,
118:20 178:17
regional 13 20:23
122:8 179:7,19
19:19 25:6,9
124:16 180:1,10, 51:4
register 137:7 17 181:18
18:22 141:5 relationship
182:3,20
39:25 181:6,22 121:20
183:7,19
40:1,6 205:7 184:2,9,17 release
54:21 57:3 registration 185:18 209:11
58:4,11, 11:20 186:3 released
13,19 17:22 209:7 84:20
59:12,17, 18:10 154:20,21


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: relevant..resident
155:2 80:18 176:13,14 174:11
relevant removed Reporting request
36:19 40:9 34:13 67:25 23:15
reliant 67:8 37:9,15 reports 72:19
39:13 46:9 28:15 176:1
relief 54:20
138:16,21 29:8,11 requested
58:23 60:7 53:14 110:19
rely 37:5 61:19,24 56:25
79:18 requests
38:23 59:9,17
39:11,16 154:2 25:14
60:5
40:19 repeat 28:22 require 78:7
represent
57:19 38:11 166:22
63:9,11 34:11
139:9 39:23 required
156:9 202:8 108:17
65:15
relying repeating 104:8 109:2
38:22 177:5 140:23 122:6
208:2 142:19,25 124:14
rephrase
remainder 143:18 125:8
48:5
139:4 144:15 requires
replaced 149:7,12
remember 184:24
84:18 152:14
113:6 requiring
report 31:5, 160:9
191:3 118:14,22
195:9,10, 9,12 32:3 representation
60:12 61:2 reregister
13 65:19
71:9,19 135:11
143:6
remind 98:15 80:5 187:1
149:8,17
remote 6:8, 119:13 152:16,20 research
11,15,19, 127:22 160:17 166:13,15
25 26:15 207:17 171:11 167:8,11
42:13 reporter 6:2 203:4 171:3,10
remotely 9:3 7:1,8,17 representative researched
8:16 38:7, 90:4,15 139:24
removal 34:9
11 91:8
54:13 represented reserving
110:10,12
61:18 62:1 153:11 207:8
158:25
remove 38:24 159:8 representing resident
56:19 6:6,10 31:14


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Resource..role
Resource restoration 175:2,15 107:17
15:25 50:2 64:21 revealing 115:14
resources 66:2,7 174:14 117:16,17,
39:2 161:10 24 118:1
review 22:16 121:9
restore
respect 39:7,8 122:1,24
146:21 186:17 50:7,8 123:8,21
respectfully restored 63:14 74:1 124:10
178:23 61:25 78:12 126:4
108:2 100:7 130:22
responds 130:22 163:5,7,15 131:16
161:7 182:25 reviewed 182:25
response 183:8 21:5 22:3, 183:5,8
22:22 192:7,25 5 25:25 186:18
23:15 193:9 39:6 63:5 187:12,23
25:13 194:3 164:1 188:7
159:17 199:13,23 189:13,24
200:13,24 reviewing
163:9 190:15
180:14 201:16 55:21
192:7,25
204:19 63:18
responses 193:9
205:6,23 76:24
209:16 194:2
206:9 100:5
199:13,23
responsibiliti 132:25
es 13:2 restoring 200:13,24
163:12
17:19 187:12,23 201:16
164:18
19:22 188:7 204:2,19
165:11,14
189:12,23 205:5,22
restate 208:17
190:15 206:8
44:23 revised
45:25 54:2 restrictions role 12:4
113:3
63:16 155:17 13:3,12
revisions 14:23 16:3
117:20 result 113:16
134:17 17:11,20,
145:16
rights 13:14 25 18:6,9,
restitution resulted 17,24
14:8 18:3
108:1,9, 78:3 25:24 19:6,15
12,19 resume 49:14 50:2 20:10
109:3,8, 175:21 51:4 61:25 67:25
12,15 64:21 72:18
reveal
66:2,8 136:18


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: rollout..seeking
196:20 150:4,15 184:21 120:5
197:3 152:12 scratch 126:24
rollout 155:1,7, 129:17 section 8:7,
19:24 12,14 9,15 73:4
screen 26:10
rolls 38:24, sake 7:19 27:3,4 91:2,3
25 39:14 82:2 71:5 72:25 96:17
79:18 Sam 132:12 99:16 112:17
132:4 143:22
roughly 35:4 sample 34:11 145:11,14
80:1,8 satisfy screen-share 160:12
81:18 82:4 204:17 26:11
152:22 seek 138:21
205:4,21 script 139:5,15
208:14 206:7 103:8,17 143:5
routine 144:24
schedule scroll 26:12
50:16 7:23 50:16 52:19 146:14
row 116:13, 61:10 147:1
scheduled
14 72:23 148:6
113:16
103:12 149:20
rule 7:22 117:9
116:12 150:3
8:3,12 scheme 132:17 151:19
77:19 166:17 159:23 153:5,21
145:25 167:13,22 161:2 156:3
ruled 77:6, 169:7,22 165:10,12 157:6
23 141:17 170:5 171:4,22
Scrolling
146:24 171:7,24 175:24
184:16 165:13
run 111:5 176:6
195:16 search 24:11 182:1
196:20 39:8 186:1
S
197:3 searched 190:24
Safety 29:20 schemes 25:13 201:11
49:12,19 185:6,7 seeking
searches
50:1 55:6 138:17,23
scope 86:10 24:16
62:18 139:21
87:6 89:17 second-to-last
64:19,23 140:13
92:25 201:21
65:9 142:7
109:17
119:25 secretary 143:16
131:17
148:21 119:24 145:22
133:11


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: SEIMS..serving
185:13 19:1 31:3 141:13 sentencing
204:10 33:12,17 145:15 83:20
SEIMS 33:2,8 41:7,17 153:1 84:17
35:19 45:17 159:25 141:12
61:20,22 46:22 199:24 separate
74:18 47:15 202:23 40:24
75:13,24 48:20 203:15
49:14 207:24 serve 17:11
78:24 115:21
80:10 50:3,10 208:4,7
51:7 55:8, 171:4,23
209:8 sentenced
15 56:9 148:25 served 19:7
select 57:2 58:12 149:13 166:16
31:15,16 59:18 167:12
152:18
send 8:16 60:20,21 191:2 186:19
40:24 61:5,18
sentences serves
41:1,11, 62:8,22
15:6 18:8 112:15
18,21 63:4,11
20:12 42:5 167:23
43:10,11, 70:7,17,23
47:23 169:7,22
13 47:21 73:5,23
54:12,16 75:12 77:5 55:19 56:6 service
68:14 83:16 63:2 64:8, 193:19
69:7,14,21 86:5,25 14,19 65:1 206:14
70:22 88:16 66:1,7
serving
101:24 89:1,19 76:1,11
13:24
150:4 92:8 78:23
14:14
153:22 96:21,24 121:24
15:13
154:2,11 100:11 122:22
18:8,14
210:15 101:3 123:6,19
19:1 20:11
107:23,25 124:8
sending 31:3,20
112:21 126:2
101:25 33:16
116:1,6,17 128:25
59:18
sends 70:19 118:15,23 129:5
66:17,24
122:8 142:4
sense 64:6 68:10,25
124:15,24 155:24
sentence 70:12
125:2,7, 186:20
13:24 75:11,25
12,23 187:2
14:25 76:11
128:6,11 199:14
15:14 78:23
129:10 200:14
18:15,20 101:3


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: set..software
115:22 34:23 35:3 signing 80:16 81:1
116:17 123:12 122:10 124:22
118:15,23 show 28:17, 124:18 125:15
121:23 23 30:3 125:11,19 126:8
122:7,22 31:1,23 similar 41:6 148:1
123:5,18 32:19 54:17 156:12
124:8,15 33:10 34:1 72:12 157:3,18
126:2 55:23 74:24 162:15,17
128:10,24 111:23 75:23 163:23
129:10 140:10 179:5
130:5 simple 147:6 180:24
144:7 189:6
141:13 159:12 190:2,11
145:15 198:15 201:1
153:1 showed 80:1 simplified situation
207:24 111:16 189:4 48:2,7
208:4,7 showing 121:4
simplifies
set 50:16 37:18 64:7 187:11,22 skills 78:8
110:11 shown 80:22 188:6
134:1 189:11,22 skip 97:19
shows 31:9 106:22
137:13 190:14
38:16
159:18 skipped
57:13 simplify
185:7 114:18
62:21,22 187:19
share 71:5 99:24 189:8 slide 28:14
sharing 101:1 192:1 34:9 37:7,
16:21 103:8 simplifying 19 38:2
197:20,25 186:16 39:2,20,
shifting 198:11 188:22,23, 22,23
51:25 40:16
side 36:8 25 189:2
shoes 86:2, 96:17 99:20
21 87:12, simply 89:21
99:15 slightly
25 88:13, 141:3 sir 110:12 34:17
14 92:19 159:8 60:18
sign 91:5
short 142:4 sit 97:5 smart 56:10
signature
shorthand Site 98:19
210:19 so-called
139:8 129:24
significant sitting
shortly 44:18,24
78:10 software


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: sold..stands
17:2 20:2, 70:11 109:5,17 97:24 98:4
6,7 speak 36:10 117:19 99:13
sold 120:25 48:12 118:3 100:3
72:21 131:19 102:10
solely 63:9 133:12 103:6
89:4,17
solemnly 7:3 118:9 134:16 106:24
174:9 141:22 112:3
somebody's
176:2 142:9 127:25
182:25
146:3 128:2
202:24 speaking 153:9,25 stamped
someone's 16:9 88:1 173:19
136:12 28:13 34:7
100:24 182:6 53:10
sort 19:7 specific 186:6 72:24
28:9 157:24 195:19 83:11
75:10,15 193:17 196:24
197:7 stand 106:20
76:10 specifically
115:19 201:18 standard
9:24 23:5
117:1 203:13,23 36:22,24
107:15
129:11 204:13,25 37:2
115:18
205:13,25 117:16,24
sought specificity
Speculative 121:24
184:19 160:2
86:12 122:23
sound 26:23 170:10 123:6,19
30:18 spent
speculate 124:9
208:14,20 126:3,20,
sounds 81:22 88:7
104:23 split 32:2 23
speculation
109:24 34:25 36:2 spoke 64:17 standards
110:5 43:7 45:23 113:5 126:12
151:7 47:11 spoken 21:3 standing
source 38:23 48:11 65:3 87:19
80:12 87:8 stack 22:19
67:6 69:15 88:17
74:12 93:2 staff 24:2,8
standpoint
100:22 25:5
sources 45:15
101:8,16 121:22
119:8 182:24
104:6,16 208:17
South 66:13 105:9 stands 73:13
stamp 34:7
68:8,24 108:22 186:7
76:16
69:1,13


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: start..state
start 66:21 16,20,21 21 78:10, 142:6,11
178:11 31:12,17 14,21,25 145:18
started 7:11 32:1,17,22 79:13 146:10,17
117:1 33:13,25 83:2,6 148:2,19
34:17 86:19 152:25
starters 35:22 88:22 89:7 155:22
79:23 37:1,8 90:5 93:9, 157:4
starting 38:4,15 14,24 94:2 159:16
91:19 39:4,16 95:2,9 160:1,2,20
132:19 40:13 98:11,25 161:6,7
41:9,14,17 99:4 162:6,18,
starts 76:19
42:1 43:2 102:18 25 163:15,
98:3,12
46:12 103:2 25 166:14,
102:9
47:3,7,17, 107:6,10, 23 167:2,
106:23
20 48:4,13 13 108:23 10,20
112:3
49:4,17,24 112:9 168:9,17,
121:13
50:12 113:24 21 169:5,
127:25
51:16 114:2 19 170:9,
128:2
53:1,6,13 115:8,12 14 171:2,
161:5
54:10 55:7 119:6 20 172:20,
state 6:6 56:6,17,22 120:11,17 25 173:9,
7:22 8:3, 62:4,11, 121:21 15,24
5,7,12,22 16,22,25 122:20 176:20
9:10 11:3 63:8,22 123:4,16 177:6,8,
12:20 64:1,18 124:6,12, 10,15,23,
13:5,7,9, 65:11 21 125:13, 24 178:4,
12,17 14:3 66:13 15,24,25 13,19,24
19:3,5,12, 67:4,14, 126:9,25 179:4,13,
20 21:6,17 20,22,24 127:1 15 180:8,
23:14,22 68:3,18 128:7,23 15 183:3,
25:4,12 69:17 129:3,8,16 15,21,23
26:2 70:4,8,18, 130:20 184:6,14
27:13,21, 24 71:16, 133:23 185:16
23 28:2, 19 72:2,7, 134:18,25 186:23
18,19,24 11,13 135:19 187:7,16,
29:1,11, 73:7,13 136:1,25 20 188:1,2
13,23 75:3,9 137:13 189:8,16,
30:5,8,14, 77:2,8,15, 138:20 17,19


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: state's..supervised
190:10,24 201:8 steps 54:6 128:8
192:11,14 statements 58:15 Structured
193:2,11, 100:8 79:12 83:20
23 194:5, 157:17 84:17
8,20 states 7:20 199:13,22
195:23 14:2 33:14 200:12,24 stumbling
196:25 45:11 201:16 111:3
198:9 67:8,11 subject
76:8 83:18 stop 61:15
199:17 111:21 63:21
200:6,7, 84:10 84:20
112:23 112:11,14
16,18,19 121:7
201:12 116:20 stores 122:11
202:1,10, 123:25 120:24 150:6
11 203:7, 124:11 story 132:23 167:7
17,24 139:19 207:8
140:1,3,5, Strach
204:1,8
12 145:18, 119:24 submits
205:2,17
21 160:25 120:5,10 57:11
206:1,3
207:18 202:18 straightforwar submitted
208:2 d 144:4 24:19
stating 8:19
209:25 49:6 198:21
subpart
state's streamline 83:13
Station
66:12,17, 98:19 183:13,14
subset 26:4
23 185:17,22
status 21:13 substitute
stated 15:2 streamlines
31:10,20 114:4
31:18 58:5 32:5,9,20 174:3
176:24 substituted
76:5 38:6,17
177:19 115:3
100:1,23 49:8 124:4
153:19 156:9,25 183:18 successful
157:8 157:15 184:1,9,16 122:15
179:12 205:8,9 streamlining suggest 80:7
193:12 172:15 81:2
statute
196:9,16 178:10 197:10
161:10
statement 183:14
stay 158:25 super 91:18
80:14 185:3
step 99:20, supervised
118:5,7 strict
137:20 23 65:18
127:11


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: supervises..talking
supervises 179:7,18 64:20
65:10 180:10 103:9,21 T
supervision 181:5 suspect tabulation

66:18,24 182:2 158:11,16 20:7
84:19,21 183:2,6,18
184:1,9 suspected tabulators
85:6,22,23 128:23
187:10,22 20:7
86:3,6,9, 129:4
22 87:2,4, 188:5 takes 34:24
17,21 189:11,22 swear 7:3 35:5
88:7,15,20 190:14
switch 82:15 taking 78:22
89:24 192:23
117:11
90:22 193:7,25 talk 9:18
194:11,23 sworn 9:3 44:25
92:1,15,
20,23 195:25 synonymous 82:16
93:16 94:5 196:5,13, 91:25 154:17
97:3,12 15 199:20 174:13
synopsis
100:16,20 200:10,22 175:20,23
208:23
101:1,4,14 202:4,14, 176:5
25 203:10, system 19:24
104:2,10, talked 20:22
21 204:4 20:5 47:25
13,19,25 37:6 38:14
205:20 57:12
105:7,13, 41:24 46:3
206:6,12, 69:13,18
22 108:6 48:3,7
14,15,16 73:25
111:1,9,11 57:6
74:5,22
113:1,11, supplemental 62:12,20
75:10,18,
15 116:10, 28:5 78:15,17,
23 115:16
22 126:16 support
20 79:24
143:3
127:7 81:10 148:18
144:22
129:21 122:14 152:24
149:4
130:6 170:4 153:12
150:14
138:25 180:5 154:19
209:8
154:22 181:1 155:20
155:3 systematic 170:2,9
156:5,15 supported 70:14 190:22
160:15,23 78:11 195:4,22
systems
174:3 supporting 19:22 20:1 talking
176:23 19:21 140:6 50:25
177:18 70:10
supposed
178:16


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: tasked..today
91:15 160:12 208:23 210:12,18
125:3,5 191:3 210:3 times 21:11
164:14 terminology thinking
171:6 timing 158:8
29:4 85:2 158:7
172:8 88:4,8,10 tired 177:4
180:1 thousand
127:15 17:6 title 12:18
tasked 49:12 terms 107:24 28:14
thousands
technical 116:5 29:19 34:8
95:25 52:10
64:6 152:18
158:8 time 10:21 71:21
technician
191:24 11:7 18:16 102:13
19:17 19:16 140:21
202:24
technology 203:20 20:16 titled 39:20
27:7 28:1 207:21 26:13 71:8 73:4
189:5 31:14 36:7 94:22
terrible
telling 40:3 51:22 98:18
75:4 52:1 58:5
41:19 99:20
43:14 tested 60:22 61:9 113:23
45:3,19 209:9,10 63:20 116:13
46:6,18,23 testified 72:10 127:21
47:8 48:16 9:4 12:12, 83:24 132:13
61:9 70:20 16 89:21 141:4
79:9 107:13
testimony 118:19 today 9:14
106:19 7:3 10:4,8 10:4,8
124:20
tells 34:18 105:3 126:13 22:17 23:5
template 196:8 135:3,4 44:18,24
36:23,24 thing 60:15 139:10 80:16 81:1
37:2 40:3, 89:15 147:16 84:9 85:10
13 97:22 149:22 97:6
112:17 153:17 124:22
ten 110:1,2 125:16
139:9 158:9,23
term 85:4, 178:7 126:8
things 148:1
5,8,9,12, 183:22
13,15,16, 11:19,22 156:12
197:1
18 149:1, 22:24 36:8 157:3,18,
200:6
14 154:18 111:5 25 159:12
206:1
156:7,16 113:19 162:15,18
208:19


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: today's..understanding
163:23 transcript turn 28:12 9:13 10:1
166:17 9:16 34:6 39:18 12:25
167:23 transfer 52:7 53:9 13:23
169:8,23 102:2 66:10 71:2 14:24 21:4
170:17 83:10 30:23 46:1
179:5 transition 90:25 48:17
180:24 154:16 99:11 66:15
183:24 transitioning 100:2 73:21
187:21 145:4 107:19 85:13,14
190:2,11 128:5 87:22
Transylvania
201:1 172:6 88:6,21
17:10,23
208:24,25 192:3 89:6,25
18:17 19:6
210:12 199:10 90:10,19
Trena 21:21 201:21 92:21
today's 21:2
trial 12:13, turned 19:5 93:6,7
told 133:25 127:4,10
17 141:12 80:3
top 53:11 128:13,19
true 27:12, turnout
56:13 131:12
20 52:24 173:6,21
97:17 133:17
53:5 71:14
107:11,21 turns 19:2 157:14
83:1 95:1
127:20 168:14
98:24 type 140:12
132:8 169:13
102:17
192:4 173:8
115:6 U
185:4
touch 20:10 142:1
Uh-huh 69:6 188:17
touched 37:4 152:3
120:1 191:13
track 73:16 trust 135:6
ultimately understandable
tracking trusted 122:3
26:1
209:15 135:9,12 139:11
uncertain
trailed truth 7:4,5 understanding
90:20
114:14 9:14 61:9 7:20 22:12
134:11,21
122:25 truthful 25:18
unclear 30:17
trails 42:18 10:4,8
87:13 31:19 33:2
104:12
training underneath 39:10 44:9
19:25 27:7 truthfully
99:17 57:18 65:8
209:22 104:3 67:1 71:25
understand


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: Understood..vote
85:19,25 update 61:17 169:24 111:17,18
90:15,16, 112:25 170:19 114:12
17,18 147:12 172:1 115:11
103:7 updated 173:3,11 140:25
104:22 28:15 174:7 144:17
105:11 95:13 99:9 177:2,22 versions
109:20,21 111:19,22 179:21 110:20
127:9 117:6 180:13 114:5,8
130:7 126:15 183:9
131:1 187:3,14, versus 90:16
139:2 updates 28:9 24 188:9 video 99:17
174:10,18 updating 189:15,25
view 188:13
Understood 58:23 94:9 190:16
95:14 193:1,10 violate 8:21
95:23
121:5 170:23 194:4,14, violated
24 200:1, 122:13
undertake user 31:15,
15 202:6,
171:2 16 violates
16 203:13,
user-friendly 184:21
undertook 23 205:24
208:18 94:10 violations
variables
95:22 15:16
Uniform 147:24
121:8 148:15 virtue
V 198:18
uniformity vary 147:9,
127:1,2 vacuum 16 visible
148:11 114:24
United varying
145:18 vague 28:21 16:15 vividly
29:3 45:23 135:3
unlawfulness Velez 21:22
49:21 voice 91:16
122:5 verb 183:14
63:13 75:2
unlike 108:8 78:6 83:21 185:24 volume 51:3
unreasonable 93:17 verbs 178:7, vote 13:25
134:7 105:9 8 14:9,15
124:25 15:1,5
unsure Veronica
134:15 18:11,12,
136:20 25:2
138:18 20,22
untimely 157:7 version 20:12
35:15 167:25 28:6,10 28:20 29:2


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: voted..voter's
31:2,18, 101:4,12 17,22 61:19,24
21,25 103:10 182:2,18, 62:9 69:5
32:4,8,11 105:14,20, 19 187:1 83:5 91:5
33:21 23 109:14 192:13 99:21,24
34:19 112:12 194:13 100:8
35:18 116:4,13 195:7 103:21
37:14 118:12,21 196:22 110:21
39:24,25 122:9 197:5,18, 111:15
40:1,6 124:16,17 21 201:12 118:17
41:3,8,12, 127:13 202:20 134:4,6,9
20 42:6 128:16 205:7 136:25
43:5,15 130:15 206:19 138:11
44:12,21 131:16 voted 15:13 140:19,25
45:4,20 132:14 19:1 72:3 142:14,20,
46:7,18,24 133:4 74:23 21 144:11,
47:9 48:9, 134:12,22 76:2,12 12,17
17,19 135:11 77:3,16 172:16,22
54:22 56:8 136:4,7, 80:21 173:21
57:4 14,21 122:4 174:4
58:11,13, 137:3,7, 128:16 176:24
19 59:1, 11,17,18, 129:9 177:19
11,13,18, 19,24 143:2,10 178:17
25 60:9,22 138:2,8 195:6 179:7,19
62:6,23 139:1,22 207:23 180:1,10,
64:9 66:19 141:5,11, 208:6 17 181:18,
67:2,16 14 143:10 20 182:3,
68:15,18 146:21 voter 11:20 20 183:6,
69:9 70:21 149:21 13:15 18 184:2,
74:10 83:8 150:16 17:21 9,16
85:23 151:5,9, 18:10 185:17
86:8,24 17,20 32:23 34:4 186:3
87:4,20 152:6 35:12,19 209:7
88:19,24 153:2 38:18
voter's
89:9,23 154:9 46:8,16
57:11,19 36:20 54:7
90:21 155:23,25 61:20
92:22 160:4,16, 58:22
59:22 96:16
99:25 21 170:17 103:9
100:20 181:6,13, 60:1,4


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: voters..workers
voters 14:17 106:1 55:23 11:19
33:5 107:17 125:1 95:15
34:12,14, 112:13,15 Warren 120:6 word 64:5
18 35:24 113:6,10 126:24 91:4
37:10 115:14 121:13
40:25 117:16,17, watch 106:19
147:5
41:1,6,11, 24,25 ways 73:11 178:2
19 54:19, 118:12,21 137:5 182:10
21 74:8,17 121:8 145:24 185:2
77:19 122:1,14,
website word-
82:17 24 123:8,
114:7,8 processing
95:10 20 124:10
112:12,18 126:4 week 10:18 147:7
118:13,21 128:7,10, 11:11 wording
122:10 24 129:5, 58:11 146:7
124:7,17 20 130:4, 143:1,2
words 173:17
125:8,10, 21 131:16 198:6
18 132:20 133:10 203:1 work 47:12
136:3,6 134:1,14, 209:5 51:11 84:6
143:25 23 136:22 134:8
weekly 36:6
192:11,15, 138:4,11, 149:3,4
Westbrook 150:9
17 208:5 13 181:23,
119:23 209:15,19
votes 106:4 24 183:5
120:5
127:5 186:25 worked 16:12
187:12,23 western 17:1,3,4
voting 188:7 19:20 19:12,20
13:14,19 189:13,24 20:22 50:4
Whitley 6:17
14:5 15:25 190:15 135:9
16:18,19, willingly
204:2 162:12
20 17:1,21 122:12
163:4,21
18:2,8 withdraw
W worker 99:24
19:22,24 200:2
20:1,3,5,6 100:7,19
waived
withheld 101:2,5,9,
49:14 50:2 210:19
51:4 66:2, 183:4 11 103:8,
walk 26:6 20 105:15
8 73:25 withholding
80:3 98:19 wanted 7:11 204:2 workers
99:21 30:21 11:25 99:5
witnesses


30(b)(6) Karen Brinson Bell on 07/16/2020 ·Index: working..zoom
102:23 30:18
147:14 65:21
197:14,15 124:2
working 128:11
16:13 84:5 135:24
114:4 149:9
158:15
works 88:2 175:4
world 121:1 196:2
150:2 wrote 78:10
152:10 126:5
worried 178:22
175:1
worry 98:9 Y
worthless year 10:17,

149:10 22 12:24
wrapping 31:16
106:10 36:15
144:22
written 14:8
30:6 45:7 year's 96:2
71:19 years 73:18
123:13 127:8
124:3 129:20
125:12
yesterday
126:23
7:13 175:7
132:11
208:25
140:9
170:7
Z
173:9,14
178:4 zoom 35:6
181:11 52:17 98:8
186:10,13 119:8
202:21 132:5
203:16
206:11
wrong 29:15


Exhibit 2
NCSBE’s Post-Election Audit Report: General Election

2016, dated April 21, 2017.

General Election 2016
N~ RTHCAROLINA
State Board a/Elections

BACKGROUND The N.C. State Board of Elections (NCSBE) is an independent and
bipartisan agency charged with oversight of elections in North Carolina.
Advances in database technology and data quality and the formation of
an in-house investigative team now allow the agency to develop audits
that flag irregularities for review by investigators. These “post-election
integrity audits” compare voter and election records with various
government databases to identify potentially ineligible voters and
irregularities, ranging from unintentional violations to intentional voter
fraud and elections tampering. [Appendix 1: Audit Descriptions]
Conducting integrity audits requires NCSBE to walk an extremely tight

line: Preserving processes that ensure broad access to the polls while
preventing unlawful participation. Data cannot tell the whole story and
audit results must be analyzed carefully by those who know the
limitations of individual data sources. Data analysts work alongside
trained investigators with prior experience in state and federal law
enforcement to review cases before drawing conclusions or involving
prosecutors.
State law requires our agency to investigate “frauds and irregularities in

elections” and to report violations to the attorney general or district
attorneys. [Appendix 2: G.S. § 163-22(d)]
NCSBE takes seriously its uniquely independent position to address

allegations of fraud in the state through responsible, data-driven
investigations. In 2015, this agency created a formal Investigations
Division — one of a few of its kind in the nation — to review allegations
related to elections and refer them to prosecutors when warranted by
evidence.
State and federal elected officials, journalists and everyday citizens have
requested information regarding cases of fraud or investigations
following the 2016 elections. [Appendix 3: Congressional Letter]
Rather than providing information on a one-off basis, NCSBE staff

prepared this report, which is intended to provide an overview of audits,
findings and investigations related to the 2016 general election in North
Carolina, while offering context necessary to avoid misinterpretation.
Where possible, this report also provides numbers of voters who
investigators are reviewing or who investigators have concluded were
not eligible to participate.
Irregularities occur in small percentages in nearly every election, and

North Carolina is not immune to this. Administrative error and
misunderstanding should be distinguished from systemic manipulation
or intentional fraud. However, NCSBE understands that whether an
irregularity is administrative, unintentional or intentional, the end result
is an ineligible vote that dilutes votes lawfully cast by eligible voters.
Even assuming all ineligible ballots identified in this report were cast
for the prevailing candidate, no races -- statewide or local -- would
have had a different outcome than the one already certified by the
state.

SUMMARY Nearly 4.8 million N.C. voters participated in the 2016 general election,
the largest number in state history. It is important to recognize that
suspected cases of ineligible voters casting ballots and/or committing
fraud represent a tiny fraction of that number.
The following data points summarize the results of post-election audits

from the 2016 general election:
 441 open cases of voting by suspected active felons. The State

Constitution disqualifies current felons from voting until their
sentence is completed, including probation or parole. Investigators
were able to rule out more than 100 voters initially flagged as
ineligible through the audit, further supporting the need for
investigative review of data audits. These new processes are being
implemented to ensure those serving felony sentences do not remain
on the voter rolls and that all registrants are checked against the
current felons’ database at the time of registration. New processes
fill gaps in the list maintenance process outlined in G.S. § 163-
82.14(c).
 41 non-citizens with legal status (green card, etc.) cast ballots.
The State Constitution only permits U.S. citizens to register and to
vote. The audit pairing state and federal databases identified an
additional 34 voters who provided documents showing they are U.S.
citizens. Investigators continue to review 61 additional records.
 24 substantiated cases of double-voting initiated through tips
and data audits. An initial audit identified a few dozen additional
voter records that remain under review, though administrative errors
by poll workers can lead to voter history being assigned to the wrong
people; this may lead to false positives in audits that can only be
detected by more detailed review.
 Two cases of voter impersonation referred to prosecutors.
NCSBE is conducting additional review using death data and
double-voting audits to identify whether additional cases should be
investigated. Of the two cases referred, one involves voting by mail,
and the other involves voting in person. Both involve family
members voting in the place of a recently deceased loved one,
forgery of the deceased voter’s signature, and subsequent
admissions to investigators. [Appendix 4: Admission Letters]
 Irregularities affecting absentee by-mail voting in Bladen
County. The State Board voted unanimously late last year to refer
an investigation into suspected criminal activity to federal
prosecutors.
 No evidence of ballot stuffing or equipment tampering. NCSBE
was among the first states to partner with the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security in an effort last year to prevent cyber hacking.
A separate audit of voting systems logs presented no evidence of
administrative fraud, including in Durham County (where an
investigation in the March primary was referred to local
prosecutors).
[Appendix 5: Breakdown of Voting Irregularities by Type, Party

Affiliation of Voters]
2

All numbers above are subject to change based on ultimate investigative
findings.
A provisional ballot audit resulted in 428 ballots of eligible voters

being counted that would not otherwise have counted. The audit was
performed to ensure uniformity and compliance with election laws
among the 100 county boards of election. [Appendix 1: Audit
Descriptions]
FELONS Under G.S. § 163-275(5), it is a Class I felony “for any person convicted
of a crime which excludes the person from the right of suffrage, to vote
. . . without having been restored to the right of citizenship.”
NCSBE initiates investigations into possible cases of felons voting

through a system of data audits followed by investigator review,
referrals from county boards of elections and tips from the public.
In late January 2017, NCSBE sent letters to suspected felon voters

identified through data audits, notifying recipients that they may have
illegally voted and that their registrations would be canceled in 30 days
unless they objected in writing and presented evidence that they are not
active felons. See G.S. §§ 163-82.14(c)(3) and 163-82.14(c) [Appendix
6: Sample Letter to Suspected Felon Voters]
Some suspected felons provided information showing they were not

active felons (they had completed their sentences, been convicted of a
misdemeanor or received a deferred prosecution, for example), and were
eligible to vote. Others told investigators that they did not know they
had lost their voting rights upon conviction.
Currently, 441 files of suspected felon voters remain open after an initial
screening and contacts or attempted contacts with the voters.
Investigators have begun referring investigation reports regarding felons

to local prosecutors. To date, 16 substantiated cases from the 2016
general election have been referred to district attorneys. The remaining
425 are expected to be referred when investigations are complete. Under
state law, felon voting is a strict liability offense, and thus a felon may
be convicted of a crime even if he or she does not know that voting while
serving an active sentence is wrongful.
Updated voter lists help prevent individuals from unintentional

violations. An individual may, for instance, legally register to vote
before becoming a felon and then appear at the polls while on probation.
Such a person may not understand they are ineligible. NCSBE has
reexamined its registration and list maintenance processes and is taking
significant steps to discourage unlawful participation by current felons.
NCSBE’s efforts include:

 Working with public safety officials and the court system to
ensure that convicted felons are expressly notified that they lose
their voting rights upon conviction, and regain them only after
completing their sentence, including probation and parole. Certain
suspects claimed they were never informed of the restriction. An
initial review of associated plea agreements and contact with
probation personnel indicate there is room to improve education
around voting rights. [Appendix 7: Letter to DPS/AOC on Felons]
 Increasing data-sharing between local election officials to
ensure a felon removed in one county does not re-register in
another county, unless his or her sentence is complete. Though
the past system followed the requirements of G.S. § 163-82.14(c), a
gap in the legacy voting data system may have allowed some active
felons to register or to re-register without being detected.
Additional felons who did not vote in the general election were
recently removed from the voter rolls, closing that gap. These
removals followed the notice sent to felons by mail and waiting
period required under state law. Fixing the gap and educating
affected voters will reduce the opportunity for unintentional
violations. It also will improve the likelihood of successful
prosecutions against willful offenders.
 Updating elections software to check felon status at the time of
registration. The improved system is being coded and will roll out
statewide this summer, substantially improving the maintenance
efforts through current technologies and new data-sharing
relationships.
 Adding checkboxes to voter forms to ensure participants are
aware of voter qualifications, including the restriction on current
felons. [Appendix 8: New Voter Forms]
 Educating the public about voting requirements through NCSBE
website, outreach events, news releases, social media and other
means.
NON-CITIZENS The N.C. Constitution allows only U.S.-born and naturalized citizens to
register and vote. It is unlawful for a non-citizen to register or vote in a
state or federal election.
A separate post-election audit and post-audit investigation using state

and federal databases identified non-U.S. citizens suspected of casting
ballots in the general election. Upon receipt of a letter from NCSBE, 41
of these individuals acknowledged they were not U.S. citizens.
[Appendix 9: Sample Letter to Possible Non-U.S. Citizen Voters].
The investigation into these cases, including interviewing voters, is
ongoing.
All cases involve documented non-citizens who were admitted into the
country lawfully. All individuals subject to this audit were matched to
the Department of Homeland Security’s database using information
obtained from the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

NCSBE research shows the 41 non-citizen voters originally came from
28 different countries. [Appendix 10: Breakdown of Non-U.S. Citizen
Voters by Country of Origin]
This audit, detailed in Appendix 1, identified 61 additional voters who

did not respond to the letter, and investigations into those cases continue
as well. And 34 voters, tagged by the same audit, subsequently provided
proof of citizenship, highlighting the fact that data matches alone are not
sufficient to verify citizenship or to take action against the voters
without follow-up investigations.
Information obtained from those who are not citizens illustrates the
complexity of this work. A number of non-citizens said they were not
aware that they were prohibited from voting. Interviews and evidence
show that some non-citizens were misinformed about the law by
individuals conducting voter registration drives or, in at least one
documented case, by a local precinct official. One registrant in her 70s
has lived in the United States for more than 50 years and believed that
she was a citizen because she had been married to a U.S. citizen.
Investigations on non-citizen cases also have revealed the complexities

of immigration law and citizenship status. For instance, some
individuals achieve citizenship as a matter of law through “derived
citizenship” as the child of a naturalized citizen, though paperwork
showing that changed status is only available if requested and official
databases may not reflect the correct status. An Application for
Certificate of Citizenship costs $1,170. Individual contact with affected
registrants has also illustrated the limitations of the data. Even where
data from the Division of Motor Vehicles, the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security and the voter rolls matched exactly, a high
proportion of flagged individuals were citizens. [Appendix 1: Audit
Descriptions]. For this reason, it is important to take a case-by-case
approach to these matters.
As with felons, education and understanding of state law appear to be

the primary problem. Consequently, warnings on voter registration
forms and voting documents are being reviewed to improve their
effectiveness. [Appendix 8: Revised Voter Forms]. NCSBE is
working with the Division of Motor Vehicles to more clearly indicate
that registrants must be U.S. citizens. Additionally, NCSBE is
developing additional poll worker training to address the nuances with
terms like “permanent resident” and “green card” so that poll workers
are better equipped to assist voters who are uncertain about their
eligibility.
DOUBLE VOTERS So-called double voters violate state and federal law by voting more
& than one time in a single election. A suspect may do so by voting
multiple times within the same jurisdiction or in different jurisdictions.
IMPERSONATION NCSBE is currently investigating 24 substantiated cases of double-
voting from the 2016 general election.

North Carolina maintains a strong system that checks for this behavior
throughout voting, whether through the mail, at early voting locations,
or in the precinct on Election Day. However, variations in voter
information or human error can allow a double voter to go undetected
until more nuanced investigation is performed. Some violators appear
to be “testers” trying to find holes in the system. Others claim their
property ownership in multiple jurisdictions should allow them to vote
in each, and others brush past the law to support their candidate by any
means necessary. Additionally, a case that initially appears to be a
double voter — an individual who votes twice — may actually be a case
of voter impersonation — an individual who casts a ballot using the
identity of another person.
Detecting double voting and voter impersonation is a time-intensive

process. Database matching is not enough, as administrative errors can
lead to voter history being assigned to the wrong person — such as when
a poll worker checks off the wrong name on the poll book. Instead, data
is only the starting point for cases that ultimately involve live interviews
and signature analyses. NCSBE has begun that process on possible in-
state double voting cases in 2016. This initial review of NC voter
registration records indicates that there are a few dozen possible
additional cases of double voting; however, this process is still in its
preliminary stages and staff have not yet completed review of voter
documents to determine whether the match was due to administrative
error rather than illegal voting.
NCSBE rarely encounters verified cases of voter impersonation, though

two cases are being referred to prosecutors from the election last fall. In
one instance, a widow voted by mail after allegedly forging her
husband’s signature in the presence of relatives. In the second instance,
a daughter allegedly presented in person to vote in the name of her
deceased mother. The suspects in each case indicated that they were
motivated out of a desire to carry out their loved one’s voting wishes.
[Appendix 4: Admission Letters]. NCSBE is conducting additional
audits using state and federal death databases and screening algorithms
to review 19 cases in which records indicate a date of death earlier than
the date on which records indicate that person voted. An initial review
of the voter registration documents indicates that a number of these are
likely cases of mistaken identity rather than voter fraud where, for
example, the death record was for a “John Smith Sr.” and the voter
record was for a “John Smith Jr.”
While no audit exists to catch all possible cases of voter impersonation,

double voter and deceased voter audits may detect such cases. State law
puts additional deterrents in place. They include requiring identification
documents from (1) voters whose information cannot be verified or who
wish to register and vote on the same day during the early voting period,
(2) requiring voters to state their name and address, and (3) requiring

two witness signatures or a notarial certificate on absentee return
envelopes.1
Also, since 2014, NCSBE has used data from the Interstate Crosscheck
Program as a tool to help identify voters who vote in more than one state
in the same election. Administered by the Kansas Secretary of State’s
office, the program identifies possible duplicate registrations among
states and provides evidence of possible double voting. NCSBE recently
received the program’s data for 2016 and will examine it in the coming
months.
NEXT STEPS NCSBE continues to investigate voting irregularities from the 2016
general election and will refer cases to prosecutors where appropriate.
Findings from post-election audits and subsequent investigations allow
NCSBE to pinpoint which policies are best suited to improving electoral
integrity in the state. For example, because this agency knows that many
irregularities occurred because of a lack of information and education,
we know to direct our efforts to better educating registrants and those
who help citizens register to vote. This agency stands ready to help
policymakers, advocacy organizations, media representatives, and the
general public understand the topic of voting irregularities and provide
information that will help them draw accurate and appropriate
conclusions.
This agency strongly cautions readers not to refer to each of these cases
as “voter fraud.” As stated earlier, “ineligible voters casting ballots”
may be the result of unintentional or intentional conduct. Fraud, in most
cases, is an intent crime that requires prosecutors to show that the voter
knowingly committed a crime.
The evidence suggests that participation by ineligible voters is neither

rampant nor non-existent in North Carolina. Our audits suggest that
in the 2016 general election, approximately 0.01% of ballots were cast
by ineligible voters. Most incidents are isolated and uncoordinated,
and detecting technical violations does not always prove purposefully
unlawful conduct. Our work indicates that ineligible voters are not
isolated to one political party or any geographical region of the state.
When people do vote unlawfully, either out of ignorance or to perpetrate

a fraud, NCSBE now has procedures in place to detect and investigate
those incidents and refer potential criminal cases to prosecutors where
warranted. North Carolina has made tremendous advances in data
analysis and investigation tactics, and NCSBE remains committed to
improving elections administration responsibly by integrating new data
streams into its processes, where appropriate. The report reflects our
agency’s commitment to public transparency, the rule of law, and our
mission to promote access to the polls and the vigilance necessary to
preserve the credibility of electoral outcomes.
1
A federal court enjoined additional identification and registration requirements under S.L. 2013-381 on
July 29, 2016.
7

Post-Election Audit Report
~N$RTH CAROLINA
~ State Board a/Elections
APPENDIX 1
Audit Descriptions
Overview
The following audits are designed to ensure election integrity by maintaining accurate voter rolls and
proper oversight of election processes. Audits take various forms and are crafted to identify data
anomalies that could indicate potential issues or problems, while supporting the N.C. State Board of
Elections’ goal of uniformity and compliance across 100 counties.
The audits have detected instances in which ineligible voters are suspected of casting ballots in the 2016
general election. NCSBE has developed a thorough process to investigate these cases and, when
warranted, refer them to prosecutors across the state to consider criminal charges. NCSBE understands
that some of these cases will be prosecuted and others will not, based on the unique circumstances of
each case.
It is important to note that data used to identify suspected ineligible voters, like all data, is not perfect
and matches require further analysis and investigation. This agency has taken great care to ensure that
no one is publicly accused of any crime or referred to prosecutors without evidence that a crime was
committed and that referral for prosecution is warranted.
Felon Audit
Under state law, it is a Class I felony “for any person convicted of a crime which excludes the person
from the right of suffrage, to vote . . . without having been restored to the right of citizenship.”
After an election, the N.C. State Board of Elections checks the state’s voter registration database against
a list of current felons from the N.C. Department of Public Safety. This analysis cross-checks dates of
birth and driver’s license numbers between the two databases. When a match occurs, NCSBE reviews
voting history to determine whether the individual may have cast a vote while serving a felony sentence.
If an active felon appears to have voted, NCSBE investigators then refer to an additional criminal records
database, the Criminal Justice Law Enforcement Automated Data Services (CJLEADS), for further
verification. The resulting matches from this second check may then be followed up with interviews,
mailings and other traditional investigative methods.
If a current felon appears to be improperly registered, county boards of elections may proceed to remove
the registration following notice and hearing, if requested, as required by state law.
Non-U.S. Citizen Audit
The N.C. Constitution allows only U.S.-born and naturalized citizens to register and vote, and it is
unlawful for a non-citizen to vote in a state or federal election. To identify non-U.S. citizens who may
have cast ballots, NCSBE first checks voter records against N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
data, which indicates whether a customer’s driver’s license contains a restriction code related to their
non-citizen status. Other DMV tables are then cross referenced to determine if evidence of citizenship
was provided in a subsequent visit to the DMV.
Appendix Page 1
~N$RTH CAROLINA
The resulting matches are run through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) database, an information service for agencies to verify
an individual’s immigration status.
NCSBE has determined based on past experience that a match with the SAVE database is not a reliable
indicator that a person is not a U.S. citizen because the database is not always updated in a timely manner
and individuals who derived citizenship from their parents through naturalization or adoption may show
up as non-citizens in SAVE.
Also, due to timing issues and the fact that DMV data is generally updated only when licenses are issued,
DMV data alone is not reliable for this purpose either. In fact, voters who appear to be non-citizens
based on DMV data were confirmed to be U.S. citizens in the SAVE database 97.6 percent of the
time.
If SAVE indicates a voter is a non-citizen, NCSBE opens a case file and attempts to contact the voter to
determine citizenship status through mailings and interviews. Because of the unreliability of citizenship
data, voters who appear to be non-citizens — where both data sources indicate non-citizenship status —
are not removed from the rolls, absent independent confirmation that they are not citizens. In fact,
approximately three-quarters of those who subsequently provide proof of U.S. citizenship continued to
appear as non-citizens in the SAVE database.
Manual Entry Audit
County election officials occasionally must enter election results by hand directly into the vote tabulation
software. This may occur, for example, due to a media card failure. This audit can catch inadvertent
mistakes in transcribing numbers, as well as purposeful manipulation of data. After the 2016 election,
the NCSBE identified all manual entries that occurred in November across the state. Data analysts then
reached out to the counties to identify the reasons for the manual entries. NCSBE determined all
manually entries were done for valid purposes. In the future, manual entry audits will include an
automated process able to detect transcription errors in real time as results are entered by hand. This
change, still under development, will help ensure the accuracy of manual entries made in future elections.
Voter History Audit
When voters check in at polling places, they fill out authorization to vote (ATV) forms or one-stop
applications during early voting. This results in a voter history record for each individual. When ballots
are run through tabulators, tabulation software provides election return data that identifies the number of
ballots cast. This audit compares the number of ATV forms and one-stop applications with the number
of physical ballots cast. Those two numbers should generally match, but may be slightly off for valid
reasons, such as if a voter checks in and then decides not to vote.
This audit is designed to identify certain problems or fraud, such as ballot stuffing, fraudulent manual
entries, tampering with media cards or certain ballot coding issues.
Provisional Ballot Audit
Voters cast provisional ballots when questions arise about their qualifications or eligibility to vote in
certain contests. Those ballots are held aside pending research by county boards of elections as to whether
they should be counted.
Appendix Page 2
~N$RTH CAROLINA
This audit is aimed at ensuring all 100 counties make uniform decisions that comply with election laws
when counting provisional ballots. It compares provisional voter data to several data sources, including
the DMV database, an incomplete queue that catalogs registration attempts that were deemed incomplete
and the current registration database as of Election Day. Data analysts execute matching algorithms to
determine whether provisional voters were eligible vote in the counties where they presented to vote.
Additionally, two web services are used to geocode the voters’ addresses to confirm that they resided in
the county at the time they voted. Audit results are sent to county boards of elections, which analyze
them and, where appropriate, amend their canvasses to reflect any changes.
For the 2016 general election, this audit resulted in 428 voters statewide whose provisional ballots were
counted in accordance with current election law. Those ballots wouldn’t have been counted otherwise.
Appendix Page 3
,c; ,. N~RTH CAROLINA
~f/2 State Board a/Elections
APPENDIX 2
G.S. § 163-22(d)
G.S. § 163-22. Powers and duties of State Board of Elections.
(d) The State Board of Elections shall investigate when necessary

or advisable , the administration of election laws, frauds and
irregularities in elections in any county and municipality and special
district, and shall report violations of the election laws to the Attorney
General or district attorney or prosecutor of the district for further
investigation and prosecution.
Appendix Page 4
,c;,. N~ RTHCAROLINA
APPENDIX 3
Congressional Letter
C!tongre£is
of tt,e 1ltnit.eh~Hat.es
ttJnslrington , :mer:
20515
January 25, 20 I 7
The Honorable Kirn Westbrook Steach The Honorab le Josh Stein

Executi ve Director orth Carolina Attorney Genera l
State Boa rd of Electio ns Attorney Genera l's Office
P.O . Box 27255 900 l Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N 276 1 l Rale igh, NC 27699 -9001
Dear Execu tive Direc tor Strach and Attorney General Stein :
Thank yo u for yo ur ervice in the critical work ofbelping ensu re that elections across the
cou ntry are free fair , and admini tered in a way tb at uphold s the fundamen tal tenet s of the
nited State on titution. We are writing given recent claims of oter fraud and it potential
impac t on our nation's election . To inve tigate the e claim , we are eek ing infonnation
regard ing confinned incidents of voter fraud.
To ass ist in our inquiry, we reque t that yo u provide a list of all spec ific cases in which
either of yo ur offices has detem1ined that an indiv idua l who cas t a vote in the federa l elect ions
held in ove mb er 2016 was legally prohi bit ed from doing so. For each specific case p lease
inc lude the following info11nation:
1) the identity of the individua l who cas t the prohibited vote;

2) the date on which the prohjbited vote took place;
3) the polling place where the prohibited vote occ urred;
4) the spec ific legal reason the indivi dual 's vote was proh ibited ; and
5) the result of the individu al' s prosecu tio n if any.
Please inclu de in this list all cases in which the tale has detennined that a proh ibited vote
was cast , regardless o f whether a pro ecution was init iated or co ncluded. Please feel free to
provide jo int or sepa rate responses .
We request this infomia tion by February 22, 20 17. Please contact Karen Ku delko of
Ranking Mem ber Currunings' staff at (202) 225-5051, Khali l Abboud with Ranking Member
Brady' taff at (202) 225 -206 I, or Amy Miller Pfeiffer with As i tant Democ ratic Leader
Clybu m ' s staff at (202) 226 -32 10 with an y question.
Pft1NTEO ON ~ EC'rCU.D PAPER
Appendix Page 5
The Honorable Kim Westbrook Strach

The Honorable Josh Stein
Page 2
Sincerely,
Elijah E. Cummi ngs Robert A. Brady James E. Clyburn

Ranking Member Ranking Member Assistant Democratic
Committee on Oversight and Committee on House Leader
Governme nt Reform Administration
cc: The Honorable Jason Chaffotz

Chainnan, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
The Honorable Gregg Harper

Chaim, an, Committee on House Administration
Appendix Page 6
APPENDIX 4.1
Admission Letter (Case 1)
Fr-om:
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:11 AM
To: \.
Subj~ct:
I, personally comple ted both ballots

I
:
From: ncsbe.gov?
\
To:
Sent: Friday, February 3, 20 17 10:02 AM
Subject: RE: I
Both Ballots
Fro
Sen
To:... ...... gov>
Subj
I, ma rked the ba llot.
Fro ncsbe. ov>

To:
Sen
-
Subject: RE:
On the first ballot that was done at the hospital who marked the ballot?
On the second ballot that was retrieve from the trash wh o marked that ballot?
From:
Sent : Thursday , February 02 , 20 17 9 :10 PM
To : ■••· ncsbe . ov>
SubJec: e:
Entered your email address incorrectly!
nbsbe . ov >
Appendix Page 7
N®RTHCAROLINA
"-
Thank you for this opportu nity to clarify the absentee ballot of my late husband.
apologize for my misunderstanding of the process .
My husband was hos italized Se t 11 20 15. Because of the seriousness of his condition, my
brother , suggested we apply for absentee ballots, just in
case he wasn't home in time to vote. We had a~oted in person and were not even aware this
was a possibility . Since I was basically living in - hospital room at - I asked
to request the absentee ballots for us. By the time the ballots arrived , my husband 's condition had
further dete riorated , but his desire to vote had not diminished. With family at his bedside, we
witnessed his nod to vote (Republican) and signed to that effect. It was my misunderstanding of the
wr itten directions that left his signature line blank. I did not make a copy of our ballots, so I cannot
look back to see what I misunde rstood , but we left it unsigned on purpose, thinking our witness of his
will and intent was sufficient. I took our ballots to the post office to be sure the proper postage was
affixed , and the ballots we re mailed.
Afte r my husband died , another ballot arrived at our home , which I thought strange , but just a
mistake, since our ballots had a lready been mailed . I discarded the ballot to the recycling bin. The n I
rece ived several reminders to be sure to complete and return the ballot. When I mentioned this to my
brother , he advised me to call the Board of Elections in••• County . I was told that my ballot had
been received , but that my husband's ballot was unsigned and another had been sent for his
signature . Using a flashlight , my brothe r and I retrieved the discarded ballot out of the recycling bin on
the curb . The next day , I comp leted the ballot on my husband's behalf , according to his wishes , and
signed his name. I thoug ht that was what I was supposed to do. I was not trying to be deceitful or
fraudulent , as I thought I had autho rity to sign his signature as his w ife , and as executo r of his
estate. I even drove to the Board of Elections and delivered it in person , explain ing that it was to
clarify the first ballot.
I am glad to know that voter fraud is being diligently investigated . I am very d istressed that my
ignorance , but good intentions , have caused such a problem . Maybe in less stressful circumstances I
would not have made this mistake. I respectfully request that you cons ider these facts , and our
history as reputable, law-abiding citizens .
Appendix Page 8
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Hi Mr. - • good morn ing. Thank you for your coll and condolen ces today regarding my blood sister -
and her late husband (my brother-In-law) When - was first hospitalized at - and
as staying w ith him full •t ime, I suggested t hey apply for absentee ballots. Several tim es in the past while my
children were off at college I had reque sted absentee ballots to be sent to my two sons and daughter to be sure the,,
had the opportunity to vote. llll calledand askedme to requestboth ballotsfor them becauseshewas at t he
hospital ~ nd did not have her computer nor a convenient way to reque st the ballots. Both expected to be back
home in t ime to vo te on election day but to be sure they wanted to get t heir absentee ballot submi tted in case th ey
were unable to be home . I spo ke (by phone and visit s) nume rous ti mes wit h - abo ut politics and he was very
excit ed about t he upcoming election . Unfor tunate ly, while be t reat ed and making pro gress in his recovery, he sudde nly
suffered some cr it ical setb acks and unexpected ly passed away . With best regards,
Appendix Page 9
N~RTH CAROLINA
State Board of Elections
APPENDIX 4.2
Admission Letter (Case 2)
-----,
------------------
From:
Sent: Friday, Fe brua ry 03, 2017 3:26 PM
To:
- er
is-
Subject: Re: NCSBE Case I
Sent from my iPhone
-
On Feb 3, 20 17, at l:47 PM, 'ii;nc~be.go v> w rote :
I am very sorry for your loss .

Thank you for your cooperation in th is mat ter .
Please forward a te lepho ne number if we have to conta ct you .
If you have any add itional questio n please feel free to contact me .
Thank you
Invest igator
Nort h Carolina State Board of Electi ons
44 1 N. Harrin gton Stre e t
Post Office Box 27255
Raleigh, NC 27611
o ff ice I 919.715.0135 fax
www .ncsbe.gov
<image002.png>
From:
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 11:16 AM
f'ncsbe .gov>
To:
Subject: NCSBECase # -
My mother at 89 was a tremendous Donald Trump fan. She donated to his

campa ign, watched all his deb at es and news l nvolving hi s campaign on Fox news. She was so
excited about vo t ing for him and at every opportunity to ld everyone else t o vote for him to
save our country .
Appendix Page 10
,c~, N~RTH CAROLINA
1}/4 State Board a/Elections
'-,,..,-
My mothe r had AFIB which would cause her heart rate and blood pressure to rise to dangerous
levels with the risk of stroke. I had printed out a State Absentee Ballot Request Form on
Saturday, October 22, 2016 and told her to fill it out and mail it in so that she could vote in the
event she was unable to go and cast her vote . She said, "ok and if anyth ing happens you have
my power of attorney ana you be sure to vote for Donald Trump for me" . The following day she
had a massive stroke and passed away on October 26. 2016.
This was devastating to me because my dad, brother and sister were deceased and I was the
only one left in my family. As election day approached, all I could hear were her words ''if
anything happens you have my power of attorney and you be sure to vot e for Donald Trump for
me" ! On November 3rd I t ook a copy of the power of attorney , which no one asked for, and
honored her request and voted on her behalf. It was t he last thing I could do for her and I felt
excited to do that for her.
My mother was alive dur ing the absentee period and if she had received t he ballot in time she
would have been able to vote . Please underst and that my actions were in no way intended to
be fraudulent but were done dur ing my grief and an effort to honor my moth ers last request
and I knew that one vote from this ·gg year old lady would not affect the outcome of t he
election anyway.
Appendix Page 11
N~RTH CAROLINA
RECEIVED
MAR2 7 2017
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
DAVIDLEARN
ER State of Jvwth C11ro6M CATAWBACOUNTY
JUSTICECENTER
DISTRICTATTORNEY (Jenera{Court of Justice P.O.BOX566
'fiwnty-ffijtli <Pro.secu
to,i.a{<District NEWTON,
NC28656
(828)695,6110
(82S-695-6111FAX
Investigator '\
NC State Bo ard of Ele ctions
I
PO Box 27255
Raleigh, C 27611-7255 /
Re: NCSBE Case number: 2016-165
Dear Investigator
-
The 25th Prosecutorial District will decline to prosecute the above referenced case, taking
all facts and evidence into consideration along with the lack of c1iminalhistory for Ms.
Ms. - voted for her mother believing that her power of attorney and honoring her
mother's dying wish was not a fraudulent act. Her mother was alive during the absentee
period and if she had received the ballot iti time she would have been able to legitimately
cast her vote. Ms. ■■■lactions were done during a time of grief and mourning and
in an effort to honor her mother's dying wish.
The 2S'h Prosecutorial District believes it to be in the best interest of justice to decline
prosecution ofNC SBE Case Number 2016-165. If you have any quest.ionsor need
additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me.
25 th Prosecucorial District
828-695-6196
_J
Appendix Page 12
APPENDIX 5
Breakdown of Voting Irregularities by Type, Party Affiliation of Voter
... I I C:
...
QI
0
I Ill
Ill
C:
QI ... C:
0
:.:;
111
Party >
%
C:
0 %
N
:E % ...
QI
0 % ...
111
%
> ...
QI
Affiliation :ii cij u 0 Ill 0
I-
:::, u. C: QI
0 C.
0
z
0
-E
Democrat 14 58% 292 66% 20 49% 0% 326 54%
Libe rtar ian 0% 4 1% 0% 0% 4 1%
Repub lican 5 21% 73 17% 11 27% 2 100% 91 15%
Unafili ated 5 21% 72 16% 10 24% 0% 87 14%
Total 24 100% 441 100% 41 100% 2 100% 508 100%
* The above reflec ts affiliation as of Election Day 20 16

** On Election Day 20 16, statewide registration by paity as follows:
Democ rat (39 .5%), Republican (30 .2%), Libe1tai·ian (0.4 %), and Unaffilia ted (29 .9%)
Appendix Page 13
Voter
Doub le Non-
County Felons lmperson- Total
Voter * Citizens
at ion
ALAMANCE 2 13 15
ALLEGHANY 1 1
ANSON 2 2
ASHE 1 1
BEAUFORT 7 1 8
BERTIE 1 1
BLADEN 1 1
BRUNSWICK 3 3
BUNCOMBE 7 1 8
CABARRUS 6 2 8
CALDWELL 1 6 7
CARTERET 5 1 6
CASWELL 2 2
CATAWBA 1 4 1 6
CHATHAM 2 2
CHEROKEE 1 1
CLAY 2 1 3
CLEVELAND 5 5
CO LUMBUS 2 1 3
CRAVEN 1 10 1 12
CUMBERLAND 1 20 3 24
CURRITUCK 1 1 2
DAVIDSON 4 1 5
DAVIE 1 1
DUPLIN 3 3
DUR HAM 1 30 3 34
EDGECOMBE 8 8
FORSYTH 20 2 22
FRANKLIN 2 2
GASTON 11 1 12
GA TES 1 1
GRANVILL E 2 2
GR EENE 1 1
GUILFORD 6 49 8 63
HALIFA X 9 9
HARNETT 4 4
HA YWOOD 2 2
HENDERSON 1 1
HERTFORD 3 3
HOKE 5 2 7
JO HNSTON 8 1 9
JON ES 3 3
LENO IR 2 2
LINCOLN 1 1
Appendix Page 14
MCDOWELL 1 1
ME CKLENBURG 14 1 15
MONTGOMERY 3 3
MOORE 1 5 6
NASH 4 1 5
NEW HANOVER 16 1 17
ONSLOW 1 1
ORANGE 1 1 2
PAMLI CO 5 5
PASQUOTANK 2 2
PENDER 6 1 7
PERSON 3 3
PITT 13 13
POLK 1 1
RANDO LPH 6 1 7
RICHM OND 1 1
ROB ESON 5 5
ROCKINGHAM 6 6
ROWA N 3 3
RUTHERFORD 2 2
SAM PSON 3 3
SCOTLA N D 5 5
STANLY 2 2
STOKES 2 2
SURRY 3 1 4
UNION 7 2 9
VANCE 2 2
WAKE 1 32 3 36
WARREN 1 3 4
WAYNE 3 12 15
WILKES 1 1
WILSON 4 2 6
26 records 510 records
Grand Total 441 41 2
(24 voters) (508 voters)
* Two suspected double voter s are assigned to two dif f erent registration
record s, each from a differen t county.
Appendix Page 15
APPENDIX 6
Letter to Suspected Felon Voters
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 27255
Raleigh, NC 276 11-7255
N~ RTHCAROLINA Phone: (919) 733-7173

Fax: (919) 715-0135
State Board of Elections KIM \VE STBROOK ST RACH
Exe.curil'e D irector
[Dat e]
TO: [Vot er Name]

[Mailing Address]
[Mailing Cit y, St ate, ZIP]
RE: NOTICE OF REMOVAL DUE TO FELONY CONV ICTION;
This off ice has received felony conviction records indicat ing t hat you are current ly an act ive felon and that
as such, you may have illegally voted in [County ] in t he November 8, 2016 General Election.
Persons who are currently serving a sent ence for a felony conviction are not qualified t o vote in Nort h
Carolina. Active fe lons include persons serving prison t ime or th ose on probat ion or parole for a felony convict ion
and w ho have not comp let ed all aspects of their sentence, including comp let ion of any period of parole or
probat ion. It is a felony t o vote if you are not qualified t o do so. By this letter, please be noti fied tha t : If not
already cancelled, as a conv icted f elon, you r current vote r regist rat ion in [County] w ill be cancelled in 30 days.
If you disagree with th e findi ng t hat you are an active f elon and you object to th e remova l of your name
from t he list of registered vot ers, you must obj ect in wr iting w ithin 30 days of this not ice. If you object , t he
chairman of t he County Board of Elections w ill ent er a challenge to your vot er registrat ion. You w ill t hen be
not ifi ed to appear at a challenge hearing. The above refe renced not ice and other relevant records received by ou r
offi ce of your felony convict ion w ill be int roduced as evidence at the hearing .
If you are in a deferredprosecutionst atus for a fe lony, please contact ou r off ice immedia t ely and prov ide
us w it h these det ails, inclu ding the name and telephone number of your current probat ion officer and the attorney
who represent ed you. Persons who are on deferredprosecution may not be subject to remova l and may avoid
remova l from the voter regist ration rolls.
As a convicted fe lon, you r rights of citizenship are restored automa ti cally under the prov isions of Nort h
Carolina General St at ute§ 13-1 Q!!]y_upon discharge from your felony sentence, including periods of probat ion or
parole, or a full pardon. At tha t t ime, prov ided that you are under no other act ive felony convictions , you w ill be
qua lified to vote . Upon complet ion of you r sentence, you must submit a new vote r registrat ion form t o t he
County Board of Elections off ice whe re you reside.
Again, if you believe t hat the information conta ined in th is lett er concerning you r vote r eligibility and/or
voting act ivity is incorrect, you must object in writing to t his off ice w ithin 30 days of t his not ice. Please mail your
w ritt en object ion and any docume ntat ion to the attent ion of NCSBEInvesti gat or Matt hew Mart ucci at P.O. Box
27255, Raleigh, NC 276 11-7255. It is also recommended tha t you cont act Investigator Martucc i at (919) 715-1827.
Thank you for your prompt atten t ion to t his mat ter.
6400 Mail Sen ,ice Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-6400

441 N Harrington Street • Raleigh, NC 27611-7255
Appendix Page 16
APPENDIX 7
Letter to DPS/AOC on Felons
Mailing Addres s :
P.O . Box 27255
N~ RTHCAROLINA Raleigh , NC 27611 -7255
Phone : (919) 733-7173

State Board of Elections Fax: (9 19) 715-0135
March 3, 2017
VIAE -MAIL
The Honorable Erik A. Hooks The Honorab le Marion R. WarTen

Secretary , Department of Public Safety Di.rector, Administrative Office of the Comts
erik.hooks @nccrimecontrol.org marion .r.wan-en@nccomts .org
Re : Uniform notice to felons regarding voting rights in N01th Carolina .
Dear Secretary Hooks and Judge Wan-en:
As you are each aware, the State Boar·d of Elections maintains a statewide voter registration
system used by election officials across 01th Car·olina. In recent years , data-sharing relationships
among states and with federal agencies have enhanced our efforts to ensure the integrity of the
voter rolls, including the removal of voters who have become ineligible due to felony conviction .
We are present ly engaged in a comprehensive audit of the agency's list maintenance process
smTotmding felons on the rolls , and I am encouraged by the plan set in motion two weeks ago by
technical staff from our three agencies and the Government Data Analytics Center. Thank you for
shar'ing in our mission to ensure the integr'ity of elections.
Beyond the promising future in our data-shar'ing relationship , I want to make you aware
that the State Boar·d's in-house investigations staff have become awar·e that the information
provided to felons serving active sentences does not appear to be standard and often excludes
references to the loss of voting rights . This issue arises at the referral phase of om· investigations ,
when some district attorneys express understandable concern that a felon who has voted may not
have been awar·e of the unlawfulness of his actions . Although individuals ar·e required to affirm
that they are not serving ar1active felony sentence both when registering and presenting to vote ,
we have received feedback that not all voters read this lar1guagepr'ior to signing . Establishing that
the subject of an investigation may have knowingly and willfully violated N.C. election laws
prohibiting felons from voting will supp01t successfu l prosecutions .
We are in the process of finalizing an investigation into a number of felons suspected of

voting tmlawfully in the 20 16 general election, and it is my hope that we can take proactive steps
to ensure notice is provided to felons that they ar·e not eligible to vote in North Carolina until they
have completed their sentences , including probation. Educating active felons about the law could
help reduce the volume of infractions , while making prosecution of willful offenders easier for our
state's dedicated district attorneys. It would also aligr1 with G.S. § 163-82.20A, which requires
441 N Harrington Street • Raleigh, NC 2 7601- 7255
Appendix Page 17
that our agencies create programs and procedures to info1m felons about the restoration of their
voting rights. Among other suggestions , we are seeking improvements and additions to passive
methods of infotming felons of their voting ineligibility . such as the use of info1mational
pamphlets and verba l warn ings, to more active written warnings that are presented to felons orally
and in writing and which are then signed by the felon acknow ledging their understand ing.
If you are willing, I wou ld like to atrnnge a conference call between appropri ate personnel at our
agencies for the week of March 20th . Thank you for your consideration , and I look fotward to our
continued coordination on behalf of the voters of this State .
Sincerely ,
/cluJ~rmd~
Kim Westbrook Strach
Executive Director. State Board of Elections
Appendix Page 18
APPENDIX 8
Revised Voter Forms
AUTHORIZATIO TO VOTE FORM ATV #

North Ca rolina
VR PRnURY
PARn ' p_~
FRAUDULENTLY OR FALSELYCOMPLETINGTHIS FORM IS A CLASSI FELONYUNOERCHAPTER163 OF THE NC GENERALSTATUTES.
l'lilVotel''s Cel'tification of Voti ng Qualification s

AG£
If ID requ ired , che ck the type of curren t ID sh0\\-11:
VID<c
D Pboto ID D Government Check

D Bank Statement D Payc becl::
0 Utility Bill D Other Go •,;ernment D oc
Registration Date:
El..ECIION:
PCT
VID
I. [IXSERT VOTER J\A.!"\IIE

]. ce11ifythat :
0 I am a registered voter in this comuy and I shall have resided at the address noted above for 30 clays immediately p1i or to ihis
election .
0 I am a United States Citizen.
0 I am at least 18 yean of age. or will be by the date of the general election.
0 For partisan primm y elections ONLY: I am registered (PARTY :\"A:vIE] and I will recei ve a [PRIMARY PARTY] ballot.
0 I understand that it is a felony to vote more than one tin1e in an election .
0 I have not been convic ted of a felony. or if I have been convicted of a felony. I have comp leted my sentence . including any
prob ation or parole.
X
SIGNA.IUREOF Y'OTER OFFICIAL 'S INIIIAl..S
1!1111
Election Da y Tran sfel' (Us e thi s section to send a voter from tl1eir old polling place to their new polling place after movin g.)
TI1is person is hereby authorized to vote in hisJber precinct after executillg this form.
Old Precinct # Name of ew Polling Place:
N ew Prec inc t # Addre ss of New Polling Place
Party Affi liat ion On Record X

SIGNATURE OF PRECINCT o mCIAL
■ CUl'bsicle Affidavit (Affida vit of per son voting outside voting pla ce or encl osure .)
STATE OF NO RTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF
I do solemnl y swear (or affirm ) that I am a registered voter in _____________ pre cinct. 1bat because of age or phys ical disability,
I am unable to enter the voting place io vote in perso n with out phys ical assistance . That I desire to vote out side the votin g place or enclosu re. I und er stand that a
false statement as to my condition will be in ,·iolati on of Nor th Ca r olina law .
DAT£ VOTERADDRESS
X X
SIGN..'\
TIJP.EOFVOTER SJONA.Tu'll Of PP.ECCNCTO
FFlCIAl
Station Voting Method Voting Date/T ime

OFFICIAL US:E V2017.04
O NLY Site Tra nsact ion Operat or Name
Appendix Page 19
E STOPAPPLICATIO
FRAUDULENTLY OR FALSELYCOMPLETINGTHIS FORM IS A CLASSI FELONYUNDERCHAPTER163 OFTHE NCGENERALSTATUTES.
1.'111
Voter 's Certification of Voting Qualifiratiou s
VRN:
REG PRJMARY
PARTY: BALLOT:
REG DATE: AGE :
PCT: VTD:
Mailing Address
I. [11\"SERTYOTER J\"AME], ce11ify that :

D I am a regi stered voter in this county and I shall have resi ded at the address noted above for 30 clays immediately prio r to this electio n.
D I am a United States Citizen.
D I an1 at least 18 years of age, or will be by the date of the genera l election.
D For par tisan pr imary elections ONLY : I an1 regi stered [PARTY ~A.\IE ] and I will receive a [PRI~IARY PARTY] ballot
D I tmderstand tha t it is a felony to vote more th an one tim e in an election.
D I have not been convicted of a felony, or if I have been convicte d of a felony , I have completed my sentence, including any proba tion or parole .
X
SIGNA'IURE
OFVOlER OFFICIAL'S n,.mAi.s
[lll Chan ge or Verification of Name and Addre ss (Use tl1is sectio n to verify or change a voter ' s name or address in tl1e registra tion records. )
Ne w Fom1er
N ame : Name:
------------------------
N ew Form er
Address: Address:
New Fon ner

Ma iling Mail ing
Address: _________________ Address:
Have yo u lived here for 30 days or more? D Y es D No I certify that I moved at least 30 daysbefore this elec tion to the new address.
If no, date moved?

D.4Y
. TIMEPHCNENO
.
X
SIGNAIURE OF PRECD\"CTOFFICIAL
■ Curb side A ffidavit (A ffidavi t of person vot ing outside voting place or enclosure .)
STATE OF NORTH CARO LINA , COUNTY OF
I do solemn ly sw ear (or affirm) that I am a registered vo ter in ____________ precinc t. That bec ause of age or phys ical disability ,
l am unable to enter the voting place to vote in person without physica l assistance. That l desire to vo te outside the voting place or enclosu re. I unde rstand that a
fal ~e s tatement as to my cond iti on will be in viohlti ou o f No rth Caro lina law.
DATE \'O'IERADI:RESS
X X
SIGNAruREOFVO'IER SIGNATh'lU'.OF PRECINCTOFFlClAl.
Board Annrnval Da te : Board Si.e;nature:

OFH CUL USE
ONLY Station
I Vo ting Method
I I Voting DatefTime I V2017.04
Site
I Transac tion
I I Operato r Name
I
Appendix Page 20
APPENDIX 9
Sample Letter to Possible Non-U.S. Citizen Voters
Maili ng Addres s :
~~ N~RTH CAROLINA P.O. Box 27255

Raleigh, NC 2761 1-7255
Phone : (919) 733-7173

·:it~ "',!· · State BoardoJElections Fax: (919) 715-0 135
Febmary 16 2017
RE: Your vot er re!!:istration in orth Carol ina .
Dear Mr./Ms .
------------- ~
The State Board of Elect ions conduct s routine audits following an elect ion . During one of the e
audits, N .C. Division of Motor Vehi cle s (DMV) data indicated that you were not a citizen of the
United States when you applied for or rene wed your driver 's license or state identification card .
Informa tion from the U.S . Departm ent of Homel and Security (DHS) also indicated that you may
not be a citizen of the United State s. We und erstan d these database s may not be cuffent , and you
may be a citizen of the United Stat es.
In Notth Carolina only citizens of the United States may regis ter to vot e or to vote. 1 It is a crime
for a non-cit izen to vo te in a state or federal elec tion .2
Please com plete and return the enclosed Admission or Denial of on - U.S. Citizen. Return
Form within (30) davs ofrece ivin g this lette1·. If you are a citizen of tl1e Un ited States , include
a copy of an officia l document confim1ing your citizens hip status . If your name has chang ed, be
sure to pro vide docume ntation of that nam e change . You may ma il, fax, e-mai l or deliver the
Admission or Denial of Non - U.S. Citizen Return Form..
Documen ts tliat may prove your citizensh ip within the United States include the follo wing :
• U.S. Bfrth Certificate. If you cannot find your bir th c-e1t ificate , please contact the vital
stati tics office in the stat e or U .S. territor y that originally issu ed your ce1iifica te.
• U.S. Passpo1·t(book let 01·card). If you canno t find your U.S . Passp01i, ple ase contact the
U .S . Dep artmen t of State at 1-877-487 -2778 (TTY 1-888-874-7793) or vis it tl1e website
at: http ://travel.sta te.gov/passp 01i ost/lost_848 .html
1 See orth Carolin a General Statute § 163-55 and Article VI, Section 1 of the Nort h Carolina Constitution .
2 North Carolina Gener al Statue § 163-275 and United States Code Title 18, Section 611.
441 N. Harrington Street ■ Raleigh, NC 27611-7255
Appendix Page 21
• Con sular Report of Birth Abl'Oacl. If you canno t find your U .S. Cons ular Certifi cate of
Bi1t h. ple ase con tact the U .S. Department of State at 1-877 -487 -2778 (TTY 1-888-874-
7793) or visit the websit e at: https ://trav el.state.gov/conten passpo 11s /e1 abroad/ events-
and-records/b i1th/ replace-or-amend -consular -repo1t-of-birth-abroad. htntl
• Certificate of 'atura liz ation or Certificate of Citizen ship. If you canno t find your
Certific ate of •aturali zation or Ce1t ificate of Citizenship. or belie ve that there is som e
pro blem with your records that needs to be coff ected by the United States Citizenship and
Immigra tion Service s (USC IS). please refer to the enclos ed Informntion for Regi strant s:
Verijicntion of Ciriun sl,ip Stntll s nnd Ho J11to Obtnin Your Document or Correct Your
Record J11 itT, USCIS . You can mak e a copy of you r naturalization or citizensh ip ce1tificate
and send it to th is agency .
If you return die A dmission or Denial of Non-U.S. Citizen Return Form stating that you are not a
citizen of the United States. you will be remov ed from the voter registrat ion rolls .
If you believe an error has occtm ed regarding your identity or citizensh ip status. you have the right
to ask for a hearing. The citiz enship requireme nts, however. canno t be wa ived or ignored by those
at a hearing . Remem ber. it is a crin1e for a no n-citizen to vote in an election in 01th Carolina .
If you do not respo nd to this letter and retum the A dmission or Denial of Non-U.S. Citizen Return
Fa nn within 1hi1ty (30) days of receipt . your cas e may be refeffed to your loca l county board of
elections. w hich may enter a cha llenge to your vot er registrat ion . If the cha llenge is successfol.
your vo ter registra tion will be canc elled.
For infonna tion regard ing thi s matt er or to sub mit your comp leted Admission. or Denial of Non-
U.S. Citizen Return Form. you may conta ct our agency at the follow ing:
Mailing Addre ss: Street Addres s: Phone : (9 19) 733-7 173*

N. C. State Board of Elections 441 . Harrin gton St. Fax : (9 19) 7 15-0 135
Attn Joan Flemming Raleigh, C 27603 E-mai l: JOan.flemin g@ncsbe.gov
P.O . Box 27555
Raleigh, NC 27 611-7255 *Please ask for the undersigned
Th ank you for your coop eration in this matter.
Sincerely.
Joan Flemin g
Chief Investigator. N onh Caro lina S rate Board of Elec tions
Enclosures: Adm ission. or Denial of Non- U.S. Citizen Fann & self-addressed retum envelope
Information.for Reg istran ts: Verification of Citizenship Statu s an d How to Obtain
Your Document or Correct Your Record with USCIS
Appendix Page 22
ADMISS ION OR DE NIAL OF

No N- l J.S. CITIZE N RET URN FORM
Pleas e complete and return thisf onn no later than thirty (30 days) of receiving the notice of potential
ineligibility. If y ou do not respond within that timeframe , we may refer y our case to the local county board
of elections , which may enter a challenge agains t y our voter registration .
U nder penalties of pe1jury , I sw ear or affirm that (check applicab le sta temen ts):
D r am the person refen-ed to in the letter I rece ived from you and that r am n ot a U.S . citizen.
D r am the person refen-ed to in the letter I rece ived from you but I am a U.S . citizen. Chec k one :
__ r am enclosing a .£.Ql2Y_
of proof of U .S. citizen ship: or
__ r am cuff ently seeking a record s review or com ::ction. or replacement copy of the docume ntation or
record in suppo1t of my U .S. citizen ship from ___ ~-~-- ~ -----~~-----
[Insert the name of the government agency)
D I am not the per son refen-ed to in th e letter r recei ved from you and am enclosing a .£.Q12Y..Of
proof of my
iden tity and/or U .S. citizenship .
Voter 's Na me
LastName First Middle
--
Da te of Birth
I Mon th (MM) Day(D D) Year(YYYY)
Nort h Carolina Dr inr 's License NumbH OR :"ior th Carnlina ID Card 1'u mber OR Last 4 of Socia l S('cmi l)· :"iumber
-
-
Contact Infor mation

( mailing address, phone number , or e-mail)
S IGNA TURE OF V OTER :___________________ .D ATE: _____ _
/W AR/V I!\ G: If you ign tl,i form and kno w it to be false, y ou can be convl cted of a Class I f elony)
RE TUR.!'i FOR NI TO :
orth Carolin a State Bo ard of Election s
Attn : Joan Fleming (Investiga tions)
P.O . Box 2 555
Raleigh. N .C . 276 11-7255
WorthCaroli11a dm •er 's license 1111mber
/Nonh Caroli11a
ide11tiftcaiio11 , Social SeC11rity
card 11umber numbers a11ddaie of birth a,-eexempifrom public disclosure
under Public R.ecordsLaw. Thesignature ca11be viewed but not copied.
Appendix Page 23
U.S. Department of HomeL1nd Secm-ity

US . Citizenship and Immigmh·o11
Services
Verificatio11Divi.sion
WasMngton. DC 20014
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
Fact Sheet
Information for Regi strant s: Ver ification of Citizen ship Statu s and
How to Obtain Your Document or Correct Your Record with USC IS
Many federal , state and local agencies verify the immigrat ion or citizenship status of benefit
applican ts to ensure that only qualified aliens or naturalized and derived citizens receive benefi ts.
The se agencies verify immigration or citizenship status by using the Systema tic Alien
Verifi cation for Entitlemen ts (SA VE ) Program of the U.S. Departmen t of Homeland Security ,
US. Citizenship and Immi gration Services (USCIS).
The voter registrat ion agency in your state has submitted information to the SAVE Program for
verification of your citizenship . Because the SAVE Program cannot confinn your citizenship
status based upon infom:iation provide d by the agency , you must be given an oppo11unity by the
voter registration agency to provide the co1Tectdocumentation or correct your records with
USCIS and/or appeal the denial of your voter registration . Please note that there are a number of
reasons why the SAVE Program lllll Y not be able to verify your citizenship , e.g., the SAVE
Program can only verify naturalized or derived citizens , to the extent that a derived citizen
received an official detemlin. 1tio11on citizenship by SCIS. The inabili ty of the SAVE Progran1 to
verify your citizenship does not necessaril y mean that you are not a citizen of the United States
and are ineligible to vote .
If you need a replacement of your Naturalization Certi ficate or Certificate of Citizen ship or
believe that the SAVE Program response to the voter registration agency did not provide accurate
information about your citizen ship status and you need to make corrections to your citizen ship
record , please contact USCIS by using one of the following methods :
1. File a Fo1·m N-565 to obtain a replacement of your l\"aturalization Certificate or

Certificate of Citizen ship. The Fonn -565 and instructions for filing can be found at:
htW·l(wmy usrjsgortmeslfonntn-56';nr1rand htrn ·11wn,y usrjsgortfiJes lfonnln-565iostr
pd{
2. Schedule an appointment for an in-person interview at a local USCIS office to conect
your record. You n:iay sd 1edule an appointment at a local USCIS office at the InfoPa ss website ,
httn-1/jnfopass nsfis0 gy or by calling the National Customer Se.rvice Center , 1-800-375-5283 .
Scheduling an appointment is the fastest way to co1Tec.t your records . We recommend that you
bring to your appointment this Fact Sheet, documentation evidencing your citizenshi p s!ahis, and
any information provided by the voter registration agency concerning why your citizen ship status
could not be verified.
3. Submit a reque st in writing to correct your record . If you know the infom:iation that needs
Rev. V er. August 14, 2012
Appendix Page 24
to be corrected in your record , you may submi t a requ est to co1Tectyour records to the Freed om
oflnfom1ation Act!Privacy Ad (FOIA/PA ) Office at the follo wing addre ss:
Pri vacy Act Amendment
U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Serv ices National Records Center
FOIA/PA Office
P .O. Box 6480 10
Lee ' s Summit , MO 64064-80 10
We reco m mend that you include the folloTiing information in you!' submission, if aYailab le:
• State that you are being denied voter benefits • Copies of your immigration or OHS citizenshipdocuments
• Infomiation that is inaccurate • Reason it is inaccurate
• Proposed change(s) to the record • A-File nllillberand/or the full name
• Date and place of birth • Notarized signature of the registrant
• A reh1rnaddress • Other infomiation to assist locating the record
If you do not know the infonnation you need to correct , you may submit a written request to
obtain your recor ds by submitting Fonn G-639 , FOWPA Request. Tilis fonn is available from
t11enear est USC IS office or online at htW·/(wyJyuscjs0 oy/file-:;
lfgrm(0 639ndf. You should
use the address specified above , but mark the envelope "Privacy Act Request " rather than
"Privacy Act Amendment . "
Rev. Ve r. August 14, 2012
Appendix Page 25
APPENDIX 10
Breakdown of Non-U.S. Citizen Voters by Country of Origin
Country of Origin Count

Canada 2
China , Peoples Republic 1
Costa Rica 2
Dominican Republic 1
El Salvador 1
Germany 2
Guyan a 1
Haiti 2
Honduras 1
Israel 1
Italy 2
Jamaica 1
Korea 1
Liberia 2
Malaysia 1
Mexico 4
Netherlands 1
Nicaragua 2
Nigeria 2
Panama 1
Philippines 1
Poland 1
Australia 1
Senegal 1
Sierra Leone 1
United Kingdom 1
Ukraine 1
Vietnam 1
UNKNOWN 2
Grand Total 41
Appendix Page 26
Exhibit 3
August 12, 2018 Letter and Attached Documents from

Joan M. Fleming, Chief Investigator of the NCSBE, to the
District Attorney for Judicial District 16A.

MailingAddrtss:
P.O. Box 27255
NCIRTHCAROLINA Raleigh,NC 27611-7255
Phone: (919) 733-7173

State Bo,u-clof Elections & Ethics Enforcement KIMWl?STBROOK STRACR
BurllllH Olnt:tor
August 12, 2018
HonorableDistrict Attorney Kristy Newton

DistrictAttorney,Judicial District 16A
P.O. Box 668
Raeford,North Carolina 28763
Hoke County
RE: Case Number 2017-199Treqwon Jennale Covington
2017-200Lanisha Diresha Bratcher
2017-201Ephesian Hemonda
2017-417Richard Daniels
2017-419Tullous KenyardBurrow
Dear District Attorney Newton,
Enclosed, please find documents associatedwith investigation(s)of the above captioned

individual(s).
The North Carolina State Board of Electionsand Ethics Enforcement(NCSBEE)
InvestigationsDivisionhas examined documentsand reports associated with the above suspected
felon voter(s) who voted in Hoke County, North Carolina in the.November8, 2016 General
Election, while still servingan active felony sentenceon felony probation.
The InvestigationsDivision has comparedvoter documents to the CriminalJustice Law
EnforcementData Service (CJ LEADS) database and confinned that the individual(s)was/were
on felony probationor parole when they voted in the November 8. 2016 GeneralElection.
Under NCGS J63A-74l(d), the NCSBEEhas a duty to investigateviolationsof election
laws in North Carolina, and to report the results of those investigationsto the prosecutor for that
countyfor further investigationand prosecution.
Under NCGS 163A-1389(5),previollsly cited as 163-275(5), it is a Class I Felony for
any person who has been convictedof a crime which excludes the person from the right of
suffrage,to vote at any primary or election without having been restored to the right of
citizenshipin due course and by the method provided by law.
The languagecontained in the felon voting statute does not include an element of intent,
suchthat violating the statute does not require evidencethat the statute was knowinglyviolated
for a possible violationto have occurred.
Background
The voter registrationforms and early voting ("One-stop") fonns used during the
November2016 General Electiondisplayedspecific warningsconcerningvoter eligibility,
includingadvising convicted felons serving an active sentence that they may not register or vote
and that doing so is a violation of North Carolina election laws. The election day voter fonn,
known a.~an "authorizationto vote" form (ATV), containeda more general warning that
Page 2
violating North Carolina election laws was unlawful. (Because of differing language in the
registration and voting forms, the SBEE recommends that each referred case be reviewed and
evaluated for prosecution on an individual basis.)
In situations where a voter legally registers to vote, and then later becomes a convicted
felon, the voter is sent a "removal letter" via U.S. Mail by the county board of elections (BOE).
The removal letter advises the voter that their registration will be cancelled based upon
notification to the county that the voter has been convicted of a felony. The voter is given time
to dispute the infonnation if they believe it is incorrect. If no dispute is received by the county
BOE, the registration is removed and that registration number is never re-activated. When the
felon has completed all aspects of their sentence, they may re-register and they are given a new
voter registration number.
InvestigativeProcess
As a part of the investigative process for any suspected voting violation, NCSBEE
investigators review the elements of the election statute in question, collect and review voting
and other relevant documents, and interview voters and witnesses concerning the circumstances
of the ineligible vote. To date, the results of our defendant interviews have been that while in
ttndant h ve admitted that th y did in fact v L in th electi n--w
mo. t case • tMll'fte hil on I ny
prohation/'puc,le/supervi1ed 1'dca the interviews also established a wide pattern of defendants
who stated they were never informed of their loss of voting rights upon conviction and
sentencing and that they did not notice the warnings contained within the voting documents they
signed.
To corroborate or dispute the statements made by the defendants, interviews of probation

officers and other Department of Public Safety (DPS) personnel were conducted. Those
interviews confinned that prior to, and at the time of. the November 8, 2016 General Election,
there was no documented procedure by which the convicted felons were infonncd of the loss of
their voting rights by probation officers while on felony probation/parole/supervisedrelea~e.A
review of the associated court judgements and plea agreements likewise determined that those
documents did not infonn felons upon a plea or at sentencing. that they had lost their eligibility
to vote while serving an active felony sentence, including probation/parole/supervisedrelease.
A~ a result of the above findings, on August 9, 2017. an informational letter was sent by
the NCSBEE to the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys (NCCDA), the North
Carolina Adminislrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and the North Carolina Department of
Public Safety (DPS). The letter advised those entities of issues related to the volume of
ineligible felon voters and suggested changes to the felon notification process. The NCCDA and
DPS supported the recommendations in the letter. DPS thereafter revised an intake brochure
titled "Completing Probation Successfully" to include information concerning loss of voting
rights. Under policies outlined in a November 1, 2017 memo, probation officers were instructed
by DPS officials to ensure that the brochure was being reviewed with and provided to
probationers under their supervision and to document that review in the probationers' file. In
April 2018, the DPS revised DPS fonn DCC-117 to docwncnt warnings and information
provided to probationers. This form is now initialed and signed by probationers, and it includes
information concerning loss of voting rights while serving an active felony sentence. To date, no
changes have been made to fonns used by the AOC.

Page 3
CurrentCase Status
To date, the NCSBEE has referred approximately 195 felon voter cases stemmingfrom
the 2016 General Election to district attorney's offices in North Carolina. These referrals have
resulted in prosecutions of defendants as well as prosecutiondeclinations, while some remain
under review by prosecu\or~. The referrals have included full investigativereports containing all
relevant documentation, interview statements made by defendants who could be located, and
informationfrom probation officers.
As outlined above, a consistent pattern of results associated with interviews of defendants
and probation officers has been established in cases stemming from the 2016 General Election.
nffllt>Allo oni 1ce1~ The documentary evidence supponing each of the cases presently being
referred includes the following:
1) Voter registration document(s)
2) North Carolina voting history showing vote in the November2016 General Election
3) One-Stop Application (early voting) and Removal letter (if available) or ATV
(election day voting form)
4) CJ Lead~print out showing felony conviction at time of vote
The above listed documents represent specific voter documents containing relevant
informationand warnings that have been examined, and evidence showing the defendant was
serving an aclive felony sentence at the time the vote was cast. We are including those
documents for each defendant identified in this letter for review. In addition, county board of
election staff are available to testify if needed concerning the authenticityof the documents and
the voting activity that occurred. Additional investigationwill be conducted by NCSBEE
investigators if deemed necessary for prosecution decisions to be made in these matters.
The results of our invcstigation(s)are being presented for whatever action is deemed
appropriateby your office. Please note that this/these case(s) will remain open in our system
until we are advised of a prosecution decision by your office as required by statute. After sixty
days (60) these pending cases will be placed in "pending inactive.. (Pl) status bul will remain
open pending a decision. Please contact NCSBEE InvestigatorMatthew F. Martucci with any
questionsor for additional information at 919-814-0752 or matthew.martucci @ncsbc.gov.
an M. Aeming
Chief Invesligator
Nonh Carolina State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement

Page4

OLl)FORM
I
t
• ,I.Hr .• . t ,1,1r .• d) ,; , ►:,--; , .. 'I L t:I, ' :. 11::. ';s' ,i ' :1·.' 1: ,., :1•l,i'
~ . ,-:., ..... ,·,·~•.. ,.1:11•,': ' l ''·. 11: · I , "'I.; 1 1:1 : i '""' . !'.
.
=
,.\1\.
~
Oaap _or
VerOlcatio1t
·eJ1'a... 1ndAJtilrtA.(Use
~
---.--------~.-,...--"'-- ~ · ----------------4
~·~==~=
--
a,'jdf~-~~~!,,~,~-~
·
•SIAmOF<NOR'ffl~A,.-~oif
-~11;1_«..o~ll-----~
~iij: -·
, t.~--IUprDOll
~~~~
d1,tt1,to1l~al
_· ______
'}ri~--. -\t ,,......,..

,~law,
__;~
_
1...1--'
U . .• .1,
: 'fto ·1~llUHl10~'4~1--it,-V-1¥°~ J. lbil
~
Nl:W t-UKM
=:,,: ' '' '

,. \
'
~ --
\
oil : •: ,,
l'«tr~
'
..
.
.. ~- ...
·-~ , -
....
. -
..
- .
~
QJ.PAUY. JIIUMAU'~
.. , UODAD ~
. - . .' .. -
~ ~
·~liit,Mtliut
~-
.
..
" -•
-~
@ i-am.-~-~~~ :'Ol)\J!llf'~:1'6an~ -~JM~~ -*YD~3'-,d,a,-lfn~~ptiQ(te$tt4~
la 1-.nur~
s.~.
~ -- hm-.-t-8 ~or.,.o.t. . (n»b.11b.~~~~
-~ ~~on.
□: For~(lri111fVY.-t.¢'llbnl:l)N1JU.1J11.~-.. . . .IDlfl.wlltJ11l'llvu,_
·- .-
bailot
.im·i~~~-., .~to~ :~~~tn•~NJAA .
121:rbMn~bo.en.oonvicted
ob.fblt>W~« 1l,IOll)'I
lftbmJ1«a.convlcttt.ot.a ili&vecomplebfmy
sMtat~_mvhmhtg·q,~~orp,dl'pf,;
X
.-
.. ~~~~
i
.
' .. -
I
' ' ~
1: : .J 't \• ,.
"
).iiiU M iii>.
X
-
ffl1t~~ -~<!P · ------
-... .. .. ~ · .Mr-•=~=':"~1=...-i,
1::t".:==&,====~
"~""~
~~ .
iihi: 't\1111Mliili
.x
-oaicw.lJSI
-- -..._ ,
OLD'·FORM
:4tr-rllffl.UZATIDM ·TOVOft.'JtUlM
ICna_t,JQ~.-~t:Nottbe14_,.,.tfn1t
·
-----~---:----,.~~~~---.....
-----------1
·~ --- .....--...,.,....
- -,,------,--
:,!vlU!'!llRft
1!-by.O ~~.tho~~
11\v
-~"1i~1 .~~~~~!~~J.~Mifl~~IJom,lbli
~
fO:tW'rtt.ffl1'0I~ IW1fllll'tbtii,1n1t
-•nrywdn,11U1w:a.J ettci(
wtctOI1h11
l.fatvDllol .
.lddtw111Cn;cbm\~ .. -•• ·
X
IIIINCIAL-tlNffl~
FOf'lll8r.
----------.--------------- ~
~,
Nnr~l -~OfNow~W.
~~~qt~ X
..
'
.ii&i'.®itdriihil
.. .
:• .~rovmlmui ]ATV#
.__
-•"iiiiii
.• b
li.i
:-- :'6f_
·w
...
._·_~_
-....
·_·...... -~--------•· ~♦- .. , ...... ._.,_ · ---- ... , ..It
I
I. :·. 111, , , 1·.1 .• • , _-:. ,••.· · ,· ,'/'• ·· ·, .~ ,i <::
.;' ,.,:......."' •,, ;•., .t :,;1,: :"
•
• 1 0,1> ( .. •,,;.,,: ::. ::, •. , ... ,., • l
•
!tip~ licct~of ~J?'~ !

i:;JftillQJD O~.cwic. :
IR-~~ a.~
□~ D.ln □•bp~'P\>o .
~-.xw.:
10:Qempt
[' I .
·' t
t~~11it .tifdimt~&_.rc.a1~Qt., _~~~ (~~1.t t~~dit.~~,01m-.na:

iust_Nell ~f16..~.~ olhddrwal 1'ey o6'Df
~OIMiiJ Jiunmroerwrlhl:rllffl110t
addteB. 1h'lluf
VOied ;o on. ·
X ..
I
: .
_,..;......a ________ ___._ ...._ _____

' lic#dl6r
~~ ---------------1
~---------- ----.=~---------------
HN-jw,li~tieni kJOd~orrnoroit:;1:y,. □ '.11'ct X
~-~J"°1'11P~ 1 _. -• t _______,. ~~~- -------=:::==~----,----1 Jllll'.\~Mlra
~ ~ -*~'
Oictl'Rotoc.t.l
_____ w.. ~toUJna~
New~losO ~Pl"°! eo~,~-
Pll\':@liildui elitllcolsd X
IIA11

NEWFORM
' . .
.□ ·c~lfu,otem,port,aVOWO~_
ij
~JDJ>.leelr~~A~- ·
·CJu1ngirt>f
Nmn,o,..<~ .F<Jft'!
1·~-
e ffi ~-voter~ thiscoun,anl!J'~bl.~...,~ •~tllUl
f' biim~~-prior to,thlsolflCUon. ,
~ i&ove
.-ttoteci m~o~ i)) tor1ct
(Pr-tffmtw.ed,
·
Ii l~• ..tlnl~StatotJlUmli. ... .- -
t~ t ~J.•111, l'J:. ,~ .wf1Loe,by :1he~~ -P,t«al~~ , .
0 &rparlllmJ,prlm~o~NJ,'f:
folio~ ·-....,._ _____ _. -
.Iff!lmngisttn,d
·~alb- ... .' ~Jil>Jott.abov,; Unafflll~ l wJll
~ -
.. .
@, IUlld~m.t t,t~tovoto~one~Jiul! :~ -
ti.~ ~nvlcb,dof•·felony, w-~~ -
jg_- ~~lbfe4 ·P,f!i,
~foils,.
I'liave.to.i,;1o1oc1m1-~Jnd~qy
~orparolD.
NMB5Yiml . I • I
-~
~·
~ --- ---~.....-..-..... ~RJmwlla:
~~~
~ -~()I.W9Q(lll
X X
.r~ 1,tr::1· ...·;.-.--,~

... . . ... ..

~
1-
.., .
North Carolina Department
of Public Safety
Community Corrections
Completing Probation
Successfully
..---------
Introduction
- ------- Sup crvis ed Probation
1'hispamphletwu createdto explainthe rcquirelDents The judge1w orderedthat you.apc:ada specificammmtof
of supcmsion and t.o dadfy the asaiatsnccyou can time on probdoo while complying with catain oowfiriooa
rccdvc from your Ptobation/ParoleOfficer aod otbcn. 'fh,e umc ttgUlar co.Dditioosapply IO CV'Ct)"01leoodcr
Periodlaally,clwJgea may oc:cor in supeniaion supervision. Spcdal condidons of probadoo ate tbote
drcmnstsncceot conditionsand your officu will aqvise cooditionsthat ate specificto you.rcue, and mayor maynot
you of the c:hloga.Thepuq,oacof supervisionis to be the same fur someonecomicted of a aimilar offrme.
hclp you ad a law abidinglife sod monitor your Citcwnmnccl in yo~ cue arc uniqw; so the ,pecw
activities and complitoc:e while on supervision. of probation
con.41tions will be diffr.rc:ot
Bofotcingthe conditionaof a North urolina C.ourtor
process1U1d
eoothct state ia put of the supctvWO.O your Rd'erriala to Community Resources and
Ptobation/PuolcOfficerwill reviewthe conditionswith ' .i
you.
Interirentions
Youro.fficctmayreferyou for aamtlUlccwith the following:
What happens after the Court drug/alcoholproblem&, aagermanagcrnmt,mentalhealth,
sentences me to probation? job %eldincta,vocatkmal.rchabilii:uioo education,houaiag
uaisuncc, parenting,&milycoumding,reaidcntilltieumcnt
You will be assignedan ofBa:t after a b.def intake or COOllima c:redftcowucling,The oflicer mayutiH2c
T1'Cltmeot Acx:nuntability
for a s.fct C-ommunity (I'.ASC.)
to
pmocss the day you arc in court. At your fimt heq, midge thetc acmce,,if tpplicahJe.You will hm: du:
tppolnbnc:ot.yourofliccrwillreviewthecourt judgment o}>POrtU;Dlty to make potitlvec:haDgesin you.rlife with the
with ,oa andthe cq,cctad.oJ11of pro~on. supervision uaiatanccof the agenciesIn yoor commu.olt:y. In tdditionto
to includes:egu1ar
andspecialconditions of probsdon die condidomordcttd by the court, yoor probttioo officer
will ult you to COJnPktc901bheetadesigoedto milt youio
and any money you must pay to the State of North tbiokiagabout howyourchoicesare affec:dng yourbc:havior.
Cuolim.
Rewards and Consequences with
Bverypcnonon probationwill be ulCSICCI for thdr mk Supervision
and needsdwiag the fint 60 daysof sapcmsion.The
infrumationia gsthc1-cdby your offica through home When iod.ividua1a ate io oomplisaccwub the fflfldidoas,,£
-.uita. oflicc cootlletl,&milyconw:ts aod the oflicc:r'a auper:vialon,die probuioo of6c:ermay give inc:auivaor
1CWUds such • clwJgingrorfews.aDowiaglime for family
obsc:mtiom which will help eatsbliahyour pdorltics activida, ~g modiOcarionof conditioos,less&cqucnt
dmingmpc:nilion.1hc 111essmcnt1help :,our oflicc:t drug scn:coing.dca:easing m,qocncy of rcpotting and
detamlne how oftm you will need to i:q,ott and posaibleearlylfflninadonfromIUpCtVlsioo.
.undcmlland your needs'Whichate tt.kb:dto your risk of
Whc:n~ individual docanot comply,the ptob&doooflicet
1'C-1lll'CSt.Your officer will bcJp you begin to ~
baa a d\JtYto respond.Poaiblcmmequcncea includethe me
towudyour goalsandzmew thelc, alongwiththe court of deltptcd tutborlty ot having ldditioml c:oodltiom
c:onditiom 00 II regulubaia. impoecd by.your probtdooofliccr ot a foam1 viowioo
bcadogbefotc the coutt whichmay mult Jn jlil ot priaon
dmc.

. . ..
Page2
What does Delegated Authority mean? It ii impomnt to keep the lines of commuoicadonopen
bc:twemyou and:,outprobationof6ccr.You are~ ID
~ Authorityallowsa ptobstion officct to impose meet with yourpto~ officerII spcci&don thedate.ad
cmain a.dditloml,reqnircmcnts in structurod scnt=cing
case, OD a probationer'!itbout court . invommc:nt.The time act bythe officer.If }'Oil cannot la:cp • Kbcdukd
ptobationcrcancithct be in vioJatic?n 1tatu1_!K throughthe ipp9io1me0t,you DlUSt callyour Probationdffia:rahradof
Deputmcut's tiJk assesancotprocessbe dettnniocdto be timewhenpoNibk.
high risk. In either sit1111tion, the probation of6.c:crcan
imposetdditionalrcquifflnco.ta tor tho pwposeof public
suety an,J/or changingyourbehavior. Completionof any
imposed'utmdcs can resultin a ltucning of rcquircmenta
when thctc~ positive c:bangcs. It is in yom best interest to complywith d,1c
conditions on!tted by the court or your Probation ••,
Periods of Confinement 0~. By abilingby both the regularand specw
condidons you can avoid any violationsand will
For probationaa plAcedon probationwith offensedates successfullycompleteyourprobation.
on 0t after 12/1/2011, the officer aft use delegated
autb.otityto requuejsilcoofioemcntfut 2 to 3-dayslad for
no mote than 6 chys pct month duriag tny 3 sepmtc
months.You will bsvc the optionto refusethe~ in jail
which will t.utomAtially result in the violadoo(s) being The ~of &biding byyour cooditi0011, your
cbonging
addreascdin • formalviolationhearing bd'O!C the Court. behaviort.nd'payitlg
yourfeesas scheduledcouldmeanthe
eady eod of yourprobation.
Violationsmay also result in an apP?f!Ulcebcfotl: the
c.ourt where • 90 day Confioernent.in Responseto Thia ii • poaJJdllty,not a guarantee.
Vlowirui (CR.V)could be imposed as a tapome to
violations other than a new c:rlmim.lQf!enseor statutmy
abscoodiog.The Court mAYimpose coofiocmentof 90
~ys for a felony or upto 90 daysfor a misderncaont. SL 2011-Z18If you uc ~ fint timeoffmderundct 18at
the time of the commiuion of a .nonviolmtf-elony , you
Upon compledonof the 90 dt.yCllV, you will be~ may be eligible for a aimlna1 ltCO!d ~
blCk into the comm.unityto oompletethe remainderof Comm.unity Caa:ections stlf£annot providelegaladvice.
yoar supervisionpcdod. Please consultwith your auomcyor cb.eckthe geocn1
statute (G.S.lSA.-145.4)£orcligibillty~ •
.Probationtn ,rill be tcquircd to serve (2) two periodsof
onnfiormentbeforethe Court can revoke the remainderof
the aentmcc.
Payments
A oondhionof your probationmsy requite you to paythe
State of Nottb Camlina ccrta.in costs, . fees and fines
uaociatcdwith violatinathe laws of the S~tc of North
C."0Jin1Amounts m speciBcd on yol.i1'judgsneot
Your probationofliait will total allyour a>sts Qncluding

the
NC Depanmcntol
supervision fee)aaddividethem by~ IDlOWlt of time you
~ on ptObadon (Mlnus2 months).'Ibis .istheamountyou
PublkWety
Commwdty Ccmccdom
must PIYeach month .in order to pay all the £ecaowm IS
oidcrcd. You maypaymore on the moodilypaymentif you
2020Youm Road
wish, but the mJoimumpaymentis.~ You may also MSC4~
pay.n feelmmi st OQC dme. IWdgb.NC27699-4250
atc to
P&ymco11 be madeto the Clm in the countywhere
Phom:919-716-3100
you wm c:omicted. Fa: 919-716-3996

Ncn r"""r:na.c 1
North Carolina Department

f
of Public Safety '1
1
.....
...,. ......
Dlllll'dalff OPIIUIUtWIIY Community Corrections
-
1I
J
I
'
Completing Probation
Successfully
!
1
,------------------
Introduction Supe rvi seclProbation
Tbil pamphletwas aeatcd to apJain the requ.iremenu The judge1w orderedthat you spcod a specificsmoumof
of supctriaion and to clarify the assistanceyou can time on probldon whilecomplyingwith ccrtlin coodiliom.
receive&om :,om Probuion/PuolcOfficer and othets. The same qllltr conditions apply to m:ryonc uadc:r
Paiodically, dw!gca may oa:ar in supcrriaion supervision. Specialcondidom of probation are cbolc
citcum,tmccs ot condiaomaod your officerwill advise oooditionstbtt uc apcdficto yourcase,uid mayor maynot
you of the cbaagea.The putpoee of supcmaion ii to be the IIIDC for l0IDCODC comicted of a aimiJuotimc.
help you lrad II Jaw tbldinglife and _moohor your Circwmtucca in yourcate are unique, 10 die spcclal
aanmca and ccmplitncc while on supervision. coodJbomof probationwill be diffctcnt
Boforciagthe condidooaof a North CuoliDa Court or
anotherate ii panof tbcsupervision pmc-aaml your Referralsto Community Reaoutcesand
Ptobadosl/Paro]cO.f&er will reviewthe oonditiooawith
you.
Interventions
What happens after the Court Yourofficer IDlf tc:fi:ryou for u~ with the fuDow>g:
chui/akiobolpoblam, angermaotgemdlf; mcotll health,
sentences me to probation? job iead1acs~vooatiomlrchahilmdon, cdocadon,homing
-.la1lnCC,patmting.&mi1yCOUOICliag. l'PJ!idmri,I
ttatme:nt
You will be usignod 111 oBkcr ~ a brief intuc or conmmcrcicdit coumdiag. The oBia:r Qlll)' udlirc
1m!mcnt Aa:ounl9bility for • SaferCommuajty(I'ASC)1X>
ptoc:aa the diy you arc in court. A~ your &st
bdp midgedlcac~ if applicable. Youwill hm the
appointmeat, your o8iccr will zmcwthe courtjudgment oppottunityto make poeitivcc:bangcsin your life withthe
with :,ou mi the cspectadom of probation mpemsion uaiatanccof the agendel in )'OUt'oommumty. In addition to
to includequ1ar md special conditions of probadon the cooditioneotdemdby the coun, your probationofficec
will uk you to complr:tr 90tksheeu designedto · t ,oa Jn
and uy mo.ncy you must pty to tbc Stal'Cof North thinkiogabouthowyow:cboka m aifecdogyourbcba,iot.
Carolina.
Rewards and Consequencet with
B-my pmoo on pro~ will be meaed for theitda.k Supervision
alld.needs dmingthe fim 60 ckys of supc:msion. The
informadon ia gatheml by your oflic:ct through home When iodividaala ate in compliancewith tbc mnditlomof
visits, office contacU, ftmily contacts md the officer's supenilion. the piobalion of6ccr may give im:aad,a ot
rewardslllCb IS cbtngingr.at{ews.allowingtime for &mlly
obaerntiom wbicb will help Cltl&bliahyour priorities
acdvidee,~ modlBcationof ooodldnn1,Jesa&tqucnt
dm:iogaupa:vitioo.The U8allDCDts help your officer drug acrcenmg. ~a"8 frequcocyof Rp«tiDg mi
dl'tfflniac how oftm you will need to iq,ort md possibleearlytcnnioltionfrom aupcrvision.
widentm:ldyour needswbic:hare tdatcd to yourdsk of
Whco an indmdualdocs not comply,the pmbttionofficer
re-mat. Your oBbr will hdp you begin to work
bu • duty to rcspond.Pouiblccomcqucna:s iDrJudc Im UIC
towardyourgoals and t:ericwlhcse,alongwilh the court of dc:1cgated IUtbotity or hmng tdctirionalroodirions
c:oodidoaaon a rcguJ&r buis. impoledbyyourptobldonoSia:ror1fomial,ioladoo
belaag befolCtbc cowt which may ff9lik lo jtil or,pdaoa
time.
. ....
What does Delegated Authorlty·mean? It is importantto keep the linesof comronoicarioo open
between you me!yourprobationof&ct. You a.rereqaircd to
DelegattdAuthorityallowsa probationofficer to bupoec meet with yourptobationof'Bcc,:u 11~ on the daleand
. Cerwll additionalrcquittmeo.flin sttuc11JttdICOtr:oclng
cases on a probadooetwithout coutt lnvom;mcm. The time set by the officer.If you can not bcp a ecbcdulcd
ptobatioocr can either be in ~larion swusathrougb the' · appointrncnt,ym must callyour Ptobation Officu abc,d of
Dcpuunent's .dakuseesmeotprooegsbe detmru1>t'll to be time whenposa1ik.
high tiak. In citbct situadon, the ptobatiooofficer can
irnpoaeadditional~ts for the pmposeof public
sa&tyllld/or cbangfngyour bcbmor. Completionof any It .isin your best .intc:tcatto complywith the COllditions
impoacdlldivities'caofCIUltin • b&C'Jlingof ttquhrmcnts o!dcn:d by tbt court or your Probation Ofliccr.By
whenthere 1111:positivec:bangcs.. abidingby boththe re.gularand specw ooodir:i0.111
youctn
a.voidanyviolationsand will successfully complete your
Periods of Confinement probation.
For probatioocn plaa:d on probation with offcmc datce
on or afta: 12/1/2011, the officer ~ use dclcgatai ~ beor:fusof abJdiog
by your conditiom,
cbqing your
autbodtrto tequircjail cmfiocrncnt fm 2 to 3 daysml fot behmor&lidpaying
your feesas scheduledcouldmeanthe
no mose tba.o6 daysper ID0Dlhdudng any 3 eeparatc eu1yeod of yourpro~on.
months.You will have the option to refuse the day,in jail Thia la • pouJldUty, not a guanntee.
which will llltnrneric-llyrcault in the violation(•)being
addmacd in a fon:mlviolationhearingbeforethe Court.
Violadom mq mo result Jo an appc:arenocbefcm Emergency Contact
the Court where • Confinement in Rcspome to lo the event of a natunl duasttt or c:ataatrophe
Violati011(CR.V)could be ~scd u a iesponse to (hmicanel, tomados,me,etc.) and you are unable to
violationaother thm a new a:iminal offense or statutmy contact yourptobatioo officerdue to the probatioo. office
absconding.The Court may impose eonfioancnr of o.tyour.tcSidaice beingtffcctc:d,then you arc to teltphooc
90 daysfor a felonyor up to 90 mysfor a DWI. Tbc oneof the followingloc:21ioos untilyoa.tCSQ1 IOUlCOne in
Courtmayimpose 2 to 3 daysfor no mote ~ 6 daysper otdcr for 1.18to mow yout wh=aboutl and ltatul duting
month durlDgmy 3 scpuatc months for mildemcanors.
the cmr.rgency. You shouldfirst attemptto ~ yoar
Upoo f"DlplerionQf the CR.V,you will be .r:clcascd
back aasignrd'1fBcct.
into the communityto comple1cthe remeiodct'>f your
supeni,ioopcdod.
Probatioom. will be tcquired to serve (2) two petiodl of
ooofioementbefore the Court CID revob the n:maiodcrof
the rmtcacc.
Payments
Voting Rights
A conddon of your ptoba.tionmay requuc you to pay
the State of North Carolina certain COits, feet and If you arc oom:ictcdof a fclooyin North Carolina,you
fines •ssociatrxlwith -violatingthe Jawa of the Sbdl: fotfcit yoar cirizeoeblpt;ghta,iru:1uding
the .dgb.tto vote.
of North Carolim. Amounts arc apcclfiedon youi If )'OU bid s:qpatar:dto vote pdorto yout ooovidioa. the
judgmcot. registrationbu been canccllcdby the County Boatdof
elcc:donapurauantto N.C.G.S.163--55. It ,Juzll be
Yoar ptobation officer will total all your COl1JIQoch•dlng U1llawfol for anypN'lon convlct«Iof a crimewhich
the mperrisionfee) tnd cletamioe • payment llcbedule.
aclud&ftheperson fromtherightof lfflfrag,. to wte at
This is the amount :,ou ID1IStpayeacll month in otder to
pay all the fees owed u ·otdm,d. Yoo may paymote on anyprimaryorelectionwllhoulhavingbeenrertoredto
the right of cltizalhtp tn du, coun, and by thentdhod
the 1DOJ1.thlypayment if you wh, but the minim.um
paymentis required.You may alao pay all fees owed at rovldedby law.N.C.G.S.163-275
ooetbm.
Paymm.11 arc to be made to the Cm Jo the COWl1)'
where JOU"Wm: oonvicmi.Online probadon paymentsCID
~ mmc uaiog the .OCAP 1ys1em tt hdp:// lOJOYoabnlt.tMSC G!O
oolinrvmc:ca.ncx:ouns.oig/OCAP• Pale have the county labqb.NC1769M150
wbca: youwere 00ffl'icudand your CUC number fflilab1r:
.___- - .
- --•·-- Phou: 91~716-SlOO
--:::=====
==========
==
=-=·==--:. -=;,=--=--r.:~
-: ;;;:t~?";;
~-~-~-~
-~-w.
-~-?Z-?I.i
-~~~-r_-t _;:;:
.
_i~-~~_.~-~-
~-~-T-=-~..:-
- -·- ---
. .• "'
of.PubUc
NoM;CarotrnaOep,rtmeot :~e.f'.c:t>',
1
• lbgularCq
..
" ; ......... .
,
.,.. . ..'. . .
.: "-":
·>••~
:,:-:
_:··· ·
I
:t:_~ ~;.
<~'.~~--~· : ;1 ::}~-!.}/...·. . .· .
. ~
•·;;;inti~-~:~··v ~~lffl ·'p :· :.~·:··~::-·::·: : -~ _c)ri'.~~-.. ·..'
1, 11,.-• ·noarim' 1 • · ·
l . ,. J ~~
l · · • -: ...; -: ·~••;,.,;.i.
-~°ti~~~~j@!i_j~J~
, · · · ·
:~~"M ;J~~ u_,,.. ,
.
•· Rem~gainfW{f :tin.d.:~~ ~.~ · Y.:~ ··: ··l~· hyo~~ - J~lnlng

"MW!1!:f
11tbi
:jje~'lf ( . , . : .~ --: · .,~ ·~ ·~,·~-- · f ~.
, • _d·suP.~,~~ _~ .. r;~;~ ·_;·_···._;~ If~ ~- • .-: _... I .. •• _
• .~om
.~ -~ 9.~thb
tlt~jiirlsdfolioil ' ..~~8.*n ·~y~ ~
ficnb~ _lUOleat.o
wflllt..
Qt.1fle.pJ'®Atio,p · , ;: · r.: -~~;·· ·. '. •
• a.tponaslJ~ ~1~ CQwt~~
-, :~*-td. ~~~~-~~~~ •l>i .~~~ p~ '
~ ~ ~onabl~rnantteri-~it~of'fl~ -~ ·i'isif~ ~i;t4 blo.titnes·aMvcrall~bf~ I• '
i
i
o~in prior•mv~:ftj>bi.in.~
inq.u bJtdt~:oftl~II)Jf oJrwcrfot ~d nctflfY-
·tl!-~1'leer
of,11\Y '
c~se;-ln~~cmj,lo~nt. .· . · . · .
;
fail~:fo.o~ oiii;~n satis~ -d~pUS-t.

• Na t}'~'.P-~~9ffl,~~tt 4~t'endanf
It .t . Ii . t, ~ j,':·t,.;;._
w.··tf fin£I.,.&.a ,I ~ .. A 1 · ja;.C
A ,._-,, ..
..M .f..y-~,.. · .
Jt{u.;~tlJPilln
Q. ."""1.Y if.~'6'~
H!!..;~ ....
.\4~
......
WJ~~~~~~~\!fl~ y
•
for.ads ofdomeltfo vfolebce ··~ :~~~ .li tt{o

iiilJ(fi)-. :tlom~ ;"'1o.
·,~
~m» dhi~ rcM<m.abJy
~ . ..., .,,,.· 'a\i&·
·a~ait~1>~1mth,~dc~~
. - by allrwos9ftfiei~tosram. '
~ hy a ~islon ~! ~ of~utt; 1m,. .~ cm pr,~ -Clffl)P.QIA~

cq_Uilss,lo~ by-tho i
·C9~ '
1
_
~
.'.loc91e»@JO]Pmltted J)eml;,trL-
op or-Jftet
.. , ..
JhedqdalllfhalJaJsc>;
w Sx\bn:dt~blo tu;nC$ io~I~ .~ ,. ~y ll~i'obldOtl'offi~o_rfl)e defendant . person:
ad oftbo:d6tma.nt .and)ttn , ~hi~ 46~ .ts~
!s,\>~h1Qle ~~Y
f<r.
rel~~:tpq,._e butdied1,~¥t ffiiJ)"
~baµon super.-islon, nocbe-required to subroit
to:iily k)ther
11~hmatwq~<f Qtb~$~ .bt,imla~I, . .
to\Wdintloss
• S1i&nu1 -:~l>y aJiwwbr~cnt oftl"'-' ijf fb.e,d~f'C.114~'~
.pct'SO~,nd ofthe
l~4n~ ·~9l~ ~n • rcuonablosusplcion ~fetidatttrs
tililt:thei enpged irtc~ ic.titkfor
l$;m~l~ :~fca.~. ~xpl()$ive
~ovic,,.Qr~fh~r~ly wcapo~
.list~ ino!s. 1~9. without
pennlwn ofthe,Cowt. .
• 'NQf pg-~ ~r~9~l :llllY'illegaldrugofcconlt,ollett
u,x,.,. SJ~ unkasit:bU l;cen~bed ft>,
the~ ·bt• ll~~i,1und ldn .ttlp:qr~e9,Jf.~~ wjth~ p~n ·.I\UO,~
~xccton ,if.:-not
know~y:assoeilifo·Witkiil)'
:lufOWJJ.q~-QII.SIJ
~ute.l'B, ~:~
~l
~ at1f placc-~$1Ch
~ .~µ~i\lepI;~~ CJl'~ttoll~~~
If"' · ~ f.Qp Jl;ltennedlate

~liludent:
ill., dt'.u.88
.t'!lfdnotknowmglfbe
prasnt·ator
or~4nlfcd·~ces are-so1d,-kopt,
or~.
4i ~~~l~Ji<lJlml U\f~ Qf~o P'Obation

offi~ and-P!lY
thofee.
• M~~ co,.cod~tl~I: .
•· ~o;w.Mfnfhe:cm~ of residence
wtloss to leavebytheCourtorprobation
.gtantod);Jermission
bfflcm-. .
•·· ~{pate. -in·anycvalQition,
counseill\g cdueatlon
1 treatmmt'm oftho
progt'Bmit tkedll'Qetion
..
NorthCamtfnaOoptniontoflyifflo~
. riWD!IQD 'd.J (,~jll ~~~~li,~~M~~~ .
..=;~
.. 8!:RIY!l!U·~~~-lt121 .... -· li~a·:~...
.~x·
~":" Ollll
-. , !
.
•
.· . .·
• Qbe)'-th<?
l'\lf~-~d:i;t,giijlttona
•.~~ DiY~totr :\lstt~a,ao
.of'-~ij~Jt~ ~otrerrdJ1J.veru1b OP1inS
the
·oo~u
.~n,tl(a.~~l~·fit.\pti$0 :$1:.. · : , . : ·· · : . ·
• .RepoifU>a;prol;ali·n•officer
.~~f J~to-~ftiotOJ
~.lit!, yiitfiii,·even,ty-t)vo Df..tb.e
(~Yl!oUr$
-4,,-.es
dis.9~f1orn.tlf'1
•
f
-~~~~ ·
gQ~tean,i>
•
• • # • .. ·• ·. • • •
It
'~
•
••
·· ~ · .
~ toroffenstS @lllJD\tted 4~re~~liit

sei~,~~-l.••~~~•-£be
,qaor -·11:
dte~ c>fdi~ _p6Ato~~~~f
. • :su6.miUo
inliiab l~~phs .ofUt~:prohftfopqr's
.j~ ~.
marks,andtaflQp~,-to
bo:~'?1~ in~~~OJt.dr"._~ ~~J. .
:• W.-t~a.11 ·rcl~# tQ 'ffl"4diut>.n
J'iab'it \~~liit~~ cus.tody.
oumid~
_.
ofthisStawfor
~m}llywith·tbo-eoaar#oiii
tatUna1o 4
~
~ :~,~ -co~imon : • • ~~ - •
rerouuMn # ,: ' •
_ ldo:b~id>y"Wlive
·cx~ldon to~~Q~~ : ~rpm:.~w 0~ Un~ S~leJ
~taW and_._Q
-~ ~ -~
.~,... ,pso-~ t WiJlnQt~n~«ny~nw,t,y ~ -• 01:~~itfl~H~ for-any
... ~~ viQWi.Q!l
~lggi?r ~ M->~~ ...w~ tltJbll
sa>W.-1{)
.'
Delendint'-sPrlritcd
Name~----~------ D1t~
,·-____ _
:D.efendant'sSignature:,_
· ------------

Exhibit 4
May 29, 2018 NCSBE Response Public Records Request

from SCSJ and SCSJ’s May 17, 2018 Public Records Act
Request to NCSBE.

John Carella
From: Gannon, Patrick < Patrick.Gannon@ncsbe.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 3:15 PM
To: John Carella
Cc: Lawson, Joshua; Neesby, Brian
Subject: Your public records request
Attachments: Carella_Nov_2016_felon_voter _charts.xlsx
Mr. Carella,
Please see the attached the county-by-county breakdowns by race and ethnicity of the 441 felon cases, per your
request. The attached chart and the statewide chart below are both based on data at the time the Post-Election Audit
Report was drafted in 2017. The "Undesignated" individuals did not provide their race or ethnicity on their voter
registration applications.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Race Count %
ASIAN 2 0.47%
BLACKor AFRICAN AMERICAN 290 68.08%
INDIAN AMERICAN or ALASKA NATIVE 1 0.23%
WHITE 131 30.75%
TWO or MORE RACES 1 0.23%
OTHER 1 0.23%
UN DESIGNATED 15
441
Thanks,
Pat
Patrick Gannon I PIO

o:919-814-0765I c: 984-204-0767

zc( zc( w
u > w 0
u z w
ii:
u. c(
ii: ~ a:
0 ~
z c( u
ti.I z_ w
:? V, a:
w z
c(
iii ...ii:w ~ c( !::
:c ...w
u :c ~ ....
ni
County c( 0 ct ~
z II)
3:
0
0 a:
c( ~
0
iii
w ~
lliC:
u
:? cf s 0
~
c(
s
a:i
i3
~
...
c(
0
z:::,
# ~" # -~ # \:}:I_~ # ~- # ...

' # .v4.-..-# #
ALAMANCE 0% 10 77% 0,% 3 23%. 0% 0% 13
ANSON 0% 1 50% 0% 1 SO% 096 ()!}f; 2
ASHE 0% 0% 0% 1 100%\ 0% 0% 1
BEAUFORT 0% 5 83% 0% 1 17% 0% 0% 1 7
BERTIE 0% 1 100% 096 0% 0% 0% 1
BLADEN 0% 1 100% 0% 0% 0% Q% 1
BRUNSWICK 0% 0% 0% 2 100% 0% 0% 1 3
BUNCOMBE 0% 3 50$ 0%' 3 50%, 0% 0% 1 7
CABARRUS 0% 2 40 % 0% 2 40% 1 20% 0%' 1 6
CALDWELL 0% 2 33% 0%' 4 67% 0% 0~ 6
CARTERET 1 20% 2 40% {1% 2 40% 0% 0% 5
CASWELL 0% 1 50% 0% 1 50%' 0% 0%.• 2
CATAWBA 0,% 2 50% 0%: 2 50% 0% 0% 4
CHATHAM 0%' 1 50%. 6% 1 50%: 0% 0% 2
CHEROKEE 0% ©% 0% 1 1009{;' 0% 0% 1
CLAY 0% €>% 0% 1 100% 0% 0% 1
CLEVELAND 0% 5 mo% 0% 0% 0%' 0% 5
COLUMBUS '11/4
, 2 100% 8%- 8% 0% 0% 2
CRAVEN 0% 4 40% 0% 6 60% 1
0% ©% 10
CUMBERLAND 0% 15 83% ©% 2 11% 0% 1 6% 2 20
CURRITUCK 0% 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1
DAVIDSON 0% 0% 0%. 4 100% 0% 0% 4
DAVIE 0% 0% 0% 1 100% 0% 0% 1
DUPLIN on 3 100% 0% 8% 0% 0,% 3
DURHAM 0% 26 90% ~ 3 10% 0% 0% 1 30
EDGECOMBE 0% 5 63% 0961 3 38% 0% 0% 8
FORSYTH 0.% 17 86% 0% 3 15% Ol¾r 0%' 20
FRANKLIN 0.% 2 100% 0% 0% 0~ 0% 2
GASTON 0% 5 45% 0% 6 55% 0% 0% 11
GATES 0% 1 100% 0%: 0% 0%: 0% 1
GRANVILLE 0% 1 50% 0% 1 50% 0% 0% 2
GREENE 0% 1100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1
GUILFORD 1 2% 37 17% 6% 10 21% 0% 0% 1 49
HALIFAX 0% 7 78% 0% 2 22% 0% 0% 9
HARNETT 0% 2 67% 0% 1 33% 0% 0~ 1 4
HAYWOOD Oo/~ 0% 0% 1 100% 0% 0% 1 2
HERTFORD 0% 3 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3
HOKE 0% 5 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5
JOHNSTON Q-% 5 63% 0% 3 38%. GI¾· @% 8

u.,
a:
0 ci::
:E lfi w
County 0
0
... u
c:r:
a:
...
::c
0
!
# #
JONES 0% 2 67%
LENOIR 0% 0% 1 50% 0% 0% 2
LINCOLN 0% 0% 1 100% 0% 0% 1
MCDOWELL 0% 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1
MECKLENBURG 0% 12 86% 0% 2 14% 0% 0% 14
MONTGOMERY 0_% 3 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3
MOORE 08-ft 1 25% 0%• 3 75% 0% 0% 1 5
NASH 0% 4 100% 0% 4
NEW HANOVER 0% 6 38% 0% 0% 16
ONSLOW 0% 0% 0%. 1 100% 0% 0% 1
ORANGE 0% 1 100% 0% 1
PAMLICO 0% 2 40%1 0% 3 60 -xi· 0% 0% 5
PASQUOTANK 0% 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2
PENDER 0% 3 50% 0% 3 50% 0~ 6
PERSON 0.% 2 100% 0% 1 3
PITT 0% 2 15% 0%
POLK 0% 1 100 '9 0%
RANDOLPH 0% 2 33% 6% 4 67% 0% 0% 6
ROBESON 0% 2 40% 1 20% 2 40% 0% 0% 5
ROCKINGHAM 0% 0% 0%' 5 100%' 0% 0%: 1 6
ROWAN 096 0% 0% 2 100% 0% 0% 1 3
RUTHERFORD 0% 1 SO% 2
SAMPSON 0% 2 67% 0% 3
SCOTLAND 8% 4 80% 0% 1 20% 0% 0% 5
STANLY 2
STOKES 0% 1 srm 2
SURRY 0%, 3 100%: 0% 3
UNION ~ 2 29% 0% 7
VANCE ~ 2 100%· 2
WAKE 0%; 24 77o/.o' on 1 23% 0% 0-% 1 32
WARREN G.%, 3 100%
WAYNE 0% 3 25% 0%
WILSON 0% 3 75% 0% 1 25% 0%
2 15% 290 68% 1 8~ 131 31% 1 0% 1 0.% 15 441

•
1415West.Highway54, SuiteIOI P:919-323-3380 SOUTHERN COALITION
Durham,NC 27707 F:919-323-3942 for SOCIALJUSTICE
May 17, 2018
Hon. Kim Westbrook Strach

Director
State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement
441 N. Harrington Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Kim.strach@ncsbe.gov
Via Email and U.S. Mall
Re: Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Strach:
Pursuant to Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes (the North Carolina
Public RecordsAct}, and on behalf of Whitney Cherrelle Brown, I hereby request copies
of the documents and informationdescribed below.
On April 21, 2017, the State Board of Elections released a Post-Election Audit Report
for the 2016 General Election.Among other things, the report described441 potential
cases of persons who allegedly voted despite being ineligible to vote due to a prior
felony conviction.Appendix 5 of the report Included two tables categorizingthese and
other cases by county and by party affiliation. The tables in the report did not disclose
the aggregate race or ethnicity data associated with these cases. My client, Ms. Brown,
is one of the individuals currentlyfacing felony charges in Alamance County following
your investigator'sreport to the District Attorney in Alamance County.
I request the following: A table of the 441 cases of alleged voting while ineligible due to
a felony convictionthat includes- county-by-countyand statewide - the race or
ethnicity of those voters as reflected in your voter registration records. Please note that
this is a requestonly for the aggregate race/ethnicitydata In a table format comparable
to that used in the audit report for the partisan and county data. This is not a request for
individual identifyinginformationon any specific cases.
I would prefer this informationin electronicform, and you may email it to me at

johncarella@scsj.org.lfthe informationneeds to be produced in paperfonn orwould
require a flash drive, please let me know. Also, please Inform me of any charges
associatedwith this request and the desired method of payment. Feel free to call me If
you have any questions about this request.
SCSj www.southerncoalltlon.org
Empowering
peopleand com1111mitiE1 whodiana•the world
SCSJ Is a 50 I ( c)(3) nonprofit organization.

Si~,~
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
ohn F. Carella
Staff Attorney
(919) 323-3380 x116
CC: Josh Lawson, General Counsel

Exhibit 5
August 9, 2017 letter from Joan M. Fleming, Chief

Investigator of the NCSBE, to the General Counsel of the
North Carolina Department of Public Safety, the Chief
Legal Counsel for Governmental Affairs for the Judicial
Branch of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the
Courts, and the President of the North Carolina
Conference of District Attorneys, With Accompanying
Letters from District Attorneys Submitted as Attachments
to the August 9, 2017 letter.

Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 27255
N@RTHCAROLINA Raleigh, NC 2761 1-7255
Phone:(9 19) 733-7 173

State Board of Election s & Ethics Enf orce1nent KI M WEST BR OO K STR AC:H
Executive Director
August 9, 2017
Ms. Jane Ammons Gilchrist

General Counsel
N.C. Department of Public Safety
420 1 Mai l Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-420 1
Mr. Thomas Murry

Chief Legal Counsel for Governmental Affairs
N.C. Judicial Branch
N.C. Adminis t rat ive Office of the Courts
P.O. Box 2448
Raleigh, NC 27602 -2448
Ms. Kimberly Robb

President
N.C. Confe rence of Dist rict Atto rneys
P.O. Box 3159
Cary, NC 27519
Dear Ms. Gilchrist, M r. M ur ry, and Ms. Robb,
The purpose of this letter is to summarize and express our concern surro unding the
informatio n conveyed to convicted felons regard ing vot ing rights in North Carolina. Mo re t han
400 fe lons serv ing an active sentence unlawfu lly voted it t he November 2016 General Election .
This occurred in spite of routine voter registration removal efforts by county boards of elections
of registered vote rs who were identified as being under an acti ve felony sentence. We hope to
part ner w ith your agencies to reduce t he incidents of unlawf ul voting by convicted felons.
On April 21, t he State Board released a post-election audit report, identifying 441
suspected cases of active f elons voting in t he November 2016 Genera l Election. The
Investigations Division with in the St ate Board has since collected doc umentary evidence and
conducted int erviews of suspected violators and th eir probat ion off icers as a rout ine part of our
investigat ive process. The int erviews establ ished a wide patte rn of defendan ts in multiple
counties who claim t hey we re never info rmed of the ir loss of vot ing rights upo n conviction and
sente ncing. A review of plea agreements, sentenc ing documents, and contact w ith probation
officers appears to cor roborate t hat info rmation. Since April, several completed case referra ls
sent by the State Board to district attorney s have been summarily declined because the district
at torneys for t hose coun t ies determined t here was insuffic ient evidence to prove that the
defendant was ever notified of his or her inelig ibility to vote. Two felo n voter cases stemming
from t he 20 16 Ma rch Primary Election have likewise been decl ined by dist rict attorneys for t he
same reason.

Page 2
Followin g a recent felon voter t rial in Lincoln County, also stemm ing from the 2016
March Primary Electio n, the j ury returned a verdict of "not guilty." Durin g the tr ial, the
defendan t' s parole officer was called by the defense to te stify regarding what, if any, warnings
we re provid ed t o the defend ant concern ing his loss of vot ing rights at t he t ime he was convicted
or during superv ision. The paro le officer testified t hat loss of voting rights is not a topic that is
rout inely commun icated to convicted felons under superv ision. The not guilty verdict occurred
despite j ury instruc t ions appropriate ly communi cating t hat voting wh ile a felon does not requ ire
that the defe ndants knew th at the conduct was unlawf ul.
Attached for your information and review, are examples of several declinat ion
commun icatio ns our office has recently received from distr ict attorneys across th e state. Also
attached is an example of a plea agreement and judgm ent in a fe lony case show ing the absence
of any inform at ion con cern ing loss of vot ing rights. For the reasons out lined in this let ter, our
agency believes a trend towards decli natio n on felon vote r cases w ill continue without corrective
action being taken to document and maintain warn ings given to conv icte d fe lons in t he fe lon's
records.
Vot ing in an election in Nort h Carolina while serving an active sentence for a felony
conviction is a fe lony violation of state election law unde r NCGS163-275(5 ). Registra t ion and
vot ing docume nts contain written warnings, and recent im provements have been made to
furthe r enhance those warnings. However, w hen violati ons of t he felon voter statute occur,
prov ing that t he felon voter was aware of the law based solely on the w ritten warnings contained
on voting documents can present a challenge to successful prosecutions of wi llfu l offenders.
Add iti onally, some forms, such as the federal voter regist ration application , do not contain
warnings against registering and voting wh ile serving an active fe lony sentence, since laws
concerni ng felon vot ing rights vary from state to state.
Whe n an ind ividua l is convicted of a fe lony in Nort h Carolina, their voting rights are
suspended until such time as t hey have completed all aspects of their felony sentence, including
periods of probat ion/paro le. Each month, the county boards of election across the state review
information received from the Nort h Carolina Department of Correct ions (DOC) regard ing new
felo ny convi ct ions and voter registra tion "removal lette rs" are sent to the last known address of
registered voters who appear on t he convicted felon list. If no objection is received from t he
voter, their voter registration is deactivated and placed in a "removed' status due to the ir felony
convict ion. Upon complet ion of their sentence (includi ng probat ion/parole), convicted felons are
eligible to re-regi ster to vote, at which t ime th ey are given a completely new voter registrat ion
numb er. In spite of this process, t here have been nume rous incidences of felons registe ring and
voti ng before completing probation/paro le, whi ch is an additional felo ny. These occur rences can
be viewe d as a collateral consequence of having been convicte d of a fe lony, and th en never being
info rmed of the consequences of vot ing whi le under an act ive felony sent ence, or as willful
violat ions of election law.
Since t he 2016 General Election, th e State Board has made improvemen ts to the visibi lity
of warnings contained in voter registrati on and election doc uments for the purpose of notifying
convicted fe lons serving an active sente nce that they are not eligible to vote . However, these are
"passive" warnings, the value of wh ich is depe ndent on prov ing t hat the felo n received, read, and

Page 3
understoo d the information contained in t he documen t s. The lack of documented evidence of a

post-conv iction warning actively communicated to th e felon concerning loss of voting rights in
plea agreements, jud gme nts, or in probat ion documentation is an evide ntiary issue that w ill
pot entially continue to impact prosecut ion of wi llful offe nders, in as much as juries will likely
continue to look fo r some evidence of know ledge of the law on the part of the defendant in order
to justi fy a conv ict ion.
There has been a great deal of coverage of voter fra ud claims in t he media and significant
public interest in t he prosecut ion of vote r fraud cases. By statute, it is t he duty of the State Board
to investigate fra uds and irregularities in elections in any county and to report the results of those
investigat ions to the Atto rney Gener al, District Attorney, or prosecutor of the district for further
investigat ion and prosecution [NCGS163-22(d) ].
Ideally, going forward, pro secutors who are evaluating the available evidence associated
wit h felon vote r cases wou ld not only have the warnings contai ned in the voting documents at
t heir disposal, but would also have documented evidence signed by t he fel on acknowledging
the ir loss of voting rights upon conviction . Such documentation wo uld greatly assist in
prosecut ing w illf ul violations by fe lon voters.
The Bipart isan Stat e Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement recently reviewed
disclosure and discharge docume nts we received from t he N. C. Depart ment of Public Safety
(DPS)addressing t he restoratio n of voti ng rights for convicted felons upon completion of a fe lony
sente nce. In t hat regard, our agency would like to work closely wi t h DPS, going fo rward, to
dist ribute the attached "North Carolina Voti ng Rights Guide: People in the Crim inal Just ice
System." In addit ion to enhancing the post-conviction restoration of righ ts process, we would
also like to discuss th e possibility of revisions to t he active felon notif ication process, based on
our post-electio n exper ience with felon voter prosecutions. Wh ile it appears that th e "close-ou t"
process upon completion of a felony sentence adequately covers restorat ion of vot ing rights
upon complet ion of a felo ny sente nce, as discussed above, we have ident ified some deficienc ies
in t he notice provide d to felons w ho are still serving an active felony sentence, notably during
periods of proba tion and parole - the window during which curre nt fe lons tend to vote.
The State Board wo uld like your agency's input to explore how to best resolve this issue
going forward fo r t he mutual benefit of the agencies involved and t he pub lic. Please contact me
at 919-715-1792 or email me at joan.flemin g@ncsbe.gov to help coordinate a discussion at your
earliest conven ience. The State Board looks forward to working wi t h yo u and your agency to
achieve an acceptable solut ion in the near future.
Sincerely,
G:1~~~
;
Chief Invest igator
Investigat ions Division
North Carolina State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement
joa n.fleming@ncsbe .gov

Martucc
i, Matthew
Fro m: Newman. Greg A. <Greg.A.Ne1Nman@nccourts.org >
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 5:45 PM
To: Martucci, Matth ew
Subj ect: Polk Coun ty, NC
M<itthe w. than k you fo r send ing to me the investiga tive file or £ ■ . I have reviewed ic in its en1ire1y and
reco mme nd that we not p ur sue any cri mi nal charg es fo r her vo te it last year's pres iden t ial electi on. All info rma t ion
seems 10support her claim that she d id not know that she was prohib ited from vo t in g. Unfortun atel y, many people sign
theformsattheboardof elections
withoutreading
thelanguag
e. Shedid nothing outof theordinary
andreadily
contac ted her probation of fice r upon learning t hat she may have vio lated st ate law.
::\J~o. and very significantly, the probation officer acknowledged that he did not tell Ms. I that she could not vo te·
because he assumed she knew of th e restriction. Havi ng been part of hundreds of fel on y guilty pleas in bot h distri ct and
superior courts, the restrict io ns tha t ap pl y w he n a person becomes a fe lon are some time s ment io ned, but rarely
emphasiz ed. 11app ears to me that too man y things in Ms. - case were assum ed and that inadequ ate t ime was
spent reviewing the rules w it h her.
/\~ 5uch, I cannot in good consc ience re com mend charg ing her crimina lly.
I ~1ankyou again fo r the excellent investiga t ive work. Please contact me ,f you have any questions.
Grc:g Newman
O,strict Attorney
NC 11 rosecuto rial District 298
cc lo and f'rnrn th is address rn.'.l
I .-111;1ilcorrcspo11dL·11 y he subject to the
''.Jonht ·arn lina puhlic rtcords lavvs and ii' so . may be disclosed.

State of :No1tfi [aro6na
genera[ Court of Justice
,Prosecutoria[Distnct Si:{teen :B
LUMBERTON, N C. 28358
LUTHER JOHN SON BRITT , Ill RO BESON COUNT Y
DISTRICT ATTORNEY COURTHOUSE BOX 19
TE L: (9 10) 671 -3300
FAX: (91 0) 737 -5083
iVl ay 19, 2017
Manhc:wF. Munucci
S1a1eBoard of Electio ns
P 0. Box 27255
Raleigh, NC 2761 I
NCS13E Case 1\1um bcr: 2017-025

NCSBE Case Number: 2017-029
NCS B E Case N um b er: 2017-0 30
NCS BI ~ Case N umber: 2017-031
NCS B E Case Number: 2017-032
Dea1·Mr. Martucci,
After rev iewing the filc s you provided on February 27'\ 20 l 7 and speaking with District Artorney
l:3ritt,our office has decided not to pursue charges in the above listed matters. lt is our belief that charges would
require some showing of knowledge that each above listed individual's right to vote had been suspended. We
believe that such kn ow ledge cannol be proved bas ed on the evidence prese nted . l f you have any further
questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
J . 1\ lc." 111
d cr Hooks
1\ssis tan1 District Attorney
Districl 1613
l) I 0-272 -602-4
John.a.hooks@ncco urts.or g
,1ah
enclosure

St at e of Nort h Caro lina
General Co urt of J ust ic e
Prosecu to r ial Dis tri ct 16C
Anso n and Richmond Cou nties
REECE SA UND ERS
Distr ict Attorney
Mailing Add re ss: Ph ys ical A dd ress:

Post Office Box 1925 Teleph one: 910-419-7500 105 W. Franklin Street
Rockingham, NC 28380 Facsimil e: 910-419-7501 Roc kingham, NC 28379
J u n e 14, 20 17
Matthew F. rvlartucci, Investigato r

North Carolina State Board of Elections
Raleigh, NC 276 1 I -7255
RE: NCSBE Case number: 2017-319
Dear Mr. M art ucci:
I have carefully review the file which you sent 10 me on June I, 20 I 7 regarding the investigation or
Due to the lack of certainty ~ knowledge concerning his vote r rights, I am declining
prosecution of this matter.
Ii seems to me that it wou ld be a simple matter to add a document for the felons to sign w hen they
,,re plucc<l on probotio11 ack.i~o,.vlcdging notificati on o f their loss of voting ,·igh ts. Likewi se, upon
release from prison on parole or a consecutiveprobationsentence, a similar document signedby

the felon woul d make all of ou r jobs easie r.
rhank your for your invesligation in this matter.
Sincerely,
~) / - _/
.? f, • .,,,.,. .,,
! .,,,,
t-·4-J~,,,
,-·
Reece Saunders
District Attorney
RS: dms

State of North C arolina
General Cou rt of Ju stice
Prosecutori al Distr ic t 16C
Anson and Richmond Counties
REECE SAUNDERS
District Attorney
Mailing Address : Physical Address:

Post Office Box 1925 Telephone: 910-419-7500 105 W. Frank lin Street
Rockingham,NC 28380 Facsimile: 910-419
-7501 Rockingham, NC 28379
June 14, 2017
Matthew F. Martucci, Inves tigator

Nonh Carolina Stace Board of Elections
Post Office Box 2725 5
Ralcigh,NC 276 11-7255
RE: NCSBE Case number: 2017-318
DL:c1r
Mr. Martucc i:
I have carefully review the file which you sent to me on June I , 2017 regarding the investigation
of
Due to the lack of certainty of knowledge concemmg his voter rights, I am

declining prosecution of this matter.
It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to add a document for the felons to sign when they
are placed on probation acknowledging notification of their loss of voting rights . Likewise, upon
release from prison on parole or a consecutive probation sentence, a similar document signed by
lhe felo n would make all of our jo bs eas ier .
Thank your for your investigation in this martcr.
Sincerely,
I'./ (,/2 /
jl L/)1.,v0,vl✓t<i
Reece Saunde rs L
District Attorney
RS: dms

SETH M. EDWARD S
DI STRICT AT f'O ltNfY
I SfiCOND PROSE CUTO U.IAL DI STR l CT

! \ nE.All~OU1 ', HVDL MAU.T IN . Tvruu .u ANU \VAHtlNf'."r()N CO\..JNTIE.S
I• I'
~~!S~~
DEALH'O ltT COUN T Y COUltTHOUSl: ANN!cX MAllTIN COUN TY COLJl!THOUSc
0
Il l WEST 2·' S'i"RH:T 305 EAST MA IN STttH T
\ r PO DRAW l: R 1705. WASHINGTON. NC 2788') PO 0OX 118b. W I LLIAMS TON. NC 278'12
0 252-'H0 - 4010 I f 252-9~0 -40 11 0 252 ·80'!-5 110 I r, 252-80'1·511I
P Lt ASl: lt fSl'ON lJ: Dc AUfO lff COlJN rv
June 23, 2017
Mr. Mat thew Martucci

NC State BOE
PO Box 27255
Raleigh, NC 27611-7255
RE: Beaufort County Felons Who Voted in 2016

Your case #s: 2016-083; 2017-044-050;
Dear Mr. Ma rtucci,
Thank you for your t im e and effo rt in investigating eight instances in Beaufort County where conv icted
fe lons voted who were ine ligible due to a current status of probation or parole. After reviewing your
reports, I am decl ining prosecution at t his time .
In your reports, you point out t he flaws in the vot ing system that could and should prevent ineligibl e
felons from vot ing. It is my hop e that our legislat ure w ill address t hese issues and implement safeguards
to prevent this typ e of action in the future.
With best regards, I am,
Ver truly yours _, C) (\
Seth H. Edward_
s
nr ~~, cL--
SHE/r
.: ,' :! I:
*** ------- -- --- ------

r
I
I
STAT.E OF-NORTH
___ _
CARO
UNA
_ __ Cou nty
·- - ---------. - -------
► FileN~---
}\)
In The Genernl Cou rt or
Jus1i ce
~=-
· --
Distr ict ["J Superior Court D ivision
- ----------
-...
. .
--- ......... G.S . 15/\-10?.2. 151\- 10
NOTE: Uso lhis Sf!c/ion ONLY when /he Court is rejccling /he plea arrongement.
D The p lea arran gernen1 set forth w ithin this transcr ip t is hereby rejectedand theclerk shall place lhis form in lhe casefile. //1,opfos ID .,
1
arrJngemcnl! disclosedon or <lier Decembe; 1, 2009.)
Name Of PresidingJudge (Type Or Prinl} SigMl ure Of Presiding Judr;~
The u11deri;ignc;d j udge , having addres s ed the de tcndan l perso nally in open cow :t(fi nds that the derendant ( 1) was duly swum 01
Rffirmed, (2) entered a ple a of Q guilty O guilty pursua nl lo /t!lord dei:;ision .D,7
no contesl, flnU (3) offered lhe follo wing uris1·1P.
r:; I!
lhe quest ions sel out bc,low : 0
1. /\re you ab le to he ar and ur1derstand rne? (1) _xf·';,~
~r'
2. Do you under sland thal you have the right to rema in si/enl and ihat any sta te ment yo u make may be u:;ed
agninsl you?
(2) (f ?~
..
3. A l whal grade lfive l can you read and wr ite?
,1. (a). Are you now under t11e infl uence o f alcoho l, drugs, na1co1ics, medic in es, pills, or any ot her substances?
(b). Wh en was the las t time you used or consumed any such subslance?
5. Have the charges been explai ne d to you by your lawyer, and do you understand the na1u re orthe charges,
and do you u nderstand every element of each charge?
6. (a). Have yo u and you r lawyer discu ssed the pos sible defenses , if any, to the charges?
(b). Are you sa ti sfied with yo ur lawyer 's lega l services?
7. (a). Do you understand tha t you have the right to plead not guilty and be tried by a jury?
(b }. Do yo u u nders tand that at such lrlal you hav e lhe right to confront and to cros s examine wit nesses
aga inst you?
(c). Do you un d erstand tha t al a j ury trial you have the right to hav e a jury determine the existence of any
aggrava ting factors that may apply to your case (1md, if applicable, addi l lonel sentencing pofnts nol rela ted 10
prior convic tion s) beyond a rea s onable dou bt?
(d) . o o you unm,rs1onCJ t11a1 by you r plee( s) you give up these and other valuable cons tilu li onat rights to a
jury trial (and , ii applicublc , righls ralaied to sanlencing)?
8. Do y ou unders tond that . if you are not a citizen o f the Uniled. States ol America , your ple a(s) of guilly or no (8) __ _ __
contes t may res ult in your deportal ion from this cOlmtry. your exclusi oi, from ndm ission 10 !h is country , or tile
denial or your nalur;:iliz1'lli on undP.r [ede rnl law?
i\j
l~ 9. Do you unders tand tha t upon conv iction of a felony you may forie it any State licensing
the event tha t you refuse r,roba tion or that your probat ion is revo ked?
priv ileges you have in
10 . Oo you unders tand that rollow ing a plea or gu ilty or no contes t there are limitations on your right lo appea l?
11. Do you unders tand th at you r pl ea o l guilty may impacl how long b iologica l evidence rel;:ited to your case
(for examp le , blood , hair . skin !issue) will be preserved?
(Over)
i\OC -C l"l-300 . i{ cv 3115
© 2015 Admin islrnlivi, omci, or (he Courts

12. po you understa nd that you ar e plead ing O guilty [ii.no conlesl lo tile charges show n below?
charges,Iola/maximumpunishmen/
(Describe s, andapplicfbic minimumsfor those
mandalo1y charges.)
Count
I Pica ' FilQ Nuaiti~r .J!Qill.L Oi!_e_nse(~
)
('I( I l t-fZS-060-a f_ fi:-'u>

f-'j fo>>c.fJ
J vA-f\--Jr-
(/A'(<.f
I
I,
/v<.. 16Lf 1oo&76

J[ D([/ v CorvT
/tl/Vt:(l- s/a/16
0 S~~~ltochcd AOC-CR -300A, for nddi\ional cha rges. t

·G •G;;ii;···G·l\=/i llo,d plea
~JC= IIOC:on:c~I
I TOT A L MA X IMUM- -PUNI
·'-·-- - ----
SHMENT
---•- --
~
- - - --+,-.-
_ ()Vlf{'\~
7,;.:. f.1\/\ +
MAN DATO RY MINIM U M F INES & SENTEN CE S (ilony) ,~ ')25'
~-=-==----- -----:-:--
✓ NO TE TO C LERK:
- ----- - -------- - -'---------''--='------
If this column is ch ecked this is an added offense :,r reduced charge .
- --- - ---- ----
+NOTE: En/er punishmen( cla i,-s if differen t from underlying o/lcn se cless (punishment class represents o sla/us or enhancement) .
13. Do you now pe rson ally plead O guilty ¢)no coni es\ to !he cha;g es I ju st desc ribe d?
1'l. 0 (a) Are you in facl guilty?
~ (b) (noconrest pl ea) Do you u nderstand that . upon your plea or no contest , you will be \reateo as being
guilly whe1her or nol yo u odrnit that you c1rein fact guilty?
0 (c) (Alford guilty plea)
('I ) Do yo u now co nside r i\ lo be in your best interest \o plead gull\y to lhe charges I j us\ described? (14cl) ___ ..___
(2) Do you unde rstand Iha\, upon you r "Alford guilty plea," you wil l be treated as be ing gui lly w hether (14c2) _ ___ _
or not you admit that you are in fact guilty?
0 15. (Use if agg ravatin g tac /ors ore list ed bu/o w) Have you adml\\ed the existence of the agg ravating factors shown (1 5) _ ___ _
below, hove you ag reed tha t there is eviden ce lo support these lac\ors beyond a rea sonab le doub t, have
you ag,ood thal the Court may accepl $'our admission to these /actors. and do you O
understand that you
are w ciiviog any no tice requi remen t 11 ml lhe S l ate rn;,y heve wit h regard lo thes e "ggrnvotlng foclor s
0 agree lhat 111eS tate hlls provided you w ith approprlale notice about these 0ggrava ting factors? (II so,
review Ille eggrovaling factors wllh the defendant.)
0 16 . /Use if sunlenciog poillls ore listee1 bo /ow) liave you adrnilted the existence o r the sentenc ing points nut related (16) _____ _
to prior convictions shown betow, have you agreed that \here is evidence to sup por1 these poinls beyond a
reasonob le do u bt , h ave you agr ee d that lhe Cour t may occept your admission to lhe se poin ts , and do you
Ounderstan d !ha t yo u are w aiving any noti ce requirement lhat the Sla\ e ma y have with re gar d lo these
sentencing points O agre e lhal the State has provided you with appropriate notice abov1 these
sentencing points?. (If so. ruvlew the sentencing points w/lh the dcfencJaM.)
t7 Do you understand that you also have the right during a sentencing heating lo prove to lhe Cour1 the (!'/) _j_?,_"5
.
existence o f an y rnil iga\ing factors lhat may apply lo your case?
18 llo you under sta nd that the cou rts hav e approved \he practice ol plea arrangemen ts an d you can d iscuss ( 18) y/;~
yr.H.H' pl • n D f"l"A,.,Oomof'I I \Nah mo withou l {oor inc rny dii:t1norov8 I?
1,oc-cn.:ioo, Sl d o Tw o. Re v . 3 115
l,t) 20l! l Ad1nin istnHi..,c Office o r the Co urt~1

Uponconsideralion
ol lhe recordproper.evidence
or/actual
presentation
ottered
, answersof\he de(endan\ ye1 fo1
, s\a\emcn\sof the 1aw
the defendant, and slalemenls of !he prosecuto ,, the undersigned finds that:
1 There is a faclulll basis for lhe enlry of the plea (011dtor the admission os :o aggr av.;ling factors ondlor sentenci ng points);
/. 7 he delendan t Ii; satisfied wilh his /he r law y er's legal seNi cc s,
3 Th<! uelenden1 is competent lo stand lrial:
,. 0 Th e Sta te has provided the dele,idanl with aµpropriale notice as lo lhe aggravatin!; factors and/or points, 0 The clelend,;1 11111,,:,
waived nolice cs lo the aggravat ing factor s and/or points: and
5. The pl~a (and admis sion) is the informed choice ol the defendant and is made lre~ly. volunlil 1ly
The defend,ml's plea (and admission) is hereby accepted by the Court and is
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSALS PURSUANT TO PLEA ARRANGEMENT

FIie No. Counl No.(s ) Off ense(:;)
{br.,,~f0G01 ,.-.
l- l1/lf/U F1tu
'TW[ fr/1rR I JU/1-!VA-
t6ctfoG (o pv\,I<;() lh# Jvfh'VA--
t
! 6l-/Z) 0 6 I I {cl-orv/ r1Ar fv Tit!~ Vfl+rc u

6
Ii c~ 1-u/+3 S'fEcf)( rv6 fr/·7("
/6l,A
f Do't)ff- I KElf-l[S)
.:i:!..!.== = "=== ~&1- ---' C~EsR~Tl!!:F~I

C~A~T.!.!l~O~N!_B~Y..!-!:P:.£R~O~S~E~C~U~T~O~R~
.- ....1l.
..!i
')I:.:·:r.~~:~·:
~~:::
:_>::._
·{..:..
.. /f'.,/":j ;':'t0.ijJL~
_-:.2 \
·r hc urnJersigned prosecu t or enlers a dism is sal lo the above ch arges pursuant\
~a~ 0 7--/-.,__
C
=-,.,.
_ _,_
N_a_m
_e_o_, Prosecuror (Typeor P~n~ - _____ __
/\OC-cn.300 . Poge Two, Side Two. Rev. 3115

() 2015 /\llminislr~tive Office ot Ille Cour t s

- - -- ··~ --- --- - - -- - ---- - --- - ---- -0-----c=
c---:--- ------ - -- --- - ---- .
STATE VERSU
S ·--~►-Filo-
No. __ _ _
Name~I -Oc/enda
19. Hilve you agreed to plead O guilty lSZ]no contest as part of a plea arrangem enl? (II so. rovi ew /he rerms
of the plea arrangemenf os lislod In No. 'lO 1,-;iow wi t/I the defen dant.) .
20. The prosr.culo r. your lawyer and you have informed !he Court lhal these are all the terms and condilions of
your plea :
PLEA ARRANGEMENT
Vr£fc!vv
!<IV( '. 72> ~
~vO Cttlv'/l7 7"{A
kvC (l£Jn)
i~V\kl L+AfGG7 A10) 7t+f: >f?Y{c ;tG f<tt:-S·72> ·v(5r7r 5)'
·1Hf6{-\))Q(;{3 l (Sf6D~aaV(/.
h~ The Slate dismisse s the charge{s) set out on Page Two , Side Two , or this transc ript.
0 The defendant stipulates lo restit ution lo the pllrty(ies) in the amounts set oul on "Resti tution Wo,ksheet, Notice /\nd Order (Initial
Sentencing)" (AOC-CR -61 ·t).
21. Is the plea arrangeme nt as set forth within this transcript and as I have )usl described it to you correct as
being your full plea arrangeme nl?
22 . Do you now persona lly accept this arrangeme nt?
23 . (Other than til e plea arran gemen t between you and /he prosecu tor} has anyone prom ised you anythi ng or
threate ned you in any way to cause you to enter this plea against your wishes?
24. Do you ente r this plea of your own free will, fully understanding what you are doing?
25. Do you agree tha t there are facts to support your plea and adm ission lo aggrava ting factors O
0 and sente nc ing points not related to prior convictions, and do you conse nt to the Court hearing a
summary of th e evidence?
7.6. Do you trnve any quest ions abou t what has jtJst been said to yov or about anythin g else connecte d to your (26) __ (Vo
_
case?
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T BY DEFENDANT
I have rc;:id or have hea rd all or the se quest ions and-understa nd them. The answers shown are the ones I gave in open cou rt ancJthe,
are true and accu rate . No one has told me lo give false answers in order lo have the Court accep t my plea in this case . T he terms arn
conditions of the plea as slated within this transcript, if any.are accurate.
SWORN/AFFIR M ED AND ·1-L- I b

Di>lr. - Signature uro O Oefen
C. ao-1I Lt>
';WiY
~··:~r:::~{::);';';'{J
:f~:;u;~·~'.
'i;;ij:y;;··
>r;.\~;; CERT IFICATION BY LAWYER FOR DEFE .:t;t
::k~!l--'\-~~:,,
,;,~''''
; "•'-:::
;J.2:!~~~-
1 hereby ce rtify tha t the terms a nd condi tions slated within this trnnscrip l, if a / re
correct and they are ag reed to by the de fendant and myself. I further cerr ure ,111(
elements of the ch a rge s lo which the defendant is pleading , and the aggr for
/)a s1;ti:
:,/_, v-c;gV- ~·f aln~-
()
. N ome 01 Lawter FM Defendant (Typ e Or Print)
!-JC~~ ~:.! _11; :••• •

l -~;" ·. ·<:~;...\: !·.··~--'(~·;;~
"' J..:
~;,~"':~"-'
•;t!...!
' \:...;}~:::.
· :."'~-
- - -- -= :c_:._;__!..'..,..:..:::..c..;c...:...;..::._:..:....;:"-'!-...:.....:C.:..:::C-r-:...:::..=...:....;:;..;...;
____ -"=f''-'=== =•====== .c
A~ proscculnr for th is P rose culo rial Dist rict, I hereby certify lh!]I lh , ms anel
coridilions r1greed lo by lhe defenda nt and his/he r lawyer and mys nt to the charges in thi~
DMa
case. -----
I
-.- -:-:-- -:::-:-:::-
Name
---cc----::-:--:--
o__r .Prosec -ulor (l" ypo Or Pdnt)
_ / - · ___
___
s,_J
_z,z.[_ I~ - -- ---- - ~
I\OC-CR-300. P~ge Two. Rev. 3/15
,o
<v 15 A<.Jmin ,str~ live Of/ice ot the Courts

STATE-O F N H ·cA_
_O_R_T_ -R_.o-=_JL~·,N-;A;;;~:·:~----·► neNo. :~-- ?-. ---- - {)~--- -
___ ......;
~ __ ___ County Scatof Court In The Genera l Court Of Justice
NOTE: (flu's /om, is lo bo vscd for (I/ felony oHcnse/s) and (2) misdomcano, olf,ns,•(s) thol arc consolidB/e d
. ···---~rj_udJ'!'_<nl with any felony ollense(s). u,o AOC -Cfl-310/or DWI oli•nse/s J.J
rv, o· .
IL:>.l 1slnct
D S · C rt o· · upeno r OU IV/ s1on
·
..
STATE VERSUS r--· JUD GMENT SUSPENDING SENTENCE - FELONY
f-------- --..;c_;_:__
N•meO IDere11dan1 PUNISHMENT: (29COMMUNITY O INTERMEDI/\TE
(STRUCTURED SENTENC ING)
Race Set Dale 01 Bl11h (for Offenses Committed On Or Af ter Dec. 1, 2011 )
~,
r'~
G.S . 15A-1341, -\3t,2, · 1313, -1313.2, ·13·•~-
Allomey Fo, sralo □ Del. Found O Del. Waived /.llomey For Oelendanl [81Appvi nted C,t Rplr l11ilials
Nol lndi Denl Atiome y O Retained
0 pied guil ty QpurSllDnl JoAlford) 10 Owns found guilty by the Coun cl Owas round guilty by a jury or ~ pied no conlcs l 10
oft."" Offense Descdpt lon OOH8e

/On8s/e200la6(c _ G.S. ~0- F~
01 FELONY MARIJUANA
POSSESSION r
· :-N- O- TE: - E-;:;-;,:-p~ ~;,-"'hrncnl class ,'I cJif(orcnl fro m vnCJc rlyin(J olh,:n$., eJ~n (p unT."f'l7i;;;,;·~14s s ropr•:.cn 1$ 11,10 1v.s or al'lhMl CfJ'rnent) p RIOR - - - -
The Coun ~ 1. has dclc rmlned, pursuant lo G .S . 15A•134 0.14, lh~ prior record poinl& ol the defendant 10 be _ _ RECORD I Or 11 Y o_s_ _ O CJ
Any prior record leve l µoin l unde r G.S. \ SA-13<0.14(b)(7) is based on !he fury's delerm ln ;,llon of I his issue . ~ 11 IV VI O O
beyond a raasonablc doubt or lhe defendant's admission 10 1his issue. l EVEL.
___D_2. maxes no prior record level finding because none Is reQuired.
0
-'fiie-Courl (NOTE: 8/ock l 01 2 MUST be checked.} : ·

1. makes no written nndlngs because the pris on 1crm Imposed Is wllhin 111sprcsumptl% rnnge of sc111c11ces nuthorizcd unocr G.S. l:iA·\3•10.1'/lc) .
2. mak,,s t11eDe1erminalion o f agg ravatin g and 111illg a1ing factors on the a11a ched AOC-C:R-G05,
Q
f
J . ,m,kes Iha Findings of Exlraor tJina ry Millgolion sci fonh en lhe ollach ed AOC-CR-606 .
~- rinds the defendonl 11as provided subsla nllal ~ls1a11cc pursuant lo G.S. ~0 -05(11)(5).
'udgcs 1he dP.fcndanl lo be (cncck onlyono) U a habllval felon lo be senlencc-d four classes higher than the principal felony /nohighetlh~n CIRssGJ.
5 . ,JJ!j
L" habl!ual breaking and ent~ring status offende1, to be sentence d as a Class E lclon.
0 6 . finds enha ncemcnl pursuanl 10: 0
G.S. go-95(e)(J) (dru9s). G.S. \4-3(q (h ole crin,e) , 0 G.S. 500-'\ . 1 (dome'1ic violcuce). 0
0 G.S, H -50 .22 (gang) . 0 Olhcr: -- --- - ---- ---- -- ----- --- - -- · TlliS ru,d ing is based on the
jury's dclc1minalion or t11is issue beyond a reasonablo doubl or lhe defendan1's admission .
0 7 . rinds tho abovo-dcsio"atcd oflense(s) is n reportable convlcllon under G.S. 1~-208.6 and 1herefore imposes the special conditions of probation
sci ror11ion lhc altachcd AOC-603C , Page Two, Side Two, and makes the additional findings and orders on the allached AOC-CR-61 5, Side Two.
0 8. rrnu~ !lie above-cap tioned offense(s) involve the /cneck all u,01 apply/ physical or menial 0
sexua l abuse of a minor. O
.. 0 (If No. 7 not found) and therefo re imposes the special conditions or probation sel forth on the attached AOC-CR-603C, PageTwo, SideTwo .
i_J 9. rinds that a O
motor veh icle O commerc ial motor vehicle was used In lhe commission of (he offense and that ii slia/1be reponed lo OMV.
01 0. frncJsthis Is an offense involv in g assault. communicating a threat, or an act defrned in G,S, ~06 ·1 (a), and 1he dcrendon\ had a personnl relnlionship
as der,ned by G.S. 508 - 1(b) w ith the vicllm .
8 1t. rinds the a~ove-deslgnated offcnsc(s) invo lved crtmlnal s1ree1 gang acllvlly, G.S. 14-50.25.
12, did not gronl a conditiona l discharge under G.S. 90-96(a) because (check all lhal apply)
0
the derendan l ref used to consent. 0
(ollcnsoi comm il i od on or atior Dec. 1, 2013. only) the Court finds, with the agreement of the Olstticl Allorney, lhal lhc offender is inapproprin(e lo, a
conditional discharge ro, factors rolaled 10lhe offense.
8 13. r,nds ll1a1lhc d cfcndont used or displayed o firearm while comminlng lhe felony. G.S. 1G/\-1 J82.2 .
t I.. (lo: ji,dgmcnrs enlered on or ane, Dec. I, 2013, only/ finds thal this was an oflense involving child abuse or an offense involving assoull or any ol lhc ac1,;
as defined in G.S. 508-1 a com milled a ninsl o minor . G.S. 15A-1382.1 a \ .
The Court,having cons idered evidence , argumen ts or counsel and slalement of defe ndan t, Orders lhat the above offense~ . if mo1c than one, be
consolldalcd for ud mcnl and the defenda nt be Im risoned
r7ir a mlnlmum_w,m.o~ mon lhu or o mol< mum lorm of rnonlhs 11u,o cus\od o f lhc N.C . DA . ·· -- -- -
T11/5sentence shall run nl l~1eexplrctlon of sen tence Imposed in file number •
l l1c derenoon1shall be given credil or ___ __ days spenl ,n conFiriemP.nlprior 10 lhe dale or 1h15Judgrncnl as a result or lltls chargc(sffo be appi,cci
toward lite O senlcnce imposed above . 0
imprlsonmenl required for special probolion sel fo1th 011 AOC·CR-60JC, Page Two.
,. ---·- .-----_--r- SUS PEN SIO N OF._S ENTENCE - --·· - .--- · ' - . •.. ··- - -·-
suujec t to the condilions se t ou1 bC?low,the cx~cu llon ol this sentence Is suspcl"'lded and 1hr. dafendnn l Is p luce d on X supervised uns urorv ls.c:tJ
robalion lor I8 monlhs.
f O O
B I. The Cottr( finds that a longer shoncr period or proba!lon is necessary than thal which is specified in G.S. \ 5/l·\343.2( d).
2. The Court finds lh at ii is NO r approp riate lo dategale lo lhe Seclion of Community Co rrections lhe authority lo impose any ol lhc requiremenl~ 1n
G.S. 15A-13~3.2(e) for community punishmen t or G.S. 15A-1343.2(0 for intermediate punlshmenl.
f.J 3. This eriod of rol!a li on shall be in when the defendan t Is released from lncarcera!lon al ihe exp iration of the sentence in lhc case below
hlo No , Covnty Cov , t D,>1c
bix 4. The tJefendanl shall comply with !he condllio ns ,et for(I, in file number __ _________ _ ____ __ ________ __ _
\l',.J 5. The delendant shn ll provide a DN/1 samp le pursuanl to G.S . 1SA-266.4. (AOC-CR-319 required)
. - :. :· - MO NE TARY CON DITI ON S .. . . ~-·--- ··-· ...
111c defendanl shall pay to the Clerk of Sv rlor Court lhe "Total Amounl Due• s/1own below, plus lhe probution supervis ion Ice, pursuant to a schedule
~ delc1mined by lhe proba tion officer .
!~EMIT PSI' F~S-- - 0 sc i out by lhe court as follows: ___________ _
. -----
Casis Fine · Rasri/vtion ' Atlomcy's Fees Comm Setv Fae /:HA Fee SBM Feo Appl Fee/Misc Tol•Il\moullf Du,·
_S 7.00.00 S I00.00 S 0.00 S $ 0.00 0.00 SS 0.00 0.00
S 0.00 S JOO.OD
'Sec allachcd "Reslltu\lon Wo rksh eet, Nol cc: And Order (In/I/al Sentencing)" AOC-CR-6 11, wh ich Is lnr.orporatcd by reference.
nThe Cour1 finds Just cause lo waive cosls, as a,de rcd on the all ached AOC-CR -618. Other: D
i=1Unon oaymonl or l h o "To1a 1 Amoun1 Due. '" lhe proh:i-r!on offico r may rr~ns.ler the defendan t to untuoorvls_e _d_n_r_o_b_a~11o_r_1.
0
Ma11~al o sQuaieI II 10be 011rcgaro
oppo1l1eunmano;e co ~s1uJ1)\u
sa9c.
/IOC-CR -liOJC, Rev. 3116, ~ 2016 Adml nlslraUve Office of the Courts corn)

!!
1--,1-o_
T_E_:
---·
-11,-,y-p
· ·--· ·--~-
-,-o-b,- l,-.on-,-,ry-iv_d
_g""m-e_n_I
_m..._a
_y_b_c
_c_x_lc
-R-E_G_U_L_A_
_n_d_e_rf
_pu
_r_s_
R_C_O_ND
11:i"oN_S.O F._P_R_
.S-.-,-511-
u.-n-l-/o_G_
O_B_
.-:-Jd-2-. -T-
_ _ G .S. 15A -1343(b)
A_TI_O_N c-- --·
lie- d ;iend an! , haII:( 1) Con,m;I no c ,iminal offc n,c in any jurisdic1ion.(2) Pos, cs, no r11c .11111.
c,ptosivcdevice. o, olhcr dt noly weapon li1led In G.5 . 1l -269 . (3) Remain 9ainl•Jlly and suilablyemployed o, faii11fu ily µursue a co111se of ,Iu<1y01 vocaIio11al lr;,ining. lhaI w,1I
cQtiip l ht: delenrlar "i:for :!.tiilctbfc cmpl()'imenl, c11ndabide by all rules of tht ins1iIuIlon . (4) Sn1l~fv child ~tJr:>ort ;;r'IOfamily obl io ;,tiori :;, as reQvi rr.d hy the Coun.
Ulhe t1elcMan1is on supeNlsed p1ob3Uon lhe delendanJsh:1llnl~o· (5) No1abscond,b't willfulty avoiding supcMs i0t10 1 by willfully makinglhe dclcnd ,1nl's 1.'lht:rn,11.Jou1s
unknown lo 1hc supcrvi:i.ing probolior. olf,co r. (6) n cmaln withb the fu1i~dic\lon ol lhc Coul\ unl e !.!. 9 11m1cd w 1illc,1 pe:mi,~ion lo leave by lhc Co un °' 1'1e probat ion office, .
j7) Repon as dlrc e1cd by lhc Cou n or the pro bo1io1l c,'f1cer to th e orfice r DI ,c .isonoble llrr.e, Dnd places and In a rea sonable man n er, pcrmi l \he 0ff1cc,to vi~1t .-.1rc,uonnblc
limes, an~wc r ~I( ,c.:i~otH'lbtclnqulrl cs by lhc orrrcc, and oblaln prio, npp roval rrom 1hc oir,cc, for, £Ind nolif)' lhe orficcr of, uny change in odClrc:~~o r employment . (6) Nol lt'f Ille
PfObalio.1 0Jf1cc1 ii t~c de rcnd::int f~ !ls 10 obta in o r 1e1oln salislac lorv c m:>loymenl. (9 ) Submit 01 rea:sonoblc times to •mwa n tlcs.s searches by a probal ion o fficer of the: Ui,r,:nd :11\I' •.
porsooand or the delendanl's vehicle and premises while the defendant ls p1osenI, fo: purpose1 Olrl'Clly related to the probation supervision. bul lhe delendan1may not be
required 101ubml1I0an•1 Olher search lhal would olhe/WiSebe unlav.1ul. ( 10)Submit 10war,antless searches by a law enforcement otnccr or lhe defendant's pe1sonand ol lhc
dclendanr, vehicle.upon a 1eusonablc 6Vsplcion ihal lh e delendanl Is engaged In criminal activilyor is in possession or a nrearm, explosive dc\ice , 01 011,crdc,,oly wc,,pon
hsted in G.S. lt.•269 without wriltcn pe1misslon or lhe cu u11.( 1i) Net u~i:. PQS)e:;s, o: cont,ol any illegal d,ug or ccnuolled substance unlcs:i11ha$ been p1esc1ibcd ro, lhe
fanl by ll Jic<.-rlSt:d phy :;id.> n ond is In thi: orig lneJ cont.:ilncr ,uilh tho prescriplion n umber • frr.ceo' on it; not Jtn~•, llns ly os~oci.'.>1ti with u ny kno wn or ptijvioua ly c.onvictorJ l,:.c.-.,
drlk l''lc.
or .scllc1sof any such ilfcgal dcugs or conlroUcd substances ; and net knowingI)' be p,esent .it or trequenl any p lace whe re such Hlegill drugsor cont10Ucds ubstance-!
/lCS!>c:s:m1s, ~
arc sold, k~pl, or used. (12) Supply a breath. urine, 01blood specimen /or analysiso/ the possit;lepresence ol prohibited drugs or alcohol when lnslructedby the dt fcndanrs
probationoiri,er for pu1poses dl1ccily relaled 10 lhe probation supervilion. If ihc resulls o/ lhe analysis are po! ilive, Ihe probalioner may be ,equired 10reimbursethe Division o/
AdultCo11cclionfor ihc actual cosls o( dru or alcohol screenin andleslin .
0 l:l. Th e Coun find:- lha t the dc icn d ont Is rc-sponslb le for acts of domes ll c vio lence and lhern!ore ma~os the add iliona l flnding:s. anc, orders on tt,c
a11
ochod AOC•CR·GDJC, Pa e Two , Side Two ,
. SPECIAL CONDITIONS O F PROBAT ION · G.S. 15A- 1 343(b1)
Tl ,~<ielenuant sllail also com.ply wllh tho following spe cial cond itions which the Cour1 finds a1c rcosonably 1cloled lo lhc dc!enda111's1cha!Jillt;,lion :
0 14. Surre11dcrlhc defendan l' s drivers lice nse le th e Clerk o r Supcrio1 Court ror lransm ill al/not iftcjll ion to lh c Division ol Mo!Or VclllclP.s ~nd nol ope tJ IC
a moto r vehicle for c.1 pclio d ol ___ _ ___ or unlil ruHc~n~cd Uy lht: Oilo'isluool Motor Vch lch : s . whichever is late, .
D 15, Successfdly pass the Gene ral Educa tion Oeveloprnenl lest (G.E.O .) durin g Iha firs! __
1G. Comp lete ______ hours o r communily service du1in11the f11sI __ ___
,001din11for. Tltc fee presc 1ibed by G.S. 14JB-708 is
__ _ mon ths of the per iod of prob~lion.
days of lhe period of probali on , 11sdl1ecIed by Il ic jud1cinl scr•JJco,.
[ 11101du e because ii Is assessed In a case adjudlca ied !luting ltie saine l~r ni o( cour1.
0 lo be paid Opu1suan l lo the sc hedule sel out unde r Monel a,y Conditions on lh c 1cvc1sc. 0 wilh in ___ _ _ days ol lhis Judgment
«nd before beg inn ing service.
0 17.Rcpo 1Ifo r lnll ial c valua llon by- - -- -- --- - ---- ---- -- - --- -- ---------- - ----- --
participa le in all furthe1 eva lua li on , counseling , t1ealmcn1, 01 edu cation prog 1am~ recnmmendcd as a res ul t o f lhal eualuation , and comoly w il l> ;iii
olher theiapc ul ic roq ul rnmenls of t11oseprog rams unli l disct,a rged.
018 . Not ass aul t, threuten , hurass , be fo u nd in or on lhe premises or wo rkplace of. or have ony conrncl v1l1h ___ _ __ __ _ ______ _
·contac I· includes a ny de fenda nt-I ni tia ted conlact, d i1ect 01 indirect, by any means , incll,ding, but not limited lo, lefephonc, personal contacl, ij-rnail ,
page r, gill -giving , tolof acs imll o machi ne o r lllfo u gh any ol he, poison , except--------- -- ----------------
0 10 (toroffcnsas commi Ucd on or D!ter Occcmbct 1, 2012)Absta in !to m alcoho l consump tion an d su bmil lo co nti nunu~ alcoho l mon itoring 101a period o l
_ _ __ LJ days, 0
months, lhe Cou rt having found that a substance abuse assessmcnl has identified de fendanl's alcohol depen de ncy or
chronic abuse .
[Zl20. Oiher:
I-JAVEASSMT; TREA T REC; NOT USE/POSSESS ANY ILL DRlJGS, PARA, OR CS W/0 PRES;
TRANS TO UNSUP WHEN COMPLJED; SUBMIT TO DNA
_[J2i C~mnlv ·with the Spcci~I Cond iti ons Qt Probat io n. whi ch aro set for th on AOC:CR-S0JC. r>noc Two.
ORDER OF COMMITM EN T/A PPEAL EN TRIES
0 I. II i,, ORDEliED lha t lhe Clerk del ive r i:Yl.Qcc rtincd copies of this Judgmen t and CommiImcn I 10 lhc shc,iff or olher qualified officer and lha l 1t1
c
olficr.r couse the defen dant to be dcllvered wilh thes e copies 10 the cu stody ol lhc ogcncy named on \he reve rse lo serve the sen tence imnoscn Of
unlil Iha defendan t sh all l1ave compl ie d wiln the cono itions ol relea se pending appea l.
0 2. Tile defendan l gives notice ol appeal from lhe judgment ol the !ria l court \a lhe Appcllalc o· al en tries aM any condilions of µo~t
convlclion release are sci tonh on !o rm AOC ·CR <l5 0.
SIGNA T URE OF JUD
Oare Name Of Pros/ding Jvdg o (type or prinJ}
. ·•',
I ccrlify lhal this Judgment and lhe aliachmenl(s) marked below is ~ ue and co
11 ginal which is on file in lhis case .
8 I. /\ppef lntc Entries (/\OC-CR-350)

2. Judgment Suspending Sent e nce (AOC-CR -603C , Page Two)
(oddll io nal condi tions of probati o n)
ndings As To Required ONA Samp le (AOC-CR-31 9)
indlngs And Order For Sex O !fcndcrs • Suspended
Sente ce (AD C-CR- 615 , S ide Two)
0
8,
B
3. Felony Judgment F indi ngs 01 Aggravnling And MlligaIlng r-acI01s 8. Conv lclcd Sex Of/ender Pc1mancnl No Con lacl Ordc , (/\OC:- CR-01.0)
(AOC·CR -605 ) 9. Mdltlona l FIie No.{s) And Offense (s) (/\OC ·CR ·Ci26)
I] 4. Exirn ordin ary Mil ignti on Findings (/\O C-Cf,-606) 10 . O lher: _________________ ·---· · .·
IJ s. Resl itution Wo1ks h ec1, Notice And 0 1der (l nll ial Senlcncing)
(AOC-CR -6 11 )
OAss/.CSC
,\OC-r.:n
Da te Ce,fified Copies Delivered ToS1,~ri/1
-rio:-1c, Sit Jo T wo , nuv.

Signa/u,o 01 Clerlt
3/1 G , <I:) 20 '1 G Adm in is ll".ullv<, 0 1(,c <., ol lhu Covrtti;

lO Q
Oepuly CSC
c,~,;,. or Svp~•, ,;o, Ccnui _ ____:_EAL

Exhibit 6
Earlier Version of the North Carolina Voter Registration

Application that was produced in Community Success
Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

Deposition Exhibit
NOR_T_H_C_A_R_O_L_IN_A_V_O_T_E_R_R_E_G_I_S_T_R_A_T_IO_N_A_P_P_L_IC_A_T_IO_N_
(_fie
_ld
_s_in
_ re_d_te_x_t_a_re_re
_c~---E---~- 020_.02__ 0_6_W~
Indicate whether you are qualified to vote or preregister to vote based on U.S.citizenship and age.
Are you a citizen of the United States of America?
IF YOU CHECKED" NO" IN RESPONSETO THIS OTIZENSHIPQUESTION,DO NOT SUBMIT THIS FORM. YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIEDTO VOTE O ves O No
Will you be at least 18 years of age on or befo re election day? O ves O No

Are yo u at least 16 years of age and understand t hat yo u must be 18 years of age on or before election day to vote?
IF YOU CHECKED"NO" IN RESPONSE
TO BOTH OF THESEAGE QUESTIONS
, DO NOT SUBMIT THIS FORM. O ves ON o
YOU ARE~ QUAUFTED"fOREGISTEROR PREREGISTER
TO VOTE.
----------------------------------1
Provide your full legal name. Provide your date of birth and identification information.
Last Name Suffix Date of Birth (MM/DD/YYYY) State or Country of Birth
I I
First Name
NC Driver License or NC OMV ID Numbe r Last 4 Digit s of Social Security Number
Middle Name
Check if you do not have State Voter Registration Number (Optional: To
□ a driver license or
Social Security number.
locate, check 'Voter Lookup" at www.NCSBE.gov.)
, Provide your residential address - where you physically live.

Do not enter o P.O. Box or a mail drop location.
Provide a mailing address.
Add ress Number Street Name and Type Do you receive Mailing Address Line 1
mail at your
residential
Addres s Line 2 (e.g., apartment, lot or unit number) O ves O No Malling Address Line 2
If " No", you are
required to
City State Zip Code Mailing Address Line 3
pro vide a mailing
address.
Have you lived at this If " No", date moved? City State Zip Code
County
address for 30 or more days?
O ves ON o
--------~I ~I
_____
No PhysicalAddress?If you do not have an address, use the space
to the right to illustrate where you normally live or sleep. Write in
the names of the nearest crossroads (or streets). Draw an X on N_O-RT
_H_ . _
the map to show where you live or usually sleep.
IMPORTANT:You should also provide a valid mailing address
above to permit the board of elections to send you a voter card.
• Provide your demographic information (optional). Provide your choice for political party affiliation .
0 Male O African American/Black 0 Democratic Party 0 liberta rian Party □ Other
Gender D Female 0 American Indian/Alaska Native 0 ConstitutionParty 0 Republican Party
1--------------1R
0 Not Hispanic/Latino ace O Asian O Multiracial 0 Green Party 0 Unaffiliated
If you select a party that is
not recognized in North
h
Et nicity O Hispanic/Latino
O Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Carolina, you will be
0 White O Other registered as Unaffiliated.
: Complete if you are currently registered to vote in another NC county or in another state.
{This information will be used to cancel your previous voter registration in the other county or state.)
First Name Used in Last Registration Middle Name Used in Last Registration Last Name Used in Last Registration Suffix
Address Where You Were Last Registered City/State/Zip Code of Last Regist ration County of Last Registrati on
• Provide you r contact information (optional).

{This information is helpful if we need to contact you concerning your voter registration. Your contact informati on may be d isclosed as a public record.)
Area Code Phone Number Email Address Would you like t o be contacted to be a poll wo rker?
O ves O No
1 Sign below to attest to your qualifications to vote.

FRAUDULENTLY ORFAISELY COMPLETING THISFORMIS A CLASSI FELONY
UNDERCHAPTER
163 OFTHENC GENERALSTATUTES.
I attest, under penalty of perjury , that in addition to having read and underst oo d the contents of th is for m, that : (1) I am a Unite d States citizen, as indicated
above; (2) I am at least 18 years of age, or will be by the date of the general election; or I am at least 16 years old and und erst and that I mu st be at least 18 years
old on the day of the genera l election to vote; I shall have been a resident of North Carolina, thi s county, and precinct for 30 days befo re the dat e of the election in
which I intend to vote ; (3) I will not vote in any other county or state after submis sion of th is form and if I am registere d elsewhere, I am canceling that registrati on
at this tim e; and (4) I have not been convicted of a felony , or if I have been convicted of a felony, I have complet ed my sentence , including any probation.
Signature Require d Date
CSI NCSBE 000351
EX. E -- 1CVOT
ERRE
GFORM
Case_06W / 1 EX. EDocument
1:20-cv-00876 -- NCVOTERREGFORM 06W Page 2 of 4
3-6 Filed 09/24/20 11
11111111
1111
1111
111111111
111111
111!1111111111
111
11111111
11111
1!11111
I APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
Use this application to: {1} register to vote; {2} preregister to vote if between the ages of 16 and 17; {3} change party affiliation or
unaffiliated status; (4) report a change of address within a cou nty; or (5) report a name change.
Specific Instructions for Each Numbered Section of the Application :

Indicate whether you are qualified to vote or preregister to vote: {l) you must be a citizen of the United States; (2) you must
be at least 18 years of age, or you will be 18 years of age by the next general election and you are voting in the primary, or
you must be between the ages of 16 or 17 and desire to preregister to vote; (3) you must have resided in North Carolina and
in the precinct in which you present to vote for at least 30 days prior to the election; (4) you must not be current ly serving a
felony sentence; and (5) if previously convicted of a felony, you must have fully completed your sente nce, incl uding
probation and/or parole. No special document is required.
Provide your full legal name. If your name has changed, this form will be used to update your curren t voter registration.
You are required to provide your date of birth. If you have a NC drive r license or non-operator's identificat io n number,
provide this number. If you do not have a NC driver license or ID card, then provide the last four digits of your social security
number. If you have neither a NC driver license, NC OMV ID card or a social security number and you are registering to vote
for the first time in North Carolina, attach a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or
other overnment document that shows our name and address to this a lication .
Provide the address of your residence {where you physically live) as of the date of your application. In this section, do not
list a post office address or a location where you only receive mail. If you have moved to this residence within the past 30
days, provide the date of your move. If you do not have a traditional address, draw a picture in the space provided on this
form of your usual sleeping location. Be descriptive and note any nearby streets or physical buildings.
This section asks that you designate how you would like to be affiliated. You may choose to affiliate with any recognized
political party in North Carolina or you may opt to be registered as Unaffiliated. If you are applying for new registration in
the coun and leave the arty affiliation section blank, you will be registered as Una iliated.
If you are currently registered in another North Carolina county or another state, please provide your name and previous
address used on that prior registration. This information will be used to cancel your registration in the other county or state.
You must sign this form. Only the person applying for registration is eligible to sign (or place your mark on) this form. If you
are applying for new registration in your county of residence, you must mail your original signature on th is form.
National Voter Registration Act Statement: If you are submitting this application to an NVRAagency or the North Carolina
Division of Motor Vehicles, the location or office where you submitted the application w ill remain confidential and will be used only
for voter registration purposes. Public assistance agencies, disability services agencies, the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles,
and unemployment services agencies must offer you the opportunity to register to vote at the init ial application for service of
assistance and during any recertification, renewal or change of address. If you decline to register to vote, the fact that you so
declined will also remain confidential. If you would like help completing the voter registrat ion application, the agency will help you.
The decision whether to seek or accept help is yours. You may fill out the application form in private and return it to the agency that
provided you the form or you may mail or deliver the form to your county board of elections office.
Applying to register or declining to register to vote will not affect the amount of assistance provided. If you believe that someone
has interfered with your right to register to vote, or your right to choose your own political party or other political preference, you
may file a complaint with the NC State Board of Elections, P.O. Box 27255, Raleigh NC 27611-7255 or you may call the agency at 1-
866-522-4723.
Submitting Your Form: You must mail or deliver this application in-person with your original signature if you are registering to
vote for the first time in your county of residence. If you are changing your name, address or party affiliation within your current
county of registration, in addition to mail, you may also fax or email a scanned image of your signed application. If you give your
signed application to another person or organization to submit on your behalf, be sure the person or organization can commit to
timely submitting your application to the proper board of elections.
Voters are not currently required to provide photo ID. Federal and state courts have temporarily blocked North Carolina's voter
photo ID requirement from taking effect until further order of the courts.
CSI NCSBE 000352
EX. E -- 1CVOTERREGFORM
Case_06W / LEX.E Document
1:20-cv-00876 NCVOTERREGFORM
3-6 Filed 06W- 002 Page
09/24/20 lllllllllll3 of
l lll lll 4111111
ll 1111111111!1111111111
111
11111111
11111
1!111111
11
111!11
ALAMANCE CUMBERLAND JOHNSTON RANDOLPH
115 SOUTHMAPLEST 227 FOUNTAINHEADLN, STE101 PO BOX1172 1457 N. FAYffiEV ILLE ST
GRAHAM,NC27253 FP.YffiEVILLE,_NC 28301 SMITHFIELD,.NC 27577 ASHEBORO, NC 27203
g (336) ,70-6755 g (910) 678-1733 8 (919) 98s,-5095 8 (336) 318-6900
ALEXANDER CURRITUCK JONES RICHMOND
POBOX326 POBOX177 367-8 HWY58-S POBOX1843
V)
TP.YLORSVILL~ NC 28681
g (828) 632-L990
CURRITUCK, NC 27929
g (252) 232-2525
TRENTON,!'/C 28585
g (252) 448-3921 1rirnr
rt1~1
l2~~
2
8380
w ALLEGHANY
POBOX65
DARE
POBOX1000
LEE
PO BOX1443
ROBESON
POBOX2159
u
-uu....
SPARTA!NC 28675 MANTEO, NC 27954 SANFORD NC 27331 LUMBERTON,NC 28359
g (336 372-4557 ~ (252) 475-5631 8 (919) 4118-4646 8 (910) 671-3080
ANSON DAVIDSON LENOIR ROCKINGHAM
POBOX768 POBOX1084 PO BOX3503 POBOX22
WADESBORO,NC 28170 KINSTON,NC28502-3503 WENTWORTH,. NC 27375
g (704) 994-3223 ~/f3i\~~2!fiJJ293- 1084 8 (252) 523-0636 8 (336) 342-is107
ASHE DAVIE LINCOLN ROWAN
150 GOVERNMENTCIR,STE2100 161 POPLARST,STE 102 451 SALEMCHURCHRD 1935 JAKEALEXANDERBLVDW, STE010
0 JEFFERSON, NC 28640
g (336) 846-5570
AVERY
POBOX 145
MOCKSVILLE,
DUPLIN
POBOX9 75
NC 27028-2225
~ (336) 753-6072
LINCOLNTON , NC 28092
8 (704) 736-8480
MACON
5 WESTMAIN ST, FL 1
SALISBURYiNC 28147
8 (704) 2 6-8140
RUTHERFORD
POBOX927
C NEWLAND NC 28657
g (828) 733-8282
KENANSVILLE,NC 28349
g (910) 296-2170
FRANKLIN,NC 28734
8 (828) 349-2034
RUTHERFORDTON,NC28139
8 (828) 287-6030
a:: BEAUFORT
POBOX1016
WASHINGTON_, NC 27889
DURHAM
POBOX868
DURHAM,NC 27702
MADISON
PO BOX142
MARSHALL,NC 28753
SAMPSON
120 COUNTYCOMPLEXRD,STE110
CLINTON,NC 28328
<( g (252) 946-L321

BERTIE
~ (919) ,60-0700
EDGECOMBE
8 (828) 649-3731
MARTIN
8 (910) 592-5796
SCOTLAND
POBOX312 POBOX 10 PO BOX801 231 EASTCRONLYST, STE305
0 17f/B~~~5i ili
83
ii~rr,~.ri~
111~
86 WILLIAMSTON, NC 27892
8 (252) 789--4317
LAURINBURG,NC 28352
8 (910) 277-2595
al BLADEN
POBOX512
ELIZABETHTOWN, NC 28337
FORSYTH
201 N. CHESTNUT ST
WINSTONSALEM,NC 27101-4120
MCDOWELL
PO BOX1509
MARION, NC28752
STANLY
POBOX1309
ALBEMARLE,NC 28002
g (910) 862-6951 ~ (336) 703-2800 8 (828) 659-0834 8 (704) 98b·3647
>
1-
BRUNSWICK
POBOX2
~~~'1tr
f5C/ft1J
FRANKLIN
POBOX180
~ ~~iiy:~6-~~Jj549
MECKLENBURG
PO BOX31788
CHARLOTTE, NC 28231-1788
8 (704) 33b·2133
STOKES
POBOX34
16
z::::,
17f3~~19~~2i&i
BUNCOMBE GASTON MITCHELL SURRY
POBOX7468 POBOX1396 11 N MITCHELLAVE,RM 108 POBOX372
ASHEVILLE,NC28802 GASTONIA,NC 28053 BAKERSV ILLE, NC 28705 DOBSON, NC 27017
g (828) h0-4200 ~ (704) 8,2-6005 8 (828) 688-3101 8 (336) 401-8225
BURKE GATES MONTGOMERY SWAIN
0 MORGANTON,NC 28680-0798
g (828) 764-s,010
GATESVILLE,_
NC27938
8 (252) 351-1780
TROY,NC27371
8 (910) 572-2024
BRYSONCITY,NC 28713
8 (828) 488-6177
u CABARRUS
POBOX 1315
CONCORD,NC 28026-1315
GRAHAM
POBOX1239
RJ)BBINSVILL~NC 28771
MOORE
POSTOFFICEBOX787
CARTHAGE,NC 28327
TRANSYLVANIA
POBOX868
BREVARD,.NC 28712
u.. 8 (704) 920-2860

CALDWELL
~ (828) 4 79-1969
GRANVILLE
8 (910) 947-3868
NASH
g (828) <>84-3114
TYRRELL
0
LENOIR, NC 28645 OXFORD,NC 27565-0083 NASHVILLi; NC 27856 COLUMBI~ NC 27925
8 (828) 757-1326 g (919) 693-2515 8 (252) 4,9-1350 8 (252) 7s,6-0775
CAMDEN GREENE NEWHANOVER UNION
V) POBOX206
CAMDEN0 NC27921-0206
110 SEFIRSTST
SNOWHILL, NC 28580
230 GOVERNMENTCENTE
WILM INGTON_. NC 28403
R DR, STE38 POBOX1106
MONROE,NC 28111-1106
w g (252) $38-5530
CARTERET
g (252) 747-5921
GUILFORD
8 (910) 798- 1330
NORTHAMPTON
8 (704) L83·3809
VANCE
V) 1702 LIVE OAKST,STE200
BEAUFORT , NC 28516·1898
POBOX3427
GREENSBORO, NC27402
PO BOX603
JACKSON,NC 27845
300 S. GARNffi ST,STEC
HENDERSON, NC 27536
g (252) 7 L8-8460 g (336) 641-$836 8 (252) ,34-568 1 8 (252) 492-3730
V)
w CASWELL
POBOX698
YANCEYV ILLE, NC 27379
HALIFAX
POBOX101
HALIFAX, NC27839
ONSLOW
246 GEORGETOWN
JACKSONV
RD
ILLE,_NC28540
WAKE
POBOX695
RALEIGH, NC 27602-0695
a:: g (336) 694-4010

CATAWBA
POBOX 132
~ (252) 583-4391
HARNETT
POBOX356
8 (910) 455--4484
ORANGE
PO BOX220
't!1?
(919) 404-4040
WARREN
POBOX803
C NEWTON, NC 28658-0389
g (828) 464-2424 ~ ~\ft%T~~3~~U546
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
8 (919) 245-2350
WARRENTON,NC 27589
8 (252) 257-2114
C CHATHAM
POBOX 111
PITTSBORO , NC 27312
g (919) 545-8500
HAYWOOD
63 ELMWOODWAY, STEA
WAYNESVILLE, NC 28786
g (828) 452-b633
PAMLICO
PO BOX464
BAYBOR0 NC 28515
8 (252) 4145-4821
WASHINGTON
POBOX1007
PLYMOUTH,NC 27962-1007
<( CHEROKEE HENDERSON PASQUOTANK

8 (252) 793-6017
WATAUGA
40 PEACHTREE ST POBOX2090 PO BOX1797 POBOX528
MURPHY,NC 28906
\isi~~~
~~NC28793 ELIZABETH CITY,NC 27906 BOONE,NC28607
C, g (828) 837-6670 ~7f 2 6 8 (252) 335-1139 8 (828) 265-8061
z CHOWAN HERTFORD PENDER WAYNE
-
POBOX 133 POBOX355 PO BOX1232 309 E.CHESTNUTST
EDENTON,ANC 27932 AHOSKIE, NC 27910 BURGAW,NC 28425 GOLDSBORO, NC 27530
8 (252) 4<12-4010 g (252) 358-7812 8 (910) L59-1220 8 (919) 731-1411
CLAY HOKE PERQUIMANS WILKES
..J 54 CHURCHST
HAYESVILLE, NC 28904
POBOX1565
RAEFORD,NC 28376-1565
PO BOX336
HERTFORD, NC 27944
110 NORTHST, RM 315
WILKESBORO, NC 28697
g (828) 38s,•6812 8 (910) <>75-8751 8 (252) 4L6·5598 8 (336) 651-7339
CLEVELAND HYDE PERSON WILSON
POBOX 1299 POBOX152 331 SOUTHMORGANST POBOX2121
SHELBY,NC 281511299 SWANQUARTER,NC 27885 R.OXBORO, NC 27573-5223 WILSON NC 27894-2121
g (704) 484-4858 g (252) 926-41"4 g (336) 597-1727 't!1? 1 399-2836
(2521
OOLUMBUS IREDELL PITT YADKIN
POBOX37 203 STOCKTONST PO BOX56 POBOX877
STATESVILLE,NC 28677 G_REENVILLE,NC 27835-0056 YADKINVILLE,NC 27055
~nm, 1~~E6-~~01472 g (704) 878-3140 8 (252) 90L-3300 8 (336) 849-7907
CRAVEN JACKSON POLK YANCEY
406 CRAVENST 876 SKYLANDDR, STE1 PO BOX253 POBOX763
NEW BERN_, NC 28560
g (252) 6$6-6610
SYLVA, NC 28779-2705
g (828) 586-7538 i~~~f~~,,_~'ii
HSSI_NCS~~S53
EX. E -- 1CVOT
ERREGFORM
Case_06W / 2EX. E --Document
1:20-cv-00876 NCVO
TERR EGFORM
3-6 Filed 06W-003
09/24/20 Page 4 of 4 11
11111111
1111
1111
111111111
111111
111!1111111111
111
11111111
11111
1!111111
11
1111111
Exhibit 7
Earlier version of the One Stop Application that was

produced in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No.
19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

One-stop No.
ONE STOP APPLICATION
NORm CAROLINA Election Dat e
COUNTY OF [COUNTY]
FRAUDULENTLYOR FALSELYCOMPLETINGTHIS FORM IS A CLASSI FELONYUNDER CHAPTER163 OF THE NC GENERALSTATUTES.
I'll Voter's Certification of Voting Qualifications

Voter Name
VRN:
Address PRIMAR Y BALLOT:

REG PARTY:
REG DATE: AGE:
PCT: VTD:
Mailing Address
I, ____________ _, certify that:

I am a registered voter in this county and I shall have resided at the address noted above for 30 days immediatel y prior to this elect ion.
I am a United States Citizen. Deposition Exhibit
I am at least 18 years of age , or w ill be by the date of the general election.
For partisan primary elections ONLY: I am registered ____ and I will receive a ____ ballot G
I understand that it is a felony to vote more than one time in an election .
I have not been convicted of a felony , or ifl have been convicted of a felony , I have comp leted my sen tenc e, including any probation or paro le.
X SIGNAnJRE OF VOTER OFFICIAL'SINITIALS
a
New
Change or Verification of Name and Address (Use this section to verify or change a voter's name or address in the registration records.)
Former
Name : Name:
New Former
Address: Address:
New Former
Mailing Mailing
Address: Address:
Have you lived here for 30 days or more? D Yes D No I certify that I moved at least 30 days before this election to the new addre ss.
lfno , date moved? -- I --

I --
DAVTIMEPHONENO.
X
Inactive Fla2 !IGNAruRE OF VOTER
■ Curbside Affidavit (Affidavit of person voting outside voting place or enclosure.)
ST ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , COUNTY OF
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am a registered voter in precinct. That because of age or physical disability,
I am unable to enter the voting place to vote in person without physical ass istance. That I desire to vote outside the voting place or enclosure . I understand that a
false statement as to my condit ion will be in violation of North Carolina law.
DATB VOTER ADDRESS
X X
SIGNATUREOF VOTER SIGNATUREOF PRECINCTOFFICIAL
Board Aooroval Date: BoardSil!nature:

OFFICIAL USE Y2017.04
Station Voting Method Votin g Dat eff ime
ONLY
Site Transa c tion Operato ~"e.\l
-- --- --
---- nnnAnr:.
I\. lf"'C'DC:
EX. G -- 0 E-STOP FORM

Case'EX. G -- ONE- STOP
1:20-cv-00876 FORM
Document V2
3-7017. 04 09/24/20
Filed PREPR I TED
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 8
August 22, 2017 Letter dated from the President of the

North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys to Joan
M. Fleming, Chief Investigator of the NCSBE.

Conferenc e of D str ct Attorneys
N 0 R T H C A R 0
Deg Dorer
Director August 22, 2017
FlECE
fvEo
AUG2 9 20!7
0
.:J Sox 3159
Cary. NC 27519
STA
TEBOA
Joan M. Fleming, CFE
Chief Investigator
RDOFELECTIO
NS
9·9 890.1500
919.890.1 93 1 Investigations Division
North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement
Dear Ms. Fleming:
Thank you for your letter and supporting documentation regarding information conveyed to
convicted felons relative to their voting rights in North Carolina . I have shared your concerns
with the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys ' Executive Committee at our August
th
18 meeting. Upon review of the issue and materials, we recommend the following to
improve the process of informing convicted felons regarding their voting rights.
• Notification language should be added to the plea transcript form (AOC-CR-300). The
vast majority of felons are adjudicated through the plea process. This form is an integral
instrument for informing the felon. The Administrative Office of the Courts governs the
language of court forms through their Forms Committee. This committee is the proper
avenue for seeking a language change to this form .
• The Department of Public Safety could also include the limitation of rights on their
probation form as well as include notification through their protocols for addressing
probationers .
• We encourage the county boards to continue their review of information received from
the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction (DAC) regarding new felony
convictions and voter registrations. This effort will provide a continuing filter for any
felons who may still slip through the processes implemented .
EXECu1IV E COMMITTEE When assessing any potential case alleging violations of the felon voter statute there are
Kimberly Robb many factors to take into account. Each must be evaluated on a case by case basis to
Pres1aent determine if there were violations beyond a reasonable doubt which can be proven, and if so,
what action the State should take. Providing individuals with the necessary verifiable
Billy West
oresident Elect notifications wiii assist in making those decisions.
Jim O'Neill Thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of the District Attorneys. Please let us know
Vice President
if we can be of further assistance in the future.
Scott Thomas
Past President Sincerely,
Ernie Lee
Mike Wat ers

Kimberly S. Robb
Lorrin Freema n
President
Seth Bank s NC Conference of District Attorneys
Andrew Murray
Cc: Jane Ammons Gilchrist, General Counsel, DPS
Mike Miller Thomas Murray , Chief Legal Counsel for Government Affairs, AOC

Exhibit 9
May 8, 2020 Expert Report on North Carolina’s

Disenfranchisement of Individuals on Probation and Post-
Release Supervision Submitted by Professor Frank R.
Baumgartner of the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill in Community Success Initiative v. Moore,
No. 19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

Expert Report on North Carolina’s Disenfranchisement of
Individuals on Probation and Post-Release Supervision
Frank R. Baumgartner
Richard J. Richardson Distinguished Professor of Political Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
MS 3265, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3265
Frankb@unc.edu
May 8, 2020
I have been retained by the Plaintiffs in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-
cv-15941 (N.C. Super.), to perform statistical analysis regarding North Carolina’s
disenfranchisement of persons who are currently on probation or post-release supervision
following a felony conviction in North Carolina state court. This report sets forth my analysis
and conclusions.
Qualifications
I currently hold the Richard J. Richardson Distinguished Professorship in Political
Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I received my BA, MA, and PhD
degrees in political science at the University of Michigan (1980, 1983, 1986). I have been a
faculty member since 1986 and have taught at the University of Iowa, Texas A&M University,
Penn State University, and UNC-Chapel Hill, where I moved in 2009. I regularly teach courses
at all levels and many of those courses involve significant instruction in research methodology.
My research generally involves statistical analyses of public policy problems, often based on
originally collected or administrative databases. I have published over a dozen books and more
than 80 articles in peer-reviewed journals. I have been fortunate to receive a number of awards
for my work, including six book awards, awards for database construction, and so on. In 2017 I
was inducted as an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an honorary

society dating back to 1780. I recently published some North Carolina-specific analyses,
including Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us about Policing and Race
(Cambridge University Press, 2018). I have on-going teaching and research interests in the North
Carolina criminal justice system that have brought me into familiarity with the Administrative
Office of the Courts and related data on arrests, convictions, and incarceration.
I have previously testified in the case of State v. Guzek in Marion County OR, No
17CV08248, regarding the appeal of a death sentence for an individual aged 18 at the time of his
crime; my testimony was on October 8, 2019. I submitted a written report, but did not testify and
was not deposed in the Louisiana case of Holliday v. State, submitted March 25, 2019. This was
also a death penalty appeal. I have submitted or co-signed amicus briefs in recent years but have
not testified in any court cases other than State v. Guzek. I have not previously testified in any
North Carolina court. I am not charging Plaintiffs for my services in this case. Attached as
Exhibit A is a recent copy of my curriculum vitae.
I have been assisted in my work by Ms. Kaneesha Johnson, a 2016 graduate of UNC-
Chapel Hill, currently a Ph.D. candidate in Government at Harvard University. Ms. Johnson was
the principal researcher for a previous report on felon disenfranchisement1 and is well-versed in
the relevant data through that experience. She has received methodological training in statistics
at Harvard and MIT and is the co-author of a book published by Oxford University Press.
Research Question and Summary of Findings

I have been asked by the Plaintiffs to analyze five sets of issues related to the
disenfranchisement of persons who are on probation or post-release supervision following a
felony conviction in North Carolina state court:
1
See Southern Coalition for Social Justice, The Freedom to Vote: Felony Disenfranchisement in North Carolina,
August 2019. https://www.southerncoalition.org/resources/the-freedom-to-vote/.
2

1. The number of persons on probation or post-release supervision who are currently
disenfranchised, at both the statewide and county levels;
2. The racial demographics of persons on probation or post-release supervision who are
currently disenfranchised, at both the statewide and county levels;
3. The amount of financial obligations owed by persons on probation or post-release
supervision who are currently disenfranchised
4. The types of crimes committed by persons on probation or post-release supervision who
are currently disenfranchised; and
5. Recent elections where the vote margin in the election was less than the number of
disenfranchised persons in the relevant geographic area.
I find that over 51,000 individuals are currently disenfranchised because they are on
probation or post-release supervision following a felony conviction in North Carolina state court,
more than the current number of individuals incarcerated in the state for felony crimes. This
statistic does not capture the full extent of felony disenfranchisement in North Carolina, as it
does not include persons who are currently disenfranchised due to a conviction in federal court
or a conviction in another state’s courts. Even just looking at persons disenfranchised due to a
North Carolina state court conviction, we find 16 county-level elections in 2018 alone where the
margin of victory was less than the number of individuals in that county who are currently
disenfranchised through the policies we examine here. The 2016 Gubernatorial election was
decided by a margin of 10,263, well below the 51,000-plus statewide disenfranchised that we
identify here.
I find that the disenfranchisement of persons on probation and post-release supervision
from a North Carolina state court conviction differentially affects different racial groups.
Although Blacks comprise just 22 percent of the voting age population in North Carolina, they
3

comprise 42 percent of persons disenfranchised while on probation or post-release supervision.
The rate at which Blacks are disenfranchised by these policies is 2.76 times greater than it is for
Whites. Not a single county in the state has a rate of disenfranchisement for Whites that is higher
than that for Blacks; by contrast, eight counties have rates for Blacks more than five times higher
than for Whites. In 19 counties, more than 2 percent of all voting age Blacks are disenfranchised
because they are on probation or post-release supervision, and in one county (Dare County),
more than 5 percent of voting age Blacks are disenfranchised for this reason. (Please see
Appendix Table A2, below, for full results.)
I further find that virtually every person who is disenfranchised because they are on
probation or post-release supervision also owes substantial financial obligations in connection
with their conviction and supervision. These financial obligations average more than $2,000 per
individual on probation, and over $500 for those on post-release supervision.
Finally, I find that, among those on probation, 72 percent relate to non-violent crimes,
and for those on post-release supervision, 55 percent. In both cases, the largest single type of
crime is drug possession, accounting for 18.5 percent of post-release supervision cases, and 29.7
percent of probation cases.
Description of Datasets Used

In response to a request from the Plaintiffs, the NC Department of Public Safety provided
two databases used here. One includes information concerning all individuals under post-release
supervision and the other includes similar information for those on probation. Both datasets are
limited to those convicted of felony crimes. These datasets were provided on April 20, 2020.
Both spreadsheets included the OPUS number, which is a unique identifier for the individual as
well as name, ethnicity, race, sex, county of conviction, offense, offense-type, the beginning date
of incarceration, community corrections intake date, scheduled termination date, court costs,
4

fees, restitution figures, and whether the period of supervision or probation had been extended.
The probation file is identical but does not include the variable for the beginning date of
incarceration, as this is inapplicable in the case of probation.
Rows in the databases refer to an offense, and the same individual may have one or more
offenses. In addition, the same individual could appear in both spreadsheets, if involvement in
two different crimes caused them to be on probation for one crime and on post-release
supervision for another. In order to calculate the number of individuals currently disenfranchised,
a first step was to eliminate possible duplicates. Table 1 summarizes the transition from the
information provided by the State to an individual-level database suitable for the following
analyses.
Table 1. Summary of Data Received from the State, Duplicate Records, and Data for Analysis
Post-Release
Supervision Probation
(“Request for (“Request for Combined
Production 2”) Production 3”) Dataset
File as received from the state 17,621 62,243
Minus multiple charges for the same -5,245 -21,411
individual
Subtotal 12,376 40,832 53,208
Observations in each dataset not appearing in 10,609 39,065
the other
Observations appearing in both databases 1,767 1,767 -1,767
Final database for analysis 51,441
The first step eliminated 5,245 and 21,411 rows of data to account for the same
individual facing multiple charges.2 This left 53,208 observations remaining. Of these, 1,767
appeared in both databases, so a second step retained only the case that had the termination date
furthest in the future. (Sixty-nine observations had the same termination date in both databases
2
For those on probation, 45 percent had just a single charge, 21 percent had two, 21 percent had three charges,
seven percent had four charges, and progressively fewer had higher numbers of charges, with a maximum of 38.
Among those on post-release supervision, numbers were similar: 51 percent had one charge, 20 percent had two; 20
had three; six percent had four, with dwindling numbers above that, with a maximum of 14 charges.
5

and those were retained in the probation database and dropped from the post-release supervision
database.) In the end, the database has a total of 51,441 individuals. To the best of my ability and
understanding, I believe that this represents the number currently disenfranchised while on
probation or post-release supervision following a felony conviction in North Carolina state court,
as of the provision of the database, April 20, 2020.
Disenfranchisement through post-release supervision and probation affects a larger
number of individuals than active incarceration. Data from the NC Department of Public Safety
automated system query show 35,010 individuals serving in prison as of December 31, 2019.
Over 98 percent of these individuals were serving for felony crimes
(https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/apps/asqExt/ASQ conducted 21 April 2020). Our focus on those
disenfranchised but not currently incarcerated addresses a larger population, since we identify
over 51,000 individuals compared to about 35,000 individuals currently incarcerated.
Also note that the datasets used here apply only to individuals adjudicated in state courts
in North Carolina; they do not include individuals disenfranchised because of convictions in
other states or in the federal system. The most recent federal data show that 5,075 individuals are
on some form of supervision following a conviction in federal court in North Carolina.
(https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/e-2/statistical-tables-federal-judiciary/2019/12/31).
Adding this number to the number of persons on probation or post-release supervision from a
North Carolina state court conviction suggests that 56,516 people who were convicted in a North
Carolina state or federal court are disenfranchised while on some form of community
supervision. An unknown number of additional people who live in North Carolina are
disenfranchised based on a felony conviction in another state’s courts. Because individualized
data is only available for persons convicted in North Carolina state court, this report excludes

information about persons disenfranchised because of a felony conviction, or because of a
conviction in other state courts.
Racial Disparities in Rates of Disenfranchisement

Statewide Comparison of Disenfranchisement to Voting-Eligible Population, by
Race
Table 2 shows the number of voting age individuals living in North Carolina and the
number disenfranchised by race.3 Blacks represent 42 percent of the disenfranchised, but 22
percent of the voting age population. Whites, by contrast, represent 52 percent of the
disenfranchised, but 72 percent of the voting age population. The last column shows the rate of
disenfranchisement per population: with 21,827 disenfranchised individuals out of a total voting
age population of 1.76 million, 1.24 percent of Black North Carolinians of voting age are
disenfranchised. This compares to an overall rate across all races of 0.63 percent of the voting
age population, and a rate for Whites of 0.45 percent.
Table 2. Voting Age Population and Disenfranchised, by Race

Population Disenfranchised Percent
Race N % N % Disenfranchised
Black 1,763,154 21.51 21,827 42.43 1.24
White 5,917,432 72.19 26,550 51.61 0.45
Native American 136,552 1.67 1,042 2.03 0.76
Asian 232,556 2.83 213 0.41 0.09
Other / Unknown 146,940 1.79 1,809 3.52 1.23
Total 8,196,634 100.00 51,441 100.00 0.63
Among those disenfranchised, 40,224, or 78 percent, are male. Black males, 9.2 percent
of the voting age population, represent 36.6 percent of those disenfranchised.
Figure 1 presents the population and disenfranchisement numbers as pie charts, clearly
showing the disparate impact by race.
3
Census data with population by age for all North Carolina counties come from this web site:
https://demography.osbm.nc.gov/explore/dataset/ncprojectionsbyagegrp2019/table/.
7

Figure 1. Voting-Age Population and Number Disenfranchised, by Race.
Voting-Age Population Disenfranchised Individuals
0th ~• Unknown
....
OIiier I Unknown
Native American Nativmi erican
Asian
Black
M
\ Black
White
White
Total NC Population of Voting Age : 8,196,634 . Total NC Population Disenfranch ised: 51,441 .
Whites represent over 70 percent of the population, but just over half of those
disenfranchised. Blacks, by contrast, are substantially over-represented among the
disenfranchised. As Table 2 shows, the rate of disenfranchisement for Blacks, 1.24 percent, is
2.76 times higher than the rate for Whites, which is 0.45 percent. Figure 2 makes this comparison
clear.

Figure 2. Voting-Age Population and Number Disenfranchised, by Race.
Percent of Population Disenfranchised

1.24
I.!)
Asian White Native American Black

Includes 51,441 disenfranchised individuals , as of April 20 , 2020 .
Figure 2 makes clear that post-release and probation-related disenfranchisement has a
differential effect on Black North Carolinians. The rate for Blacks, 1.24 percent is 2.76 times as
high as the rate for Whites, 0.45 percent. The Black-White Disenfranchisement ratio, 2.76, is the
simplest and most straightforward summary of the disparate racial impact of the policies
discussed here.
County-level Analyses
The numbers described above differ sharply across the 100 counties of the state.4 Table 2
showed the statewide rate of disenfranchisement is 0.63 percent, and that this rate differs
substantially by race. It also differs by county. Overall, rates of disenfranchisement average 0.67
4
We lose information on 4,618 individuals with “other” as the only value for County.
9

percent across the counties, but range from below 0.22 to near 1.5 percent. Figure 3 shows this
distribution. (Please refer to Appendix Tables A1 and A2 for detailed, county-level data on
voting-age population, disenfranchised individuals, percent disenfranchised, and the “Black :
White Disenfranchisement Rate Ratio”.)
Figure 3. Rates of Disenfranchisement by County
Rates of Disenfranchisement
N
.....-
-
Lower than 0.48: 25 Higher than 0.83: 25
0
.....- - -
Cl)
-
Q.)
co -
:.;::::;
C
::::,
-
0
() - - -
.....
oc.o -
,.._
Q.)
-
.0 ~
E
-
::::,s:::t"
z
- - -
N - - - --
-
0 I I I I I
i I
nI
0 .25 .5 .75
1 1.25 1.5
Mean 0.69; 25t h percentile , 0.48; median : 0.63 ; 75th percentile 0.83; N = 100 .
As reflected in Figure 3 above, in 9 counties, more than 1 percent of the total voting age
population is disenfranchised due to being on probation or post-release supervision following
felony conviction in North Carolina state court. These are Cleveland, McDowell, Pamlico,
Beaufort, Madison, Sampson, Duplin, Lincoln, and Scotland Counties.
Disenfranchisement rates differ by race across counties as well. Figure 3 distinguishes
among “low”, “medium”, and “high” rates of disenfranchisement based on the overall
10

distribution of rates across the counties. The middle 50 percent of counties define the medium
category, with low and high being those below the 25th and above the 75th percentiles,
respectively. These are indicated with vertical bars in the Figure. As North Carolina has 100
counties exactly, percentile ranks are the same as simple ranks from low to high. Using these
definitions, any county with a range below 0.48 percent is low; above 0.83 is high, and those in
between those values are medium. Table 3 shows these totals as well as rates for Black and
White rates.
Table 3. Rates of Disenfranchisement by County.

Race Less than 0.48 0.48 to 0.83 More than Insufficient Total
percent percent 0.83 percent Data
White 53 37 10 0 100
Black 2 15 77 6 100
Total 25 50 25 0 100
Note: Six counties have too few Blacks in the population to calculate a value: Alleghany, Clay,
Graham, Mitchell, Swain, and, Yancey.
Whereas the cutoffs were designed to break the data evenly for disenfranchisement rates
of the total population, they do not do so for racial groups when considered separately. Just two
counties have “low” rates of disenfranchisement for Blacks whereas 77 have “high” rates. In
contrast, 53 counties have “low” rates for Whites, and just 10 have “high” rates. Figure 4 shows
the distributions of rates separately for Whites and Blacks. Data are presented in the same format
as in Figure 3, but note the scale is adjusted because of the high rates sometimes observed for
Blacks.
11

Figure 4. White (a) and Black (b) Disenfranchisement Rates
Wh ite Disenfranchisement Rates Black Disenfranchisement Rates
0
"'
Lower than 0-48: 53
Higher than 0.83: 1O Lower than 0 .48: 2
w~ '° Higher tha n 0 .83: 77
i
0
t)
-o
0~
;;;
.0
§
z
'°
0
0 1 2 3 4 2 3 4
Percen t of White Populatio n Disenfranchised Percent of Black Population Disen franchised
Mea n 0.50; 25th percentile . 0 .33; median : 0.46 ; 75th percentile 0 .64: N = 100 Mean 1.48; 25th percent ile . 0 .90; median : 1.38 ; 75th percen tile 1.93: N = 94 .
Figure 4a, for Whites, ranges from 0.08 to 1.25. The bulk of the cases are in the “low”
category, and the entire data distribution is clumped close to the left end of the graph. Figure 4b,
for Blacks, shows just three counties with “low” rates and the vast bulk (over three-quarters) of
the counties showing high rates. (These numbers exclude six counties where the Black
population is lower than the threshold for the US census to report data; see Tables A1 and A2.)
Rates for Blacks are much more dispersed, rarely are as low as for Whites, have a much higher
average value, and show a maximum rate of over five percent. Note that the statewide average
for all individuals, from Table 2, was 0.63 percent.
Figure 5 presents the Black and White disenfranchisement rates in the form of a box-plot.
The “box” in the center of the plot is defined as the area between the 25th and 75th percentile,
with the median (50th percentile) presented with a line in the center. The last contiguous value is
presented with a horizontal bar, and cases falling outside the contiguous area, outliers,
represented individually.
12

Figure 5. White and Black Rates of Disenfranchisement, by County.
White and Black DisenfranchisementRates Compared

<O
•
"O
Q)
Cl)
i: -.:t
C
u
ro
•
......
'+-
c
Q)
Cl)
0
_.
C
~N
......
Q)
a..
•
0 ' '
White Black
White : N = 100, min = .08, mean = .50, max = 1.25. Black : N = 94, min = .36, mean = 1.48, max= 5.4.
The data in Figures 4 and 5 make clear that these rates are highly disparate between the
two races. Just a few counties have low rates of disenfranchisement for Blacks, and just a few
have high rates for Whites. Perhaps, however, some counties simply have higher rates of
disenfranchisement for both Whites and Blacks, and other counties have low rates of
disenfranchisement across the board, for all races. There is, indeed, a correlation between the
two. Figure 6 shows exactly what this is.
13

Figure 6. White and Black Disenfranchisement Rates Compared
Black and White DisenfranchisementRates Compared

CV)
Higher rate for Blacks

/
. /.--
,5x __4x
• 3x 2.7x
2x
-
Q)
cu
N • . ,,.....,,...-
,,...--
,,.....,,...-
,,...-
;
a:::
~
(.)
cu 1x
co
•
•
Higher rate for Whites
0
0 .5 1 1.5
White Rate
Excludes 16 counties with fewer than 1,000 Blacks in the population . Red line indicates the best fit
regression line: Black rate= 2.7 * White rate; R" 2= .87. Solid black line indicates an equal rate. Dotted
lines show where the Black rate is twice, three times , four times , and five times the White rate.
In Figure 6, the black dots represent the observed disenfranchisement rates for Blacks and
Whites across the 84 counties where we can calculate both rates.5 The vertical axis represents the
percentage of the Black voting age population in a given county that is disenfranchised by
probation or post-release supervision, and the horizontal axis represents the percentage of the
5
Because rates of disenfranchisement average approximately 0.6 percent, a county with 1,000 residents would, on
average, have just six individuals disenfranchised. Figure 6 excludes 16 counties where the number of Blacks is
lower than 1,000 (there are no counties in the state with fewer than 1,000 Whites). This is to avoid statistical
irregularities associated with comparing unstable estimates based on very few cases. In two excluded cases, the
Black rate is lower than the White rate: Avery County has 126 disenfranchised Whites and 5 disenfranchised Blacks,
or 0.88 and 0.68 percent of the respective populations. Madison County has 215 disenfranchised Whites and 2
disenfranchised Blacks, 1.2 and 0.67 percent of their populations. This exclusion also eliminates three cases with
extremely high disenfranchisement rate ratios: Dare County has 200 disenfranchised Whites and 40 Blacks,
representing 0.7 and 5.37 percent of their populations. Yadkin County has 219 disenfranchised Whites and 33
Blacks, representing 0.75 and 3.79 percent of their populations. Finally, Haywood County has 261 disenfranchised
Whites and 17 Blacks, representing 0.52 and 3.47 percent of their populations. (These numbers are reported in Table
A2, below.) Including all 100 cases in Figure 6 generates a figure that looks similar to the one shown, but with
greater spread both high and low.
14

White voting age population in the same county that is disenfranchised by probation or post-
release supervision. The red line represents the regression line that best explains the relationship
in the data, with a slope of 2.7. A solid line toward the bottom of the graph (the line labeled as
“1x”) shows where observations would fall if the Black rate were equal to the White rate. Not a
single county falls below that line, meaning that not a single county shows a higher rate of
disenfranchisement for Whites than for Blacks, and few are even close. Dotted lines indicate
markers for double, triple, quadruple, and quintuple the White rate. On average, across the
counties, the rate for Blacks is 2.7 times the rate for Whites. Twenty-four counties have rates that
are 4 times higher for Blacks than for Whites, and eight counties have rates that are 5 times
higher for Blacks.
Figure 2, above, showed that the overall rate of disenfranchisement for Blacks was 1.24
percent, and for Whites, 0.45 percent. That ratio, 1.24 / 0.45, is 2.76, meaning that, across the
state, Blacks have a rate 2.76 times as high as the rate for Whites. (This number is slightly
different from the 2.7 in Figure 6 because Figure 6 clusters the data by county and some counties
are bigger than others.) Figure 7 below calculates that ratio for each county.
15

Figure 7. The Black Rate of Disenfranchisement Compared to the White Rate.
Black · White DisenfranchisementRatio

GATES 1.03
1.07
1.28
1.45
HER~~!}f~ 1.51
HALIFAX 1.56
COLUMBUS 1.65
CASWELL 1.86
1.87
~~~,
1.90
1.91
1.92
1.92
1.93
2.02
2.08
WASHI NGTON 2.15
LENOIR 2.21
ROCKINGHAM 2.21
FRANKLIN 2.27
2.30
2.30
RU~:~tm~JR 2.34
ALEXANDER 2.37
ROWAN 2 41
CRAVEN 2.41
WAYNE 2.47
::i~li~
2.57
2.60
2.66
2 .66
PERQUIMANS 2.67
WARREN 2.71
PASQUOTANK 2.72
BRUNSWICK 2.75
2 .82
RoBti~l!
2.84
2.89
DUPLIN 2.92
HARNETT 293
GUILFORD 3.12
NORTHAMPTON 3.13
cu~i¼t!i~
LINCOLN
CUM BERLAND
3.14
3.16
3.22
3.25
3.31
3.37
ONSLOW 3.45
SURRY 3.45
GRA NVILLE 3.56
J!?si~~
STOKES
IREDELL
3.62
3.62
3.62
3.72
381
3.89
HOKE 3.89
3.93
Bff9fi~~!
CHOWAN
3.94
4.00
4.02
406
CATAWBA 406
DAVIDSO N 4 .07
CAMDEN 4 .09
4.25
A~A~:s&x lE 4 .31
4.49
NEW HANOVER 4.65
FORSYTH 469
MOORE 4.81
MONTGOMERY 4.87
PITT 4.88
HENDER/j2~N 4 .95
4.98
RANDOLPH 5.14
CHATHAM 5.24
TRANSYLVAN IA 5.27
DUR HAM 5.82
6.21
6 .93
MECKe~,i~~: 7.26
7.82
I I I I
0 2 4 6 8
The ratio is the percent of Blacksdisenfranchiseddividedby the percent of
Whites. The verticalline representsa value of 1.00, or equality.No value is
calculatedfor countieswith fewer than 1,000 Blacksin the population.
16

Only two counties, Gates and Tyrrell, have ratios close to 1.0. In Gates County, 12
Blacks are disenfranchised and 22 Whites; these represent 0.36 and 0.35 percent of the voting
age populations for Blacks and Whites respectively, and the ratio is therefore 1.03. In Tyrrell
County, 12 Blacks and 16 Whites disenfranchised represent 0.88 and 0.82 percent of the
respective voting age populations, leading to a ratio of 1.07. In every other county, the ratios are
much higher. Mecklenburg has 1,669 disenfranchised Blacks and 411 disenfranchised Whites,
representing 0.60 and 0.08 percent of the voting age populations of Blacks and Whites in
Mecklenburg County, generating a ratio of 7.26. Wake County has 1,941 disenfranchised Blacks,
or 1.05 percent of the respective voting age population, compared to 962 Whites, 0.17 percent,
for a ratio of 6.21. The graph makes clear that such high ratios are much closer to the norm than
those few counties with lower ratios. The overall state figure, discussed above, is 2.76. The data
from Figure 7 make clear that this cannot be seen as the result of a fluke in just a single county. It
is a widespread pattern throughout the state.6
We can also see the ubiquity of the racial disparities discussed above in a series of maps,
presented below. In each map, we separate the counties into low, medium, and high groups
according to the same categories defined in Figure 3 and Table 3, above. By applying the same
categories and color scheme in the maps that follow to all racial groups, the maps clearly
demonstrate that racial differences are not limited to a single county or region of the state. In fact
they are almost completely pervasive. The maps present, in order, the percentage of the total
voting age population disenfranchised by probation and post-release supervision in each county,
then identically formatted maps for Asians, Whites, Native Americans, and Blacks. Darker
shading patterns indicate higher rates of disenfranchisement out of the relevant population base.
6
See Table A2 for the full data by county, including counties below the threshold of 1,000 Blacks in the population.
See Footnote 5 above for details on outlier cases below that threshold.
17

As we move across the five racial groups presented, darker shading becomes clearly more
common.
Figure 8. Maps showing Rates of Disenfranchisement

A. Total
Percent of the Total Populatio n Disenfranc hised
Low/ Med / High Scale

D O.DO- 0.38
□ 0.38 - 0.62
■ 0.62 - 8.00
B. Asian
Percent of the Asian Population Disenfranchised

D O.DO- 0. 38
□ 0.38 - 0.62
■ 0.62 - 8.00
□No data
C. White
Perce nt of the White Population Disenfranchised
Low / Med / High Scale

D O.DO- 0.38
□ 0 .38 - 0.62
■ 0 . 62 - 8.00
18

D. Native American
Percent of the Native American Populat ion Disenfranchised
Low / Med / High Scale

□ 0 .00 - 0.38
□ 0.38 - 0.62
■ 0 . 62 - 8.00
□ No data
E. Black
Percent of the Black Population Disenfranchised

□ 0.00 - 0.38
□ 0.38 - 0.62
■ 0 . 62 - 8.00
□ No data
Figure 8A above shows the overall pattern of disenfranchisement rates for the state,
across all races. Twenty-five counties are rated low and shaded with the lightest color; 50 are in
the middle category, and 25 have a darker shade representing higher rates of disenfranchisement.
Figures 8B-E then present Asian-Americans, Whites, Native Americans, and Blacks, with the
identical color schemes. For some of the racial groups, a number of counties are listed as “no
data” and left unshaded; these have too few observations for reliable analyses. Figure 8B has just
two counties in the middle group and one in the higher group, representing the very low rates at
which Asians are disenfranchised across the state. Whites similarly have a low rate, as shown in
Figure 8C. Native Americans have much higher rates, and Blacks have the highest rates of all, as
shown by the almost uniform dark shading in Figure 8E.
19

It is hard to imagine more powerful visible evidence of something the data make clear at
every turn. Racial disparities in disenfranchisement rates are as ubiquitous throughout the state as
they are strong. No region of the state escapes from this pattern.
20

The Financial Burden of Court Costs, Fees, and Restitution
Individuals face various fees associated with their incarceration, probation, or
supervision; these may include court costs, court-assigned fees, monthly probation or community
supervision fees (typically $40 per month), and restitution. Recall that 51,441 individuals are
subject to either probation or post-release supervision. This section summaries these financial
variables for both groups. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the financial burdens they bear, combining
across all types of fees, separately for those on probation and post-release supervision. Note,
because of a number of extreme outliers in the data, we present only two variables for each racial
category: the number of individuals subject to any such financial obligation, and the median
amount owed. We do not present means or maxima, nor do we attempt to calculate the total
burden across all individuals because of a number of extremely high values in the datasets
received from the state, which could skew any such calculations. They will have no impact on
the N’s and median values reported here, however.
21

Table 3. Financial Penalties, by Race, for Individuals on Probation
Fees Court Costs Restitution Supervision Fees Total
Race N N Median N Median N Median N Median N Median
Asian 184 157 $150 117 $700 38 $1,829 184 $1,198 184 $2,168
Black 16,977 13,886 $300 13,337 $533 5,347 $1,188 16,976 $982 16,976 $2,416
Native American 812 678 $340 645 $513 269 $1,870 812 $961 812 $2,464
Other / Unknown 1,167 954 $290 884 $505 335 $1,365 1,167 $961 1,167 $2,360
White 21,692 18,420 $350 17,068 $593 7,090 $1,578 21,690 $1,198 21,690 $2,454
Total 40,832 34,095 $340 32,051 $573 13,079 $1,400 40,829 $1,198 40,829 $2,441
Note: Includes 39,065 individuals with probation and 1,767 with both probation and post-release supervision, for a total of 40,832.
Data relate only to costs associated with probation. N’s in the first column show the total number of individuals on probation, by race.
N’s in the subsequent columns show the numbers of that group subject to the corresponding type of cost or fee.
Table 4. Financial Penalties, by Race, for Individuals on Post-Release Supervision

Fees Court Costs Restitution Supervision Fees Total
Race N N Median N Median N Median N Median N Median
Asian 36 28 $40 2 $724 13 $1,833 36 $356 36 $659
Black 5,440 4,634 $40 116 $1,449 1,993 $1,459 5,432 $356 5,432 $521
Native American 260 221 $40 5 $4,686 82 $1,956 259 $356 259 $521
Other / Unknown 702 619 $40 21 $395 301 $2,233 701 $481 701 $2,441
White 5,938 4,800 $40 66 $630 1,936 $1,464 5,925 $356 5,926 $521
Total 12,376 10,302 $40 210 $839 4,325 $1,500 12,353 $356 12,354 $521
Note: Includes 10,609 individuals with post-release supervision and 1,767 with both probation and post-release supervision, for a total
of 12,376. Data relate only to costs associated with post-release supervision. N’s in the first column show the total number of
individuals on post-release supervision, by race. N’s in the subsequent columns show the numbers of that group subject to the
corresponding type of cost or fee.
22

Racial differences in the amount of money owed by individuals on probation or post-
release supervision are not very great. However, the numbers in Tables 3 and 4 make clear the
extreme financial burden imposed on virtually every individual in the system, particularly those
on probation. The last column of data represents the totals across all the types of costs and fees
imposed, and virtually every individual sees some level of financial obligation. The median total
amount owed in financial obligations for those on probation is over $2,400, and this is consistent
across all racial groups. Supervision fees alone, at $40 per month, can add up to substantial
amounts, depending on the length of the period in question. Financial penalties for those on post-
release supervision are lower, but typically add up to more than $500.
A recent analysis by the Duke Law School shows substantial racial differences in fines,
particularly those for Failure to Appear7, and further estimates that approximately one-third of
such fees are “uncured” or never collected. This would suggest a substantial potential of long-
lasting disenfranchisement. Tables 3 and 4 suggest that the bulk of such financial burdens is
faced by those on probation.
Since all individuals are by default subject to monthly supervision fees of $40 for
probation or post-release supervision, by definition, all such individuals face some financial
burden. Indeed, of the currently disenfranchised North Carolinians on parole or post-release
supervision, the median duration of probation or post-release supervision in their original
sentence is 24 months; this value is 30 months for those on probation and 9 months for those on
post-release supervision.
Not counting these automatic fees, 37,765 individuals out of 40,832 on probation, or 92.5
percent, owe some amount of court costs, fees, or restitution. With specific regard to restitution,
7
https://datalab.law.duke.edu/shiny/nccrimfines/; see also https://sites.law.duke.edu/justsciencelab/wp-
content/uploads/sites/5/2020/04/CSJ-Criminal-Fines-and-Fees-in-NC-v.7.pdf, both last accessed April 25, 2020.
23

68 percent of who are currently disenfranchised under N.C.G.S. § 13-1 did not owe any
restitution as part of their sentence.
Type of Crimes Associated with Disenfranchisement: Nonviolent, Drug-

related
As described in the introduction, the data received from the state indicate the Offense and
the Offense Type. Table 5 shows the numbers of individuals, as well as the percent of the total,
convicted of each type of offense listed in the database. Note that the unit of analysis here is the
conviction, and there may be more than one conviction per individual.
24

Table 5. Offense Types
Post Release Supervision Probation
Offense N % N %
DRUGS- NON TRAFFICK 3,264 18.52 18,467 29.67
LARCENY 1,916 10.87 8,281 13.30
FRAUD 1,292 7.33 7,352 11.81
BREAKING, ENTERING* 1,976 11.21 5,722 9.19
ASSAULT* 1,010 5.73 3,739 6.01
WEAPONS OFFENSES* 741 4.21 2,462 3.96
OTHER SEXUAL OFFENSE* 1,405 7.97 2,436 3.91
OTHER PUBLIC ORDER 331 1.88 1,878 3.02
ROBBERY* 1,024 5.81 1,855 2.98
DRUGS TRAFFICK 623 3.54 1,646 2.64
DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED 7 0.04 1,422 2.28
OTHER TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS 270 1.53 1,321 2.12
FORGERY 198 1.12 1,047 1.68
BURGLARY 233 1.32 784 1.26
AUTO THEFT 303 1.72 775 1.25
NOT REPORTED, UNDEFINED 4 0.02 691 1.11
OTHER OFFENSE AGAINST PERSON* 64 0.36 529 0.85
VIOLATION SEX OFFNS CONDITIONS 254 1.44 390 0.63
OTHER PROPERTY 20 0.11 345 0.55
KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION* 234 1.33 331 0.53
MANSLAUGHTER* 114 0.65 247 0.40
BURNINGS* 57 0.32 220 0.35
SEXUAL ASSAULT* 1,077 6.11 120 0.19
WORTHLESS CHECKS 8 0.05 76 0.12
ABANDONMENT AND NON-SUPPORT 28 0.04
HABITUAL DRUNK 111 0.63 24 0.04
MURDER FIRST DEGREE* 70 0.40 23 0.04
MURDER SECOND DEGREE* 175 0.99 19 0.03
OTHER ALCOHOL OFFENSE 10 0.02
DRUNK OR DISORDERLY 2 0.00
HABITUAL FELON 840 4.77 1 0.00
Subtotal for Nonviolent Offenses 9,674 54.90 44,540 71.56

Subtotal for Violent Offenses 7,947 45.10 17,703 28.44
Total 17,621 100.00 62,243 100.00

Offense types with an * are coded as violent.
Table 5 makes clear that the vast bulk of crimes for which individuals are currently
disenfranchised are non-violent, and many are related to the “war on drugs”. Table 5 shows an
25

asterisk (*) next to each offense type in the state database where the conviction might be a crime
of violence: breaking and entering, assault, weapons offenses, and of course sexual assault,
murder, and so on. Inevitably, such an assignment is partially subjective but the coding is
transparent in the table and is done in good faith. Subtotals near the bottom show that 55 percent
of the post-release supervision offenses are non-violent as are 72 percent of the probation
offenses.
Impact on Elections
Our concern about large numbers of individuals disenfranchised is not purely academic.
In fact, the large numbers likely have an impact on many elections. To demonstrate this, we
looked at county-wide elections across the state in 2018, the most recent data available. Using
data from the North Carolina Board of Elections (https://www.ncsbe.gov/Election-Results), we
identified elections where the number of disenfranchised individuals is larger than the vote
margin between winning and losing candidates. Because local elections often do not adhere to
county lines, our analysis is not comprehensive. However, there are a number of elections that
can be examined where the county itself is the relevant unit; this includes such elections as
county education boards, sheriff elections, and county commissioner seats.
First, we identified 2018 elections that correspond to counties (typically, boards of
commissioners, sheriffs, clerks of court, boards of education). Next, we dropped any election that
had no challenger, retaining only those with at least two candidates, or in some cases, a ballot
measure with a yes/no vote. Note that some elections were for a single office-holder (such as
Sheriff) and others were to elect several members of a given body, such as “vote for 3” members
of the board of education. In each case, we compared the vote for the lowest-ranking winning
candidate and the candidate with the next highest number of votes. For a single-member election,
this was the difference between the winner and the second-place finisher. For an election to
26

choose 4 members of a board, it was the difference between the fourth- and fifth-ranked
candidates. Table 6 shows the elections we identified in this manner where the number of
disenfranchised individuals in that county is greater than the vote margin. In these elections,
disenfranchised individuals could have tipped the outcome of the vote. We identified 16 such
cases, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. County-Wide Elections in 2018 with Vote Margins Less than the Number of
Disenfranchised Individuals.
Number Vote Number
County and Office of Seats Margin* Disenfranchised
Alleghany County Board of Commissioners 3 6 68
Ashe County Board of Education 3 16 125
Beaufort County Board of Commissioners 1 63 457
Cleveland County Board of Commissioners 2 1,010 1,156
Columbus County Sheriff 1 43 328
Craven County Clerk of Superior Court 1 462 643
Haywood County Board of Commissioners 3 43 297
Jones County Board of Education 3 64 68
Lee County Board of Education 3 78 332
Mitchell County Board of Education (unexpired
term) 1 59 122
Montgomery County Sheriff 1 50 130
New Hanover County Board of Education 4 839 1,722
Pasquotank County Board of Commissioners
Northern Outside 1 82 194
Swain County Board of Commissioners Members 2 40 88
Swain County Board of Education 2 45 88
Yancey County Board of Commissioners 3 45 141
*Vote Margin is the difference between the lowest number of votes for a candidate elected to
office and the next highest number of votes. If there were four seats, this is the difference
between the fourth and the fifth vote-getters. If a single person was to be elected, it is the
difference between the winner’s votes and the second-place finisher.
The 2018 Columbus County sheriff’s election, with a 43-vote margin, was challenged for
a variety of voting irregularities, including delayed opening of a polling place and accusations of
mishandling of absentee ballots collected from a nursing home.8 Our analysis suggests that many
8
https://www.wunc.org/post/republicans-narrow-victory-stands-columbus-county-sheriff-race
27

close elections could have been affected by the large-scale disenfranchisement policies analyzed
here.
While Table 6 identified a number of local elections that could have had a different
outcome had the disenfranchised population had the right to vote, there are also a number of
elections for the General Assembly in 2018 that had a very narrow margin. Using data from the
MIT Election Data and Science Lab (https://github.com/MEDSL), Table 7 lists the elections in
2018 that had a vote margin of less than 1,000 votes.
Table 7. 2018 NC Elections with a Vote Margin Less than 1,000 Votes.
Votes for Votes for Vote Winning
Office, District Candidate A Candidate B Margin Share
State House, 103 19,134 19,064 70 50.09
State Senate, 9 42,026 42,257 231 50.14
State House, 63 15,311 15,013 298 50.49
State House, 98 19,618 20,033 415 50.52
State Senate, 19 29,815 29,382 433 50.37
State House, 24 14,219 13,770 449 50.80
State House, 19 17,075 17,957 882 51.26
State House, 36 21,551 20,667 884 51.05
State Senate, 27 45,205 44,268 937 50.52
State House, 37 21,859 22,803 944 51.06
Most elections are not as close as the ones listed in Table 7. These are the State House
and Senate races with the narrowest margins of victory, typically 51-49 or closer. Still, close
elections occur in every election cycle. For example, the 2000 US Presidential election makes
clear that even a national election, with tens of millions of voters, can come down to the
narrowest of margins. North Carolina’s policies, excluding over 56,500 individuals from the
possibility of voting, clearly have an impact. Indeed, we need look no further than the most
28

recent Gubernatorial race, where current Governor Roy Cooper defeated incumbent Pat McCrory
by a vote of 2,309,190 to 2,298,927, a margin of 10,263.9
Conclusion
In summary, this report has demonstrated the following, using data provided by the State.
First, over 51,000 individuals are currently disenfranchised because of probation (over 40,000)
or post-release supervision (more than 10,000) following a conviction in North Carolina state
court. This is more than the number of individuals currently incarcerated. Second, Blacks are
2.77 times as likely as Whites to be disenfranchised through these policies, and this racially
disparate pattern of impact is apparent in every region of the state and indeed in every county
with sufficient numbers of Black and White residents for a robust estimate. Third, the state
typically imposes significant financial burdens on individuals subjected to these policies, in
particular on those under probation; they face an average of over $2,400 in financial obligations.
Fourth, the bulk of the felonies for which persons are disenfranchised are non-violent; among
probationers, non-violent offenses comprise more than 70 percent of the total, and for post-
release supervision, over half. Large percentages relate to drug crimes, in particular drug
possession. Finally, the number of individuals disenfranchised is sufficient to affect election
outcomes. The state-wide total, over 56,500, is more than 5 times the margin of the last election
for Governor. Numerous county-level elections in 2018 were decided by margins smaller than
the number of disenfranchised individuals in the relevant county.
9
Data from NC State Board of Elections:
https://er.ncsbe.gov/?election_dt=11/08/2016&county_id=0&office=COS&contest=0.
29

Appendix.
Table A1. Population and Number Disenfranchised, by Race and County
Population Number Disenfranchised
County White Black Asian Native Other Total White Black Asian Native Total
ALAMANCE 101830 24957 2114 2513 2178 133592 343 357 2 10 745
ALEXANDER 28450 1718 280 196 329 30973 140 20 0 0 167
ALLEGHANY 9178 9530 58 4 0 0 68
ANSON 9840 9589 336 203 273 20241 61 114 0 2 177
ASHE 22353 170 252 22971 122 1 0 0 125
AVERY 14307 732 15317 126 5 0 0 134
BEAUFORT 28678 8213 242 551 458 38142 205 235 0 10 458
BERTIE 5985 9555 179 15957 13 60 0 1 78
BLADEN 17226 8998 744 370 27413 127 124 0 14 272
BRUNSWICK 103107 12613 981 1133 1475 119309 509 171 1 13 713
BUNCOMBE 194933 11157 3291 1404 3838 214623 582 231 4 6 846
BURKE 64115 4953 2891 863 1022 73844 454 73 9 0 547
CABARRUS 125297 28317 4077 1334 2497 161522 570 507 4 26 1143
CALDWELL 62298 3077 446 563 855 67239 361 41 1 1 406
CAMDEN 6994 1141 207 176 8547 12 8 0 0 20
CARTERET 53934 3110 755 345 1073 59217 374 70 1 3 454
CASWELL 12457 6585 274 19494 55 54 0 1 110
CATAWBA 107809 10334 4200 923 1750 125016 591 230 15 10 868
CHATHAM 52163 7173 910 1097 705 62048 68 49 0 4 143
CHEROKEE 23240 299 194 327 682 24742 87 7 1 3 98
CHOWAN 7548 3456 125 11280 28 52 1 0 81
CLAY 9605 123 9823 21 1 0 0 22
CLEVELAND 61051 15461 736 360 1099 78707 766 370 3 2 1156
COLUMBUS 27491 14769 235 1513 689 44697 164 145 0 15 328
CRAVEN 55216 17572 2099 448 1852 77187 356 273 2 3 643
30

CUMBERLAND 129661 91847 7463 4247 10230 243448 419 1000 4 43 1534
CURRITUCK 20121 1311 227 404 22198 81 17 0 1 102
DARE 28678 745 322 254 481 30480 200 40 2 2 248
DAVIDSON 117022 11609 2074 1430 1619 133754 555 224 8 7 825
DAVIE 31891 2103 286 276 439 34995 102 29 0 3 140
DUPLIN 32999 10944 573 916 362 45794 228 221 0 5 484
DURHAM 122733 97196 13345 3154 5271 241699 102 470 4 10 623
EDGECOMBE 17028 22715 330 422 40638 65 223 0 1 294
FORSYTH 196252 80750 7769 3107 5009 292887 435 839 3 28 1385
FRANKLIN 38959 13609 397 635 746 54346 154 122 0 2 288
GASTON 138829 27399 2856 1485 2726 173295 916 470 7 10 1438
GATES 6269 3314 188 9874 22 12 0 0 34
GRAHAM 6408 380 132 6962 13 0 0 3 16
GRANVILLE 31904 16013 372 540 670 49499 70 125 0 1 202
GREENE 10131 5705 567 161 16715 27 48 0 4 81
GUILFORD 246851 144276 20395 3622 8282 423426 784 1429 21 41 2344
HALIFAX 16496 21341 390 1753 456 40436 98 198 0 1 303
HARNETT 71717 20457 1291 2490 3105 99060 218 182 0 10 429
HAYWOOD 50373 490 276 308 550 51997 261 17 0 12 297
HENDERSON 90007 2809 1414 778 1359 96367 369 57 1 7 455
HERTFORD 7592 11221 157 218 229 19417 34 76 0 1 114
HOKE 19221 12797 646 3932 1544 38140 68 176 3 62 332
HYDE 2854 1362 4321 13 12 0 1 26
IREDELL 120806 15390 3193 1205 1944 142538 610 302 4 19 963
JACKSON 32192 666 440 2926 658 36882 133 5 0 28 181
JOHNSTON 126972 23768 1483 1760 2208 156191 469 318 1 14 845
JONES 5563 2375 175 8231 44 24 0 0 68
LEE 35155 9159 617 846 797 46574 145 152 1 9 332
LENOIR 25072 17772 380 406 491 44121 145 227 0 3 392
LINCOLN 64050 3533 493 313 727 69116 592 108 1 6 723
31

MACON 28599 443 258 267 266 29833 172 4 0 7 193
MADISON 17921 298 263 18628 215 2 0 1 220
MARTIN 10413 7771 155 18525 50 117 0 0 170
MCDOWELL 35034 1513 297 389 391 37624 422 35 0 2 469
MECKLENBURG 499312 279436 44200 7895 16303 847146 411 1669 25 39 2290
MITCHELL 12081 151 12487 119 3 0 0 122
MONTGOMERY 17333 3755 309 213 191 21801 54 57 0 4 130
MOORE 67654 9721 1239 774 1082 80470 214 148 0 9 379
NASH 42929 29830 848 931 1112 75650 160 403 0 5 585
NEW HANOVER 160028 24248 3176 1505 3433 192390 973 686 2 20 1722
NORTHAMPTON 6859 9632 157 16813 10 44 0 0 55
ONSLOW 110481 19598 3637 1166 5213 140095 534 327 2 18 912
ORANGE 94286 12547 10320 917 2583 120653 122 127 4 6 276
PAMLICO 8953 2088 121 11283 95 42 0 0 139
PASQUOTANK 16981 12482 509 167 606 30745 63 126 0 0 194
PENDER 41378 7425 342 567 834 50546 191 79 0 3 281
PERQUIMANS 8195 2740 124 11170 37 33 0 0 71
PERSON 23172 8053 161 290 421 32097 106 137 1 0 246
PITT 88098 46387 3054 881 2504 140924 298 766 1 6 1096
POLK 17155 708 218 18316 72 11 0 1 85
RANDOLPH 102013 6812 1538 1722 1444 113529 487 167 2 12 695
RICHMOND 21845 10546 490 1365 695 34941 149 145 1 15 317
ROBESON 33014 24307 1409 39166 2325 100221 68 142 0 229 472
ROCKINGHAM 57535 13873 574 462 1226 73670 416 222 1 6 660
ROWAN 89834 17981 1145 732 1436 111128 529 255 1 5 815
RUTHERFORD 48975 4858 303 197 921 55254 414 96 0 2 515
SAMPSON 33354 12410 345 2057 676 48842 249 246 1 17 553
SCOTLAND 12874 10216 299 3416 621 27426 72 152 0 48 279
STANLY 43341 5370 1087 215 479 50492 216 97 4 3 326
STOKES 35851 1429 182 458 38041 224 34 0 1 265
32

SURRY 54461 2296 322 445 648 58172 309 45 0 3 368
SWAIN 7745 2569 592 11004 59 2 0 16 88
TRANSYLVANIA 28090 1075 149 444 29863 109 22 0 0 133
TYRRELL 1944 1358 3467 16 12 0 2 31
UNION 149671 21051 4889 1377 2496 179484 445 312 1 10 805
VANCE 16494 17942 156 374 424 35390 96 151 0 1 256
WAKE 569408 185019 55034 9016 17028 835505 962 1941 19 31 3127
WARREN 6946 8163 953 273 16403 16 51 0 3 71
WASHINGTON 4515 4757 142 9510 15 34 0 0 51
WATAUGA 48200 1020 616 982 50963 179 17 1 5 209
WAYNE 62536 28452 1635 995 1802 95420 259 291 2 5 578
WILKES 52643 2404 336 281 663 56327 442 57 0 3 514
WILSON 36534 25292 790 414 713 63743 92 250 0 4 354
YADKIN 29033 870 251 245 30521 219 33 0 4 265
YANCEY 14803 134 15290 132 6 0 2 141
Note: Population data from the US census, referring to the voting-age population.
Disenfranchisement data from the present analysis.
33

Table A2. Percent Disenfranchised and Black-White Ratio of Disenfranchisement, by County
Black : White
Disenfranchisement
County White Black Asian Native Total Ratio
ALAMANCE 0.34 1.43 0.09 0.40 0.56 4.25
ALEXANDER 0.49 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.54 2.37
ALLEGHANY 0.63 0.71
ANSON 0.62 1.19 0.00 0.99 0.87 1.92
ASHE 0.55 0.59 0.54
AVERY 0.88 0.68 0.87
BEAUFORT 0.71 2.86 0.00 1.81 1.20 4.00
BERTIE 0.22 0.63 0.49 2.89
BLADEN 0.74 1.38 1.88 0.99 1.87
BRUNSWICK 0.49 1.36 0.10 1.15 0.60 2.75
BUNCOMBE 0.30 2.07 0.12 0.43 0.39 6.93
BURKE 0.71 1.47 0.31 0.00 0.74 2.08
CABARRUS 0.45 1.79 0.10 1.95 0.71 3.94
CALDWELL 0.58 1.33 0.22 0.18 0.60 2.30
CAMDEN 0.17 0.70 0.00 0.23 4.09
CARTERET 0.69 2.25 0.13 0.87 0.77 3.25
CASWELL 0.44 0.82 0.56 1.86
CATAWBA 0.55 2.23 0.36 1.08 0.69 4.06
CHATHAM 0.13 0.68 0.00 0.36 0.23 5.24
CHEROKEE 0.37 2.34 0.52 0.92 0.40
CHOWAN 0.37 1.50 0.72 4.06
CLAY 0.22 0.22
CLEVELAND 1.25 2.39 0.41 0.56 1.47 1.91
COLUMBUS 0.60 0.98 0.00 0.99 0.73 1.65
CRAVEN 0.64 1.55 0.10 0.67 0.83 2.41
CUMBERLAND 0.32 1.09 0.05 1.01 0.63 3.37
CURRITUCK 0.40 1.30 0.00 0.46 3.22
DARE 0.70 5.37 0.62 0.79 0.81
DAVIDSON 0.47 1.93 0.39 0.49 0.62 4.07
DAVIE 0.32 1.38 0.00 1.09 0.40 4.31
DUPLIN 0.69 2.02 0.00 0.55 1.06 2.92
DURHAM 0.08 0.48 0.03 0.32 0.26 5.82
EDGECOMBE 0.38 0.98 0.30 0.72 2.57
FORSYTH 0.22 1.04 0.04 0.90 0.47 4.69
FRANKLIN 0.40 0.90 0.00 0.31 0.53 2.27
GASTON 0.66 1.72 0.25 0.67 0.83 2.60
GATES 0.35 0.36 0.34 1.03
GRAHAM 0.20 0.79 0.23
34

GRANVILLE 0.22 0.78 0.00 0.19 0.41 3.56
GREENE 0.27 0.84 0.71 0.48 3.16
GUILFORD 0.32 0.99 0.10 1.13 0.55 3.12
HALIFAX 0.59 0.93 0.00 0.06 0.75 1.56
HARNETT 0.30 0.89 0.00 0.40 0.43 2.93
HAYWOOD 0.52 3.47 0.00 3.90 0.57
HENDERSON 0.41 2.03 0.07 0.90 0.47 4.95
HERTFORD 0.45 0.68 0.00 0.46 0.59 1.51
HOKE 0.35 1.38 0.46 1.58 0.87 3.89
HYDE 0.46 0.88 0.60 1.93
IREDELL 0.50 1.96 0.13 1.58 0.68 3.89
JACKSON 0.41 0.75 0.00 0.96 0.49
JOHNSTON 0.37 1.34 0.07 0.80 0.54 3.62
JONES 0.79 1.01 0.83 1.28
LEE 0.41 1.66 0.16 1.06 0.71 4.02
LENOIR 0.58 1.28 0.00 0.74 0.89 2.21
LINCOLN 0.92 3.06 0.20 1.92 1.05 3.31
MACON 0.60 0.90 0.00 2.62 0.65
MADISON 1.20 0.67 1.18
MARTIN 0.48 1.51 0.92 3.14
MCDOWELL 1.20 2.31 0.00 0.51 1.25 1.92
MECKLENBURG 0.08 0.60 0.06 0.49 0.27 7.26
MITCHELL 0.99 0.98
MONTGOMERY 0.31 1.52 0.00 1.88 0.60 4.87
MOORE 0.32 1.52 0.00 1.16 0.47 4.81
NASH 0.37 1.35 0.00 0.54 0.77 3.62
NEW HANOVER 0.61 2.83 0.06 1.33 0.90 4.65
NORTHAMPTON 0.15 0.46 0.33 3.13
ONSLOW 0.48 1.67 0.05 1.54 0.65 3.45
ORANGE 0.13 1.01 0.04 0.65 0.23 7.82
PAMLICO 1.06 2.01 1.23 1.90
PASQUOTANK 0.37 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.63 2.72
PENDER 0.46 1.06 0.00 0.53 0.56 2.30
PERQUIMANS 0.45 1.20 0.64 2.67
PERSON 0.46 1.70 0.62 0.00 0.77 3.72
PITT 0.34 1.65 0.03 0.68 0.78 4.88
POLK 0.42 1.55 0.46
RANDOLPH 0.48 2.45 0.13 0.70 0.61 5.14
RICHMOND 0.68 1.37 0.20 1.10 0.91 2.02
ROBESON 0.21 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.47 2.84
ROCKINGHAM 0.72 1.60 0.17 1.30 0.90 2.21
35

ROWAN 0.59 1.42 0.09 0.68 0.73 2.41
RUTHERFORD 0.85 1.98 0.00 1.02 0.93 2.34
SAMPSON 0.75 1.98 0.29 0.83 1.13 2.66
SCOTLAND 0.56 1.49 0.00 1.41 1.02 2.66
STANLY 0.50 1.81 0.37 1.40 0.65 3.62
STOKES 0.62 2.38 0.55 0.70 3.81
SURRY 0.57 1.96 0.00 0.67 0.63 3.45
SWAIN 0.76 0.62 0.80
TRANSYLVANIA 0.39 2.05 0.00 0.45 5.27
TYRRELL 0.82 0.88 0.89 1.07
UNION 0.30 1.48 0.02 0.73 0.45 4.98
VANCE 0.58 0.84 0.00 0.27 0.72 1.45
WAKE 0.17 1.05 0.03 0.34 0.37 6.21
WARREN 0.23 0.62 0.31 0.43 2.71
WASHINGTON 0.33 0.71 0.54 2.15
WATAUGA 0.37 1.67 0.16 0.41 4.49
WAYNE 0.41 1.02 0.12 0.50 0.61 2.47
WILKES 0.84 2.37 0.00 1.07 0.91 2.82
WILSON 0.25 0.99 0.00 0.97 0.56 3.93
YADKIN 0.75 3.79 1.59 0.87
YANCEY 0.89 0.92
Note: Calculated from the data in Table A1.
____________________
I declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
This 8th day of May, 2020.
___________________
Dr. Frank R. Baumgartner
36

EXHIBIT A

May 7, 2020
FRANK R. BAUMGARTNER
Richard J. Richardson Distinguished Professor of Political Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
313 Hamilton Hall • Chapel Hill, NC 27599–3265
Phone 919 962 3041 • Fax 919 962 0432
Frankb@unc.edu • http://fbaum.unc.edu/
EDUCATION
Ph.D., 1986, The University of Michigan. (Fields: Comparative, American, methods.)
Dissertation: “Strategies of Policy Making: Education Policy in France, 1983–1984.”
Doctoral fieldwork conducted in Paris, France, 1983–84.
M.A., 1983, The University of Michigan. Thesis: “Models of Incumbent Spending in U.S. House
Races.”
B.A., 1980, The University of Michigan. Honors in Political Science, honors in French, high
distinction, Phi Beta Kappa, junior year at Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence,
France, 1978–79.
Diploma, 1976, Cass Technical High School, Detroit, Michigan. Class rank: 3/914.
Languages: American (native); French (fluent).
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Full-Time Academic Appointments
2009– Richard J. Richardson Distinguished Professor of Political Science, UNC Chapel Hill
(also Adjunct Professor of Public Policy, 2019–)
1998–09 The Pennsylvania State University (Professor 1998–2005; Interim Head, 1999–2000;
Head, 2000–04; Distinguished Professor, 2005–2007; Bruce R. Miller and Dean D.
LaVigne Professor, 2007–09)
1998–99 California Institute of Technology, Visiting Professor
1987–98 Texas A&M University (Assistant Professor 1987–92; Associate Professor 1992–97;
Professor 1997–98)
1986–87 The University of Iowa, Visiting Assistant Professor
Temporary and other Appointments
2019 Visiting Professor, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, May–June
2016 Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of Edinburg,
May–June
2011–12 Visiting Professor, University of Barcelona, May–June 2011, January–June 2012
2006–10 Chercheur associé, Center for European Studies / Cevipof / Sciences Po, Paris;
also Professeur invité, Sciences Po (graduate courses in public policy). May–June,
2006–10.
2000–10 Professor (honorary appointment), University of Aberdeen
2007 Fellow, The Camargo Foundation, Cassis, France, January–May
2005 Visiting Professor, Cevipof / Sciences Po, Paris, March–August
2004–05 Visiting Fellow, European University Institute, Department of Political and Social
Sciences, Florence, September–February
1997 Visiting Scholar, The University of Washington, Seattle, Summer

Frank R. Baumgartner Page 2
1996, 90, 87 Visiting Scholar, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Summers
1988 Visiting Scholar, Institut de Management Public, Paris, Summer
1983–84 Visiting Scholar, Institut de Management Public, Paris, September–July
1981–86 Teaching Assistant, then Instructor, then Lecturer, The University of Michigan
1981–86 Research Assistant, then Research Associate, The University of Michigan.
Institute for Public Policy Studies; National Election Studies; Center for Political
Studies; Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
1981 Summer intern and interpreter, Conseil Régional du Nord – Pas-de-Calais,
France, M. Pierre Mauroy, President of the Region and Prime Minister of France
Teaching and Research Fields
Public policy, policy process, punctuated equilibrium, agenda-setting, framing, interest groups,
lobbying, social movements, budgeting, capital punishment, American politics,
comparative politics, race and ethnic politics, criminal justice.
CURRENT RESEARCH
Comparative Agendas Project (see http://www.comparativeagendas.net). Bryan Jones and I
started the US Policy Agendas Project in 1994, making available data on the activities of
the US government since 1947. It has now expanded internationally to become the
Comparative Agendas Project (CAP), with affiliated projects in over 25 countries and
political systems.
Capital Punishment Research (see http://fbaum.unc.edu/Innocence/Innocence.htm and
http://fbaum.unc.edu/books/DeadlyJustice/index.html) Following on the research I
conducted for books published in 2008 and 2018, I continue to be involved in analyses of
the death penalty in the US and in North Carolina.
Traffic Stops (see http://fbaum.unc.edu/traffic.htm and
http://fbaum.unc.edu/books/SuspectCitizens/index.html). A comprehensive analysis of
over 20 million traffic stops in North Carolina since 2000. We completed a book in 2018
and are extending our analysis of the “driving while black” phenomenon nationwide in a
series of articles.
Research Under Review or Near Completion:

- Being revised for submission
A Deadly Symbol: Race and Capital Punishment in North Carolina. Under contract, University
of North Carolina Press; target for submission: Fall 2021. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Seth
Kotch, and Isaac Unah)
Three Models of Opinion Dynamics. Under contract, Cambridge University Press, Elements
Series (Frances Lee, series editor). Target for submission: June 2020. (Mary Layton
Atkinson, K. Elizabeth Coggins, James A. Stimson, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Driving while Black (and male, and young, and...): Evidence of disparities at the margin and the
intersection. 2018 APSA paper to be revised. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Leah Christiani,
Derek Epp, Santiago Olivella, Kevin Roach, and Kelsey Shoub)
Why a Small Handful of Counties Generates the Bulk of US Death Sentences: A Theory of Self-
Reinforcement with Three Statistical Tests. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Janet M. Box-
Steffensmeier, Benjamin W. Campbell, Christian Caron, and Hailey Sherman) Draft
paper for comments, March 6, 2020.

Capital and Non-Capital Murder Prosecutions in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, 2000–
2016. Revision of a legal report analyzing the legally relevant and irrelevant factors
associated with capital prosecutions, for submission to a law review, summer 2020.
- Under review
Better for Everyone: Black Descriptive Representation and Police Traffic Stops. Submitted,
Politics, Groups, and Identties, April 20, 2020 (Leah Christiani, Kelsey Shoub, Frank R.
Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp, and Kevin Roach)
At the Intersection: Race, Gender, and Discretion in Police Traffic Stop Outcomes. Submitted,
Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, April 10, 2020. (Kevin Roach, Frank R.
Baumgartner, Leah Christiani, Derek A. Epp, Kelsey Shoub)
Fines, Fees, and Disparities: The Link between Municipal Reliance on Fines and Racial
Disparities in Policing. Revised and resubmitted, Policy Studies Journal, April 6, 2020
(Kelsey Shoub, Leah Christiani, Frank R. Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp, and Kevin Roach)
Agenda Dynamics in Latin America: Theoretical and Empirical Challenges. Conditionally
accepted, March 11, 2020, for a special issue of the Revista de Administração Pública
(Brazilian Journal of Public Administration); final revisions due to editors on May 1,
2020 (Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones, and Laura Chaqués Bonafont)
PUBLICATIONS
Authored Books
Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us About Policing and Race. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2018. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp and Kelsey
Shoub).
• Winner of the C. Herman Pritchett Award for the best book published in 2018 from the
APSA Section on Law and Courts, 2019.
Deadly Justice: A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty. New York: Oxford University Press,
2018. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Marty Davidson, Kaneesha R. Johnson, Arvind
Krishnamurthy, and Colin P. Wilson).
Agenda Dynamics in Spain. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. (Laura Chaqués Bonafont,
Anna M. Palau, and Frank R. Baumgartner).
The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones)
• Winner of the Louis Brownlow Award for the best book in public administration,
National Academy of Public Administration, 2016.
• Winner of the best book award from the International Public Policy Association,
recognizing the best book published in the English language in 2015 on any topic of
public policy, 2017.
Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2009. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth L. Leech,
and David C. Kimball).
• Winner of the Leon D. Epstein Outstanding Book Award, APSA Section on Political
Organizations and Parties, 2010.
• Simplified Chinese translation, Nanjing University Press, forthcoming.
Agendas and Instability in American Politics, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2009. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones).

The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2008. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Suzanna L. De Boef and Amber E.
Boydstun).
• Winner of the Gladys M. Kammerer Award for the best publication in the field of US
national policy, American Political Science Association, 2008.
The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2005. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones)
Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1998. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech)
Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
(Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones)
• Chapter 6, The Dynamics of Media Attention, reprinted in Mediare la Realtà: Mass
Media, Systema Politico, e Opinione Pubblica (ed. Sara Bentivegna. Milano: Franco
Angeli, 1994.
• Winner of the Aaron Wildavsky Award for a work of lasting impact on the field of public
policy, APSA Organized Section on Public Policy, 2001.
• Featured in Oxford Handbook of the Classics of Public Policy and Administration
(Steven Balla, Martin Lodge, and Edward Page, eds., Oxford University Press, 2015)
• Chinese translation, Peking University Press, 2011.
Conflict and Rhetoric in French Policymaking. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989.
Edited Books and Special Issues of Journals
Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.
(Frank R. Baumgartner, Christian Breunig, and Emiliano Grossman, eds.)
The Dynamics of Policy Change in Comparative Perspective, special issue of Comparative
Political Studies vol. 44, no. 8, August 2011. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones,
Sylvain Brouard, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, and Stefaan Walgrave, eds.)
Comparative Studies of Policy Agendas. New York: Routledge, 2008. (Frank R. Baumgartner,
Christoffer Green-Pedersen, and Bryan D. Jones, eds.)
– Previously published as a special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 13,
no. 7, September 2006.
Policy Dynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. (Frank R. Baumgartner and
Bryan D. Jones, eds.)
Other Editorial Work
Theoretical Models of the Policy Process, virtual special issue of Journal of European Public
Policy, 2014. Frank R. Baumgartner and Petya Alexandrova, guest editors. (This is our
selection of 11 influential articles from previous issues of JEPP, with a short
introduction.) http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/pgas/rjpp-policy-process
Articles in Peer-Reviewed Journals
Intersectional Encounters: Representative Bureaucracy and the Routine Traffic Stop. Policy
Studies Journal forthcoming, 2020. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Kate Bell, Luke Beyer, Tara
Boldrin, Libby Doyle, Lindsey Govan, Jack Halpert, Jackson Hicks, Katherine
Kyriakoudes, Cat Lee, Mackenzie Leger, Sarah McAdon, Sarah Michalak, Caroline
Murphy, Eyan Neal, Olivia O’Malley, Emily Payne, Audrey Sapirstein, Sally Stanley,
Kathryn Thacker) DOI: 10.1111/PSJ.12382.

Re-Prioritizing Traffic Stops to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes and Racial Disparities.
Injury Epidemiology forthcoming, 2020. (Mike Fliss, Frank R. Baumgartner, Paul
Delamater, Steve Marshall, Charles Poole, and Whitney Robinson)
Race, Place, and Context: The Persistence of Race Effects in Traffic Stop Outcomes. Journal of
Race, Ethnicity, and Politics forthcoming 2020. (Kelsey Shoub, Derek A. Epp, Frank R.
Baumgartner, Leah Christiani, and Kevin Roach)
Democracy, Authoritarianism, and Policy Punctuations. International Review of Public Policy 1,
1 (2019): 7–26. (Bryan D. Jones, Derek A. Epp, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Event Dependence in U.S. Executions. PLoS ONE 13, 1 (2018): e0190244. (Frank R.
Baumgartner, Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, and Benjamin W. Campbell)
Budgetary Change in Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes. Journal of European Public Policy
24, 6 (2017): 792–808. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Marcello Carammia, Derek A. Epp, Ben
Noble, Beatriz Rey, and Tevfik Murat Yildirim)
Complexity, Capacity, and Budget Punctuations. Policy Studies Journal 45, 2 (2017): 247–64.
(Derek A. Epp and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Endogenous Disjoint Change. Cognitive Systems Research 44 (2017): 69–73.
Creating an Infrastructure for Comparative Policy Analysis. Governance 30, 1 (2017): 59–65.
Targeting Young Men of Color for Search and Arrest during Traffic Stops: Evidence from North
Carolina, 2002-2013. Politics, Groups, and Identities 5, 1 (2017): 107–31. (Frank R.
Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp, Kelsey Shoub, and Bayard Love)
Do the Media set the Parliamentary Agenda? A Comparative Study in Seven Countries.
European Journal of Political Research 55 (2016): 283–301. (Rens Vliegenthart, Stefaan
Walgrave, Frank R. Baumgartner, Shaun Bevan, Christian Breunig, Sylvain Brouard,
Laura Chaqués Bonafont, Emiliano Grossman, Will Jennings, Peter B. Mortensen, Anna
M. Palau, Pascal Sciarini, and Anke Tresch)
Assessing Business Advantage in Washington Lobbying. Interest Groups and Advocacy 4
(2015): 205–24. (Marie Hojnacki, Kathleen M. Marchetti, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey
M. Berry, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech)
Images of an Unbiased Interest System. Journal of European Public Policy 22, 8 (2015): 1212–
31 (David Lowery, Frank R. Baumgartner, Joost Berkhout, Jeffrey M. Berry, Darren
Halpin, Marie Hojnacki, Heike Klüver, Beate Kohler-Koch, Jeremy Richardson, and Kay
Lehman Schlozman)
#BlackLivesDon’tMatter: Race-of-Victim Effects in US Executions, 1977-2013. Politics,
Groups, and Identities 3, 2 (2015): 209–21. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Amanda Grigg, and
Alisa Mastro)
All News is Bad News: Newspaper Coverage of Politics in Spain. Political Communication 32, 2
(2015): 268–91. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Laura Chaqués Bonafont).
Partners in Advocacy: Lobbyists and Government Officials in the Policy Process. Journal of
Politics 77, 1 (2015): 202–15. (Christine Mahoney and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Popular Presidents Can Influence Congressional Attention, for a Little While. Policy Studies
Journal 43, 1 (2015): 22-43. (John Lovett, Shaun Bevan, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Partisan Priorities and Public Budgeting. Political Research Quarterly 67, 4 (2014): 864–78.
(Derek A. Epp, John Lovett, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
The Two Worlds of Lobbying: Washington Lobbyists in the Core and on the Periphery. Interest
Groups and Advocacy 3, 3 (2014): 219–45. (Timothy M. LaPira, Herschel F. Thomas III,
and Frank R. Baumgartner).

The State of the Discipline: Authorship, Research Designs, and Citation Patterns in Studies of
EU Interest Groups and Lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy 21, 10 (2014):
1412–34. (Adriana Bunea and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Money, Priorities, and Stalemate: How Lobbying Affects Public Policy. Election Law Journal
13, 1 (2014): 194–209. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David
C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech)
Divided Government, Legislative Productivity, and Policy Change in the US and France.
Governance 27, 3 (2014): 423–447. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Sylvain Brouard, Emiliano
Grossman, Sebastien G. Lazardeux, and Jon Moody)
Measuring the Media Agenda. Political Communication 31, 2 (2014): 355–80. (Mary Layton
Atkinson, John Lovett, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Ideas, Paradigms, and Confusions. Journal of European Public Policy 21, 3 (2014): 475–80.
Understanding Time-Lags and Measurement Validity in Secondary Data: The Encyclopedia of
Associations Database. Social Science Research 42 (2013): 1750–64. (Shaun Bevan,
Frank R. Baumgartner, Erik W. Johnson, and John McCarthy)
Ideas and Policy Change. Governance 26, 2 (2013): 239–58.
A Failure to Communicate: Agenda Setting in Media and Policy Studies. Political
Communication 30, 2 (2013): 175–192. (Michelle Wolfe, Bryan D. Jones, and Frank R.
Baumgartner)
Newspaper Attention and Policy Activities in Spain. Journal of Public Policy 13, 1 (2013): 1–24.
(Laura Chaqués Bonafont and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and US Poverty Policy, 1960–2008. Policy Studies Journal
41, 1 (2013): 22–53. (Max Rose and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Public Budgeting in the EU Commission: A Test of the Punctuated Equilibrium Thesis.
Politique Européenne 38 (2012): 70–99. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Martial Foucault and
Abel François)
Who Cares About the Lobbying Agenda? Interest Groups and Advocacy 1, 1 (2012): 1–21.
(David C. Kimball, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth L.
Leech, and Bryce Summary)
From There to Here: Punctuated Equilibrium to the General Punctuation Thesis to a Theory of
Government Information Processing. Policy Studies Journal 40, 1 (2012): 1–19. (Bryan
D. Jones and Frank R. Baumgartner)
– Introduction to special issue on punctuated equilibrium studies of public policy, one of
four special issues on the major theoretical approaches to the study of public policy.
Studying Organizational Advocacy and Influence: Reexamining Interest Group Research.
Annual Review of Political Science 15 (2012): 379–99. (Marie Hojnacki, David C.
Kimball, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Beth L. Leech).
Comparative Studies of Policy Dynamics. Comparative Political Studies 44, 8 (August 2011):
947–72. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones and John Wilkerson)
Policy Attention in State and Nation: Is Anyone Listening to the Laboratories of Democracy?
Publius 41, 2 (2011): 286–310. (David Lowery, Virginia Gray and Frank R.
Baumgartner)
Replacing Members with Managers? Mutualism Among Membership and Non-Membership
Advocacy Organizations in the U.S. American Journal of Sociology 116, 4 (January
2011): 1284–1337. (Edward T. Walker, John D. McCarthy, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Congressional and Presidential Effects on the Demand for Lobbying. Political Research

Quarterly 64, 1 (March 2011): 3–16. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Heather A. Larsen, Beth L.
Leech, and Paul Rutledge)
Measuring the Size and Scope of the EU Interest Group Population. European Union Politics
11, 3 (September 2010): 463–76. (Arndt Wonka, Frank R. Baumgartner, Christine
Mahoney, and Joost Berkhout)
A General Empirical Law for Public Budgets: A Comparative Analysis. American Journal of
Political Science 53, 4 (October 2009): 855–73. (Bryan D. Jones, Frank R. Baumgartner,
Christian Breunig, Christopher Wlezien, Stuart Soroka, Martial Foucault, Abel François,
Christoffer Green-Pedersen, Peter John, Chris Koski, Peter B. Mortensen, Frédéric
Varone, and Stefaan Walgrave)
Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective. American Journal of Political Science, 53,
3, (July 2009): 602–19. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Christian Breunig, Christoffer Green-
Pedersen, Bryan D. Jones, Peter B. Mortensen, Michiel Neytemans, and Stefaan
Walgrave)
Agenda-setting Dynamics in France: Revisiting the “Partisan Hypothesis.” French Politics, 7, 2
(2009): 57–95. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Emiliano Grossman and Sylvain Brouard)
Federal Policy Activity and the Mobilization of State Lobbying Organizations. Political
Research Quarterly 62, 3 (September 2009): 552–67. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Virginia
Gray and David Lowery)
Public Budgeting in the French Fifth Republic: The End of La République des partis? West
European Politics 32, 2 (2009): 401–19. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Martial Foucault and
Abel François)
Le Projet Agendas Comparés : Objectifs et Contenus. Revue Internationale de Politique
Comparée, 16, 3 (2009): 365–79. (John Wilkerson, Frank R. Baumgartner, Sylvain
Brouard, Laura Chaqués Bonafont, Christopher Green-Pedersen, Emiliano Grossman,
Bryan D. Jones, Arco Timmermans, and Stefaan Walgrave)
Comparer les Productions Législatives : Enjeux et Méthodes. Revue Internationale de Politique
Comparée 16, 3 (2009): 381–404. (Sylvain Brouard, John Wilkerson, Frank R.
Baumgartner, Arco Timmermans, Shaun Bevan, Gerard Breeman, Christian Breunig,
Laura Chaqués Bonafont, Christopher Green-Pedersen, Will Jennings, Peter John, Bryan
D. Jones, and David Lowery)
Converging Perspectives on Interest-Group Research in Europe and America. West European
Politics, 31, 6 (2008): 1251–71. (Christine Mahoney and Frank R. Baumgartner)
– Reprinted in Jan Beyers, Rainer Eising, and William A. Maloney, eds. 2013. Interest
Group Politics in Europe: Lessons from EU Studies and Comparative Politics (London
and New York: Routledge).
The Two Faces of Framing: Individual-Level Framing and Collective Issue-Definition in the EU.
European Union Politics 9, 3 (2008): 435–49. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Christine
Mahoney)
Media Framing of Capital Punishment and Its Impact on Individuals’ Cognitive Responses. Mass
Communication and Society 11, 2 (2008): 115–40. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Suzanna De
Boef, Amber E. Boydstun, Frank E. Dardis, and Fuyuan Shen)
EU Lobbying: A View from the US. Journal of European Public Policy 14, 3 (March 2007):
482–88.
Comparative Studies of Policy Agendas. Journal of European Public Policy 13, 7 (September
2006): 955–70. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Christoffer Green-Pedersen and Bryan D. Jones)

– Reprinted in Peter Hupe and Michael Hill, eds. 2012. Public Policy. London: Sage.
Punctuated Equilibrium in French Budgeting Processes. Journal of European Public Policy 13, 7
(September 2006): 1082–99. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Martial Foucault and Abel
François)
Measuring Association Populations Using the Encyclopedia of Associations: Evidence from the
Field of Labor Unions. Social Science Research 35 (2006): 771–78. (Andrew W. Martin,
Frank R. Baumgartner, and John McCarthy)
A Model of Choice for Public Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15,
3 (July 2005): 325–51. (Bryan D. Jones and Frank R. Baumgartner)
– Selected for inclusion in special issue reprinting the most outstanding articles for the 20th
anniversary issue of JPART, 2010.
Drawing Lobbyists to Washington: Government Activity and Interest-Group Mobilization.
Political Research Quarterly 58, 1 (March 2005): 19–30. (Beth L. Leech, Frank R.
Baumgartner, Timothy La Pira, and Nicholas A. Semanko)
Representation and Agenda-Setting. Policy Studies Journal 32, 1 (January 2004): 1–24. (Bryan
D. Jones and Frank R. Baumgartner
Issue Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National
Politics. Journal of Politics 63, 4 (November 2001): 1191–1213. (Frank R. Baumgartner
and Beth L. Leech)
– Reprinted in Phil Harris, ed., Public Affairs Management (London: Sage Publications,
2013)
The Evolution of Legislative Jurisdictions. Journal of Politics 62, 2 (May 2000): 321–49. (Frank
R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones and Michael C. MacLeod)
Policy Punctuations: US Budget Authority, 1947–95. Journal of Politics 60, 1 (February 1998):
1–33. (Bryan D. Jones, Frank R. Baumgartner, and James L. True)
Does Incrementalism Stem from Political Consensus or Institutional Gridlock? American
Journal of Political Science 41, 4 (October 1997): 1319–39. (Bryan D. Jones, James L.
True, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
The Multiple Ambiguities of “Counteractive Lobbying.” American Journal of Political Science
40, 2 (May 1996): 521–42. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech)
This article led to a rebuttal and response as follows:
– Theory and Evidence for Counteractive Lobbying American Journal of Political
Science 40, 2: 543–64. (David Austen-Smith and Jack R. Wright)
– Good Theories Deserve Good Data. American Journal of Political Science 40, 2: 565–
9. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech)
Public Interest Groups in France and the United States. Governance 9 (1996): 1–22.
From Setting a National Agenda on Health Care to Making Decisions in Congress. Journal of
Health Politics, Policy and Law 20 (1995): 437–45. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Jeffery
C. Talbert)
Nonlegislative Hearings and Policy Change in Congress. American Journal of Political Science
39, 2 (May 1995): 383–406. (Jeffery C. Talbert, Bryan D. Jones, and Frank R.
Baumgartner)
– Reprinted in Steven S. Smith, Jason M. Roberts, and Ryan J. Vander Wielen, eds. The
American Congress Reader Pack, various editions (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2011 and previous years)
The Politics of Protest and Mass Mobilization in France. French Politics and Society 12 (1994):

84–96.
The Destruction of Issue Monopolies in Congress. American Political Science Review 87, 3
(September 1993): 673–87. (Bryan D. Jones, Frank R. Baumgartner, and Jeffery C.
Talbert)
Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. Journal of Politics 53, 4 (November 1991): 1044–74.
Measurement Validity and the Continuity of Results in Survey Research. American Journal of
Political Science 34, 3 (August 1990): 662–70. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Jack L.
Walker)
(In response to: Trends in Voluntary Group Membership: Comments on Baumgartner and
Walker, by Tom W. Smith. American Journal of Political Science 34, 3 (August 1990):
646–61.)
Independent and Politicized Policy Communities: Education and Nuclear Energy in France and
the United States. Governance 2 (1989): 42–66.
Afterword on Policy Communities: A Framework for Comparative Research. Governance 2
(1989): 86–94. (John Creighton Campbell, with Mark A. Baskin, Frank R. Baumgartner,
and Nina P. Halpern)
Educational Policy Making and the Interest Group Structure in France and the United States.
Comparative Politics 21, 3 (April 1989): 273–88. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Jack L.
Walker)
Survey Research and Membership in Voluntary Associations. American Journal of Political
Science 32, 4 (November 1988): 908–28. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Jack L. Walker)
Parliament’s Capacity to Expand Political Controversy in France. Legislative Studies Quarterly
12 (1987): 33–54.
– Reprinted in: The International Library of Politics and Comparative Government:
France. Ed. David Bell. Hampshire, U.K.: Dartmouth Publishing, 1994.
Preemptive and Reactive Spending in U.S. House Races. Political Behavior 8 (1986): 3–20.
(Edie N. Goldenberg, Michael W. Traugott and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Articles Published in Law Reviews
The Mayhem of Wrongful Liberty: Documenting the Crimes of True Perpetrators in Cases of
Wrongful Incarceration. Albany Law Review, 81, 4 (2018): 1263–1288. (Frank R.
Baumgartner, Amanda Grigg, Rachelle Ramìrez, and J. Sawyer Lucy).
Racial Disparities in Traffic Stop Outcomes. Duke Forum for Law and Social Change 9 (2017):
21–53. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Leah Christiani, Derek A. Epp, Kevin Roach, and Kelsey
Shoub)
These Lives Matter, Those Ones Don’t: Comparing Execution Rates by the Race and Gender of
the Victim in the US and in the Top Death Penalty States. Albany Law Review 79, 3
(2016): 797–860. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Emma Johnson, Colin Wilson, and Clarke
Whitehead)
The Geographic Distribution of US Executions. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public
Policy 11, 1&2 (2016): 1–33. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Woody Gram, Kaneesha R.
Johnson, Arvind Krishnamurthy, and Colin P. Wilson)
Louisiana Death-Sentenced Cases and their Reversals, 1976-2015. Southern University Law
Center Journal of Race, Gender, & Poverty 7 (2016): 58–75. (Frank R. Baumgartner and
Tim Lyman)

Race-Of-Victim Discrepancies in Homicides and Executions, Louisiana 1976-2015. Loyola

University of New Orleans Journal of Public Interest Law 17 (2015): 128-44. (Frank R.
Baumgartner and Tim Lyman)
Book Chapters
In Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data, 2019, Oxford University Press. (Frank R.
Baumgartner, Christian Breunig, and Emiliano Grossman, eds.)
– The Comparative Agendas Project: Intellectual Roots and Current Developments
(Frank R. Baumgartner, Christian Breunig, and Emiliano Grossman), pp. 3–16.
– Advancing the Study of Comparative Public Policy (Frank R. Baumgartner, Christian
Breunig, and Emiliano Grossman), pp. 391–398.
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policy. In
Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, eds., Theories of the Policy Process 4th ed.
Boulder: Westview Press, 2018, pp. 55–101. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones, and
Peter B. Mortensen)
Politics in France: Participation versus Control. In Paulette Kurzer, eds., Comparative
Governance. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2017. (Previously published as “France: The
Fifth Republic at Fifty” in 2012 and 2008 and as “Politics in France: Democracy and
Efficiency” in 2005, 2000, 1997, 1995.) (2017 edition co-authored with Sebastien G.
Lazardeux)
John Kingdon and the Evolutionary Approach to Public Policy and Agenda-Setting. In Nikolaos
Zahariadis, ed. Handbook of Public Policy Agenda-Setting. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar, 2016, pp. 53–68.
Agendas: Political. 2015. In: James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of
the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol 1. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 362–366.
Population Dynamics and Representation. In David Lowery, Virginia Gray, and Darren Halpin,
eds., The Organization Ecology of Interest Communities: Assessment and Agenda.
London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, pp 203–24. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Kelsey
Shoub)
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policy. In
Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, eds., Theories of the Policy Process 3rd ed.
Boulder: Westview Press, 2014, pp. 59–103. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones, and
Peter B. Mortensen)
Public Policy Responses to Wrongful Convictions. In Allison D. Relich, James R Acker, Robert
J. Norris, and Catherin L. Bonventre, eds., Examining Wrongful Convictions: Stepping
Back, Moving Forward. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Publishing, 2014, pp. 251–66.
(Frank R. Baumgartner, Saundra D. Westervelt, and Kimberly J. Cook)
Lessons from the “Lobbying and Policy Change” Project. In Layna Mosley, ed., Interview
Research in Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013, pp. 209–24.
(Beth L. Leech, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, and David C.
Kimball)
Tracking Interest-Group Populations in the US and UK. In Darren Halpin and Grant Jordan, eds.,
The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2012, pp. 141–60. (Grant Jordan, Frank R. Baumgartner, John McCarthy, Shaun Bevan,
and Jamie Greenan)

Incrémentalisme et les ponctuations budgétaires en France. In Philippe Bezes et Alexandre Siné,

eds., Gourverner (par) les finances publiques. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 2011, pp.
299–322. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Martial Foucault, and Abel François)
Interest Groups and Agendas. In L. Sandy Maisel and Jeffrey M. Berry, eds., Oxford Handbook
of American Political Parties and Interest Groups. New York: Oxford University Press,
2010, pp. 519–33.
The Decline of the Death Penalty: How Media Framing Changed Capital Punishment in
America. In Brian F. Schaffner and Patrick J. Sellers, eds. Winning with Words: The
Origins and Impact of Framing. New York: Routledge, 2010, pp. 159–84. (Frank R.
Baumgartner, Suzanna Linn and Amber E. Boydstun)
Patterns of Public Budgeting in the French Fifth Republic: From Hierarchical Control to Multi-
Level Governance. In Sylvain Brouard, Andrew Appleton and Amy Mazur, eds., The
Fifth Republic at Fifty: Beyond Stereotypes. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, pp.
174–90. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Martial Foucault and Abel François)
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in American Policymaking. In
Paul Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2007,
pp. 155–188. (James L. True, Bryan D. Jones, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Friction, Resistance, and Breakthroughs. In Liesbet Heyse, Sandra Resodihardjo, Tineke
Lantink, and Berber Lettinga, eds. Reform in Europe: Breaking the Barriers in
Government. Hampshire (UK): Ashgate, 2006, pp. 193–200.
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and Environmental Policy. In Robert Repetto, ed., Punctuated
Equilibrium and the Dynamics of U.S. Environmental Policy. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2006, pp. 24–46.
Social Movements, the Rise of New Issues, and the Public Agenda. In David S. Meyer, Valerie
Jenness, and Helen Ingram, eds., Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public
Policy, and Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005, pp. 65–86.
(Frank R. Baumgartner and Christine Mahoney)
The following chapters in Clive S. Thomas, ed., Research Guide to US and International Interest
Groups. Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 2004:
– The Origins, Organization, Maintenance, and Mortality of Interest Groups (with Beth
L. Leech), pp. 95–111.
– Criminal Justice Interest Groups (with Michael C. MacLeod), pp. 248–49.
– Education Interest Groups (with Michael C. MacLeod), pp. 221–23.
– Health-Care Interest Groups (with Jeffery C. Talbert), pp. 257–59.
The following chapters in Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones, eds., Policy Dynamics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002:
– Introduction: Positive and Negative Feedback in Politics (Frank R. Baumgartner and
Bryan D. Jones)
– Studying Policy Dynamics (Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones, and John
Wilkerson)
– The Changing Agendas of Congress and the Supreme Court (Frank R. Baumgartner
and Jamie Gold)
– Conclusion (Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones)
Organized Interests and Issue Definition in Policy Debates. In Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A.
Loomis, eds., Interest Group Politics, 6th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional
Quarterly, 2002, pp. 275–92. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki,

Beth L. Leech, and David C. Kimball)

Political Agendas. In Niel J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, eds. International Encyclopedia of
Social and Behavioral Sciences: Political Science. New York: Elsevier Science and
Oxford: Pergamon, 2001, pp. 288–90.
Interest Groups. In Paul Barry Clarke and Joe Foweraker, eds., Encyclopedia of Democratic
Thought. London and New York: Routledge, 2001, pp. 371–74.
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in American Policymaking. In
Paul Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999, pp.
97–115. (Bryan D. Jones, James L. True, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Lobbying Friends and Foes in Washington. In Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis, eds.,
Interest Group Politics, 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1998, pp.
217–33. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech)
Media Attention and Congressional Agendas. In Shanto Iyengar and Richard Reeves, eds. Do
The Media Govern? Politicians, Voters, and Reporters in America. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage, 1997, pp. 355–69. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones and Beth L.
Leech)
The Many Styles of Policymaking in France. In John T.S. Keeler and Martin A. Schain, eds.
Chirac’s Challenge: Liberalization, Europeanization and Malaise in France. New York:
St. Martin’s and London: Macmillan, 1996, pp. 85–101.
Interest Groups and Political Change. In Bryan D. Jones, ed., The New American Politics.
Boulder: Westview Press, 1995, pp. 93–108. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Jeffery C.
Talbert)
Attention, Boundary Effects, and Large-Scale Policy Change in Air Transportation Policy. In
David A. Rochefort and Roger W. Cobb, eds., The Politics of Problem Definition.
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994, pp. 50–66. (Frank R. Baumgartner and
Bryan D. Jones)
France: Science within the State. In Etel Solingen, ed. Between Power and Ethos: Scientists and
the State in Comparative Perspective. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994,
pp. 63–91. (with David Wilsford)
Preface and Epilogue: The Unfinished Research Agenda. In Jack L. Walker, Jr. Mobilizing
Interest Groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991. (with Joel
D. Aberbach, et al.)
Strategies of Political Leadership in Diverse Settings. In Bryan D. Jones, ed., Leadership and
Politics: New Perspectives from Political Science. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,
1989, pp. 114–34
Invited Essays and Other Publications
Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements: A
Retrospective. Forthcoming, 2021. Interest Groups and Advocacy (Joel D. Aberbach,
Frank R. Baumgartner, and Mark A. Peterson)
Forward: Political Actors and the Media. In Peter Van Aelst and Stefaan Walgrave, eds. How
Political Actors Use the Media. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, pp. v–viii.
Analyzing Patterns of Government Attention and What Drives Them: The Comparative Agendas
Project. Introductory essay to a symposium on the Comparative Agendas Project.
Perspectives on Europe 42, 2 (2012): 7-13. (Arco Timmermans and Frank R.
Baumgartner)
What We Can All Learn from Lin Ostrom. 2010. Perspectives on Politics 8, 2: 575–77. Invited

essay as part of a symposium on the work of Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom
– Reprinted in Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School of Political Economy: A
Compendium of Key Statements, Collaborations, and Reactions, Volume 1: Polycentricity
and the Bloomington School (Daniel Cole and Michael McGinnis, eds., Lexington Books,
2015)
“3. Jack L. Walker Jr. 1969. The Diffusion of Innovation Among the American States. American
Political Science Review 63 (September): 880–99. Cited 482 times.” 2006. American
Political Science Review 100, 4 (November): 672. Invited commentary as part of a
review of “The APSR Citation Classics.”
The Growth and Diversity of US Associations, 1956–2004: Analyzing Trends using the
Encyclopedia of Associations. Working paper on my web site. March 29, 2005.
Studying Interest Groups Using Lobby Disclosure Reports. VOX POP (Newsletter of the
Political Organizations and Parties Section of the APSA) Vol. 18, No. 1 (Fall 1999), pp.
1–3. (with Beth L. Leech)
The Policy Agendas Project: A Public Resource for the Systematic Study of Public Policy.
Policy Currents (Newsletter of the Public Policy Section of the APSA) Vol. 9, No. 2
(June, 1999): 12–14. (with Bryan D. Jones) (Also published in PS: Political Science and
Politics, 1999; and at the APSA web site: www.apsanet.org/PS/announcements/)
Lessons from the Trenches: Ensuring Quality, Reliability, and Usability in the Creation of a New
Data Source. The Political Methodologist (Newsletter of the Political Methodology
Section of the APSA) Vol. 8, No. 2 (Spring 1998), pp. 1–10. (Frank R. Baumgartner,
Bryan D. Jones, and Michael C. MacLeod)
L’aide de l’état aux groupes d’intérêt en France: Le cas de l’éducation. Problèmes politiques et
sociaux No. 511 (Paris: La Documentation Française), 1985.
Legal / Criminal Justice / Legislative Testimony / Reports
Expert Report on North Carolina’s Disenfranchisement of Individuals on Probation and Post-
Release Supervision. Submitted May 8, 2020 in the case of Community Success Initiative
v. Moore, No. 19-cv-15941 (N.C. Super.).
Declining Use of the Death Penalty for Offenders 18, 19 and 20 Years of Age. Submitted,
August 1, 2019 as part of the capital appeal of State v. Guzek, Marion County OR, No
17CV08248.
Capital and Non-Capital Murder Prosecutions in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, 2000–
2016. Submitted, March 25, 2019 as part of the capital appeal of Holliday v. State.
Amicus brief to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District regarding racial bias in the
application of the state’s death penalty system. Related case is Cox v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvnia, and Marinelli v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 102 EM 2018; brief filed
Feburary 2019. (co-signed with Catherine M. Grosso and Jules Epstein as lead signatories
and 21 other social scientists)
Amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington regarding racial bias in
application of the state’s death penalty system. Related case is State v. Gregory (no.
88086-7); brief filed January 22, 2018. (co-signed with Catherine Grosso and Jeffrey
Fagan as lead signatories and nine other social scientists). In October, 2018, the Supreme
Court of Washington ruled the death penalty unconstitutional based on racial and
geographic bias, consistent with our brief.

Analyzing Racial Disparities in Traffic Stops Statistics from the Texas Department of Public
Safety. Report to the Texas House of Representatives, Committee on County Affairs,
September 20, 2016. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Leah Christiani, and Kevin Roach)
Amicus brief to the US Supreme Court regarding constitutional defects in the application of the
death penalty. Related case is Tucker v. Louisiana (15-946); brief filed February 29,
2016. (lead author, with 20 signatories)
Racial Disparities in Texas Department of Public Safety Traffic Stops, 2002-2014. Report to the
Texas House of Representatives, Committee on County Affairs, November 18, 2015.
(Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones, Julio Zaconet, Colin Wilson, Arvind
Krishnamurthy)
Analysis of Trespass Stops in Grand Rapids Michigan, 2011-2013. Report for the ACLU of
Michigan as part of legal action alleging racial bias by the Grand Rapids Police
Department. March 5, 2014
Affidavit in support of litigants seeking relief under the NC Racial Justice Act to be tried in
Forsyth County, NC August 8, 2012.
Amicus brief to the US Supreme Court regarding mandatory life without parole sentences for
juveniles, January 17, 2012; related Supreme Court Decision is Miller v. Alabama No.
10–9646, Decided June 25, 2012. (co-signed with Jefferey Fagan lead author and 44
others)
Member, Task Force on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Criminal Justice System, North Carolina
Advocates for Justice, 2010-2012. Our report (see below) led the Attorney General to
create The North Carolina Commission on Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice
System in September 2012. I am not a member of this commission but have consulted
with it.
North Carolina Traffic Stop Statistics Analysis. Report to the North Carolina Advocates for
Justice, 1 February 2012. (with Derek A. Epp) These technical reports were based on
official statistics provided by the NC Department of Justice and relate to possible racial
bias associated with each traffic stop in the state from January 1, 2000 through June
2011. The report was submitted to the Governor, Attorney General, and leaders of both
parties in both chambers of the NC legislature in April 2012. In June 2012, it was leaked
to the press.
Opinion Pieces / Op Eds
The fears of Driving While Black in NC are true. The data prove it. Raleigh News and Observer,
July 27, 2018 (Frank R. Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp and Kelsey Shoub)
What 20 Million Traffic Stops Reveal about Policing and Race in America. SSN Key Findings,
June 2018 (Frank R. Baumgartner and Derek A. Epp)
An American Epidemic: Crimes of Wrongful Liberty. InjusticeWatch.org, April 3, 2018.
(Jennifer E. Thompson and Frank R. Baumgartner)
America’s Failed Efforts to Reform the Death Penalty. SSN Key Findings, February 2018. (Frank
R. Baumgartner, Marty Davidson, Kaneesha Johnson, Arvind Krishnamurthy, and Colin
Wilson)
A few counties are responsible for the vast majority of executions. This explains why.
WashingtonPost.com Monkey Cage, February 1, 2018 (Frank R. Baumgartner, Janet M.
Box-Steffensmeier, and Benjamin W. Campbell)
There’s been a big change in how the news media covers sexual assault. WashingtonPost.com
Monkey Cage, May 11, 2017. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Sarah McAdon)

Arkansas plans to execute 7 men in 11 days. They’re likely to botch one. WashingtonPost.com
Monkey Cage, April 14, 2017 (Frank R. Baumgartner and Kaneesha Johnson)
Does the death penalty target people who are mentally ill? We checked. WashingtonPost.com
Monkey Cage, April 3, 2017 (Frank R. Baumgartner and Betsy Neill)
U.S. executions and death sentences dropped dramatically in 2016 — except in a few hotspots.
WashingtonPost.com Monkey Cage, January 27, 2017. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Arvind
Krishnamurthy and Emily Williams)
Is Congress working as it should? Depends on who you are, by Frank R. Baumgartner and Lee
Drutman, Vox.com, September 15, 2016.
Forty Years of Experience with the “New and Improved” Death Penalty, 1976–2016, The
American Prospect, July 5, 2016.
Study shows racial bias in death penalties in Florida, The Florida Times Union (Jacksonville),
February 5, 2016
Racial bias plagues Florida’s death penalty, The Gainesville (FL) Sun, January 26, 2016 (online),
January 31 (print).
Americans are turning against the death penalty. Are politicians far behind?
WashingtonPost.com Monkey Cage December 7, 2015 (Frank R. Baumgartner, Emily
Williams and Kaneesha Johnson)
Racial bias plagues state’s death penalty, Shreveport Times, September 24, 2015.
The death penalty is about to go on trial in California. Here’s why it might lose.
WashingtonPost.com Monkey Cage, August 5, 2015.
Missouri should abandon death penalty, St. Louis American, July 22, 2015
The number of lethal injections is declining. That’s what history would predict.
WashingtonPost.com Monkey Cage, June 29, 2015.
Differential Policing by Neighborhood, June 11, 2015. TheUrbanNews.com
The Death Penalty: A Symbol of Which Lives Matter, and Which Lives Don’t, April 24, 2015.
90MillionStrong.org
Most death penalty sentences are overturned. Here’s why that matters. WashingtonPost.com
Monkey Cage Blog, March 17, 2015. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Anna W. Dietrich)
North Carolina’s rickety, unreliable death penalty, Raleigh News and Observer, February 14,
2015
NC’s death penalty: Going, going, good riddance. North Carolina Policy Watch, November 18,
2013. Reprinted in Durham Herald-Sun, December 2, 2013 and in the Chapel Hill News
under the title of “Death penalty still failed policy.”
A Half Century after the March on Washington, Little Attention to the Struggles of the Poor.
SSN Key Findings, October 2013. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Max Rose)
Governor must veto RJA repeal, Winston Salem Journal, December 8, 2011
Detecting bias essential in death penalty cases, The Burlington Times-News, November 26, 2011
On the decline: murders and death sentences, Raleigh News and Observer, October 31, 2010.
Death Penalty Moratorium is Not Enough, Chapel Hill News, October 10, 2010.
Time to Commute N.C.’s Death Sentences. Carrboro Citizen, September 20, 2010.
N.C. Should Commute Death Sentences, Herald-Sun, September 16, 2010.
The Death of the Death Penalty at Hand? Asheville Citizen-Times, September 16, 2010.
In N.C., only 20 percent of condemned are executed. Charlotte Observer, March 5, 2010.
Death penalty’s vanishing point? Raleigh News and Observer, January 24, 2010.

Book Reviews
Jones, Bryan D., Sean M. Theriault, and Michelle Whyman. 2019. The Great Broadening: How
the Vast Expansion of the Policymaking Agenda Transformed American Politics.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press.). Perspectives on Politics, forthcoming.
Strach, Patricia. Hiding Politics in Plain Sight: Cause Marketing, Corporate Influence, and
Breast Cancer Marketing. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016). Perspectives on
Politics 16, 1 (2018): 228–229.
Agenda Setting in Comparative Perspective. Review of: Christoffer Green-Pedersen and Stefaan
Walgrave Agenda Setting, eds. Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative
Approach. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014). Perspectives on Politics 14, 2
(2016): 456–60.
The Gatekeepers of International Human Rights; review of “Lost” Causes: Agenda Vetting in
Global Issue Networks and the Shaping of Human Security, by Charli Carpenter (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2014). International Studies Review 17, 4 (2015): 711–13.
Westervelt, Saundra D., and Kimberly J. Cook. Life After Death Row: Exonerees’ Search for
Community and Identity. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2012).
Sociation Today (North Carolina Sociological Association), 11, 1 (Spring/Summer 2013).
Jacques Gerstlé, La Communication politique, 2nd ed. (Paris, Armand Colin, 2008), International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2011.
David Hanley, Party, Society, Government: Republican Democracy in France (Berghahn Books,
2002). French Politics, Society, and Culture 23, 2 (Summer 2005): 150–53.
Stuart N. Soroka, Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada (University of British Columbia, 2002).
Canadian Journal of Political Science 37, 2 (2004): 444.
Christine Musselin, La longue marche des universités françaises (PUF, 2001). French Politics,
Society, and Culture 21, 2 (Summer 2003): 154–56.
Michael S. Lewis-Beck, ed., How France Votes (Chatham House, 2000), French Politics,
Society, and Culture 18, 2 (Summer 2000): 130–32.
Richard L. Hall, Participation in Congress (Yale, 1996), The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science 566 (1999): 177–78.
Graham K. Wilson, Only in America? The Politics of the United States in Comparative
Perspective (Chatham House, 1998) and John W. Kingdon, America the Unusual (St.
Martin’s, 1998) Governance 12 (1999): 495–506.
Vivien A. Schmidt, From State to Market? The Transformation of French Business and
Government. (Cambridge, 1996) American Political Science Review 93 (1999): 229–30.
Hans Keman, ed., The Politics of Problem-Solving in Postwar Democracies. (St. Martin’s, 1997)
Journal of Politics 60 (1998): 1249–51.
Thomas A. Birkland, After Disaster: Agenda-Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events
(Georgetown, 1997), Political Science Quarterly 113 (1998): 516–17.
Edith Archambault, The Nonprofit Sector in France (Manchester, 1997) French Politics and
Society 16 (1998): 49–51.
Olivier Wieviorka, Nous entrerons dans la carrière: De la Résistance à l’exercice du pouvoir
(Seuil, 1994) Contemporary French Civilization 19 (1995): 340–42.
William H. Riker, ed., Agenda Formation (Michigan, 1993) Journal of Politics 57 (1995): 564–
66.
Martin J. Smith, Pressure, Power and Policy: State Autonomy and Policy Networks in Britain
and the United States (Pittsburgh 1994) Governance 7 (1994): 315–6.

David M. Ricci, The Transformation of American Politics: The New Washington and the Rise of
Think Tanks (Yale, 1993) The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 534 (1994): 195–96.
Jack Hayward, ed., De Gaulle to Mitterrand: Presidential Power in France (Hurst, 1993)
Political Studies 41 (1993): 703.
Michael R. Reich, Toxic Politics: Responding to Chemical Disasters (Cornell, 1991)
Comparative Political Studies 25 (1992): 420–23.
David Wilsford, Doctors and the State: The Politics of Health Care in France and the United
States (Duke, 1991) Journal of Politics 54 (1992): 930–33.
David Knoke, Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Economies of Associations
(Aldine de Gruyter, 1990) Journal of Politics 53 (1991): 884–86.
Andrew McPherson and Charles D. Raab, Governing Education: A Sociology of Policy Since
1945 (Edinburgh University Press, 1988) Governance 4 (1991): 223–24.
John L. Campbell, Collapse of an Industry: Nuclear Power and the Contradictions of U.S. Policy
(Cornell, 1988) and Spencer R. Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Harvard,
1988) Journal of Politics 52 (1990): 1021–25.
John T.S. Keeler, The Politics of Neocorporatism in France (Oxford, 1987) and Frank L.
Wilson, Interest-Group Politics in France (Cambridge, 1988) American Political Science
Review 83 (1989): 325–26.
Edward A. Kolodziej, Making and Marketing Arms (Princeton, 1987) Journal of Politics 51
(1989): 786–88.
Annual Meetings, APSA 1983. Politiques et Management Public 1, 4 (Automne 1983): 164–71.
REVIEWS OF MY BOOKS
Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data.
• Comparative policy agendas: a review essay, by Jonathan Drew, Australian Journal of
Political Science, 2020.
Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us about Policing and Race
• Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics (2020), by Michael Leo Owens
• Perspectives on Politics 17, 3 (2019): 892–893, by Doris Marie Provine
• Choice, 56, 5 (January 2019), by D.R. Kavish
• Do You Know Why You Pulled Me Over? by Charles Epp, Washington Monthly,
September/October 2018.
Deadly Justice: A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty

• Conklin, Michael. 2019. Painting a Deceptive Portrait: A Critical Review of Deadly
Justice. New Criminal Law Review 22 (2): 223–231.
• Jochnowitz, Leona Deborah. 2018. The (Uncertain) ‘Withering Away’ of the Death
Penalty Due to Decreasing Popularity and Super-Regulatory Costs. SSRN.com
(December 19). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3304003
• The Champion (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers), August 2018, p. 54,
by Robert Sanger
• Hoyle, Carolyn. 2018. The American death penalty: A flawed institution. Political
Quarterly 89, 3: 517–519.
• Criminal Justice Policy Review 30, 5 (2019): 811-813, by Brandon C. Dulisse

• Choice 55, 9 (May 2018), by J. S. Taylor

• Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Books, March 2018, by Mary Welek Atwell
Agenda Dynamics in Spain

• Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 159 (2017): 174-178, by Jesus M. de
Miguel (review in Spanish)
• Perspectives on Politics 14, 2 (2016): 540-541, by Thomas Jeffrey Miley
• West European Politics 39, 6 (2016): 1347-49, by Luis Bouza García
• European Political Science (2016), by Tevfik Murat Yildirim (Joint review of Politics of
Information and Agenda Dynamics in Spain)
The Politics of Information

• Political Studies Review 15, 1 (2017): 157-158, by Tevfik Murat Yildirim
• European Political Science (2016), by Tevfik Murat Yildirim (Joint review of Politics of
Information and Agenda Dynamics in Spain)
• Governance 29, 4 (2016): 581-83, by Jacob S. Hacker
• Review Symposium in Perspectives on Politics 14, 2 (2016): 498-506, with
commentaries by Kuhika Gupta, Kathleen Knight, Eric Patashnik, and Scott E. Robinson
• Congress & the Presidency (2016), by Gisela Sin
• Public Administration 94, 4 (2016): 1155–57, by Peter Mortensen
• Symposium in Interest Groups and Advocacy 4, 3 (2015): 297-310, with reviews by
Edward T. Walker, Matt Grossman, and Anne S. Binderkrantz
• Cognitive Systems Research 40 (2016): 114–115, by George Kampis
• Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 15, 1 (2015): 447–449, by Phyllis Wentworth
• Low-Information Lawmakers: Why today’s Congress can no longer cope with complex
problems. Washington Monthly by Lee Drutman, June/July/August 2015
• Choice 52, 12 (August 2015), by L. T. Grover
Lobbying and Policy Change

• Fraussen, Bert. Interest Group Politics: Change and Continuity. Journal of European
Integration 34, 5 (2012): 523-529
• Gouvernement et Action Publique 2 (2012): 189-192, by Hélène Michel (review in
French)
• Perspectives on Politics 9, 1 (2011): 178-80, by McGee Young
• Government Information Quarterly 28, 2 (2011): 291–292, by Julia Proctor
• Saurugger, Sabine. 2010. Influence et démocratie: Nouvelles études sur les groupes
d’intérêt. Revue Française de Science Politique 60, 6: 1182–1185 (review in French)
• Journal of Politics 72, 4 (2010): 1252-67, by Thomas T. Holyoke
• Political Science Quarterly 125, 1 (2010), by Susan Webb Yackee
• Journal of Legislative Studies 16, 2 (2010): 270–271, by Christine DeGregorio
• Public Administration 88, 3 (2010): 895-898, by Caelesta Braun-Poppelaars
• Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 35, 3 (2010): 433-438, by David Randall
• Regulation (Fall 2010), pp. 48-49, by John Samples
• APSA Legislative Studies Section Newsletter Jan 2010, by Caitlyn O’Grady
• Choice (March 2010), by S. L. Harrison

The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence

• Public Administration 89, 2 (2011): 698–717, by David A. Rochefort.
• Review Symposium in Perspecitves on Politics 7, 4 (2009): 921-30. Reviews by James
A. Morone; Robert Y. Shapiro; Marie Gottschalk; and Austin Sarat
• The International Journal of Press/Politics 14 (2009): 134-140, by James N. Druckman
• Journal of Politics 71 (2009): 1604-1606, by Rosalee A. Clawson
• International Journal of Public Opinion Research 21, 4 (2009): 547-550, by Robert M.
Bohm
• Criminal Justice Policy Review 20, 4 (2009): 507-508, by Tiffany Bergin
• Theoretical Criminology 13, 2 (2009): 259-62 by Alexander J. Blenkinsopp
• Law and Politics Book Review 17, 8 (2008), by Priscilla H. M. Zotti
• Choice (August 2008), by M. A. Foley.
• Research Penn State, 2008, by Vicki Fong
• Contemporary Sociology 37, 5 (2008): 495, Take Note short reviews.
Politics of Attention
• ThinkProgress.org, February 28, 2011, by Matthew Yglesias
• Acta Politica 43 (2008): 504-507, by Joost Berkhout
• Political Communication 25 (2008) 330-331, by Kathleen Knight
• Konan Law Review 47, 3 (2007): 125-166, by Nishiyama Takayuki (in Japanese)
• Perspectives on Politics 4, 3 (2006): 598-9, by Paul E. Johnson
• Political Science Quarterly 121, 3 (2006) 515-516, by Scott E. Robinson
• Social Forces 85, 3 (2006) 1042-43, by John C. Scott
• Choice (March 2006), by M. C. Price
• Significance 37 (2006): 139, by Ya-Hui Kuo
Basic Interests
• American Political Science Review 93, 4 (1999): 967–968, by Richard Smith
• Journal of Politics 61, 3 (1999): 844–848, by Anthony Nownes
• Canadian Journal of Political Science 32, 3 (1999): 596–597, by Harold Walker
• Political Science Quarterly 114, 1 (1999): 177–178, by Ken Kollman
• Australian Journal of Political Science 34, 2 (1999): 285, by Clive Beauchamp
• The Public Opinion Quarterly 63, 1 (1999): 151-154, by John R. Wright
• Choice, October 1998, by M. E. Ethridge
Aagendas and Instability

• Bossy, Thibault. 2010. La mise sur l’agenda des problèmes publics saisie par ses niveaux
d’analyse : des espaces discrets aux équilibres ponctués Revue Française de Science
Politique 60, 6: 1178–1181 (review in French)
• Graham, Hugh Davis. 1996. Policy History Without Historians. Journal of Policy History
8, 2: 273–278
• Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72, 1 (Spring 1995): 233, by Donald L.
Shaw
• American Political Science Review 88, 3 (1994): 752–753, by Chris Bosso

• Journal of Politics 56, 4 (1994): 1164–1166, by Jeffrey Cohen

• Choice, September 1993, by D. R. Imig
Conflict and Rhetoric in French Policymaking

• NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 26 (1993): 150–152, by Alex P. Darrow.
• International Review of Administrative Sciences 49 (1993): 336-338, by Marie
Widemanova
• Journal of Politics 53, 2 (1991): 583–586, by David Wilsford
• NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 23 (1990): 329–330.
• American Political Science Review 84, 4 (1990): 1416–1417, by John Keeler
• Social Science Quarterly 71, 4 (1990): 879, by Jurg Steiner
• Choice 1990, by M. G. Roskin
• The Public Historian 12, 3 (1990): 155-156, by David Mock
• Politiques et Management Public 8, 1 (1990): 157–159, by Luc Rouban (review in
French)
• Perspectives on Political Science 19, 4: (1990): 233–234, by Vincent E. McHale
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS REFERRING TO MY RESEARCH

Oregon Supreme Court, 365 Or 695 (S066119) State v. Arreola-Botello, November 15, 2019,
stating that a police officer may not conduct a search following a traffic stop if that search
is unrelated to the purpose of the original stop. The Court noted our research on the racial
disparities in such searches.
Arizona Supreme Court, CR-11-0107-AP, August 16, 2018, Justice Winthrop concurring in part
and dissenting in part in Arizona v. Bush, on the issue of geographic concentration of
death sentences by county.
United States Supreme Court, 14-7153 and 17-7245, June 28, 2018, Justice Breyer in his dissents
to the denial of cert in Jordan v. Mississippi and Evans v. Mississippi, on three separate
issues: increasing delays on death row before execution, high proportions of homicides
that are death-eligible, and the increasing geographic concentration of executions in just a
few counties.
Iowa Supreme Court, No. 16-0735, June 28, 2018, Iowa v. Ingram, on the use of traffic stops as
an “unregulated tool in crime control”.
United States Supreme Court, 14-7955, June 29, 2015, Justice Breyer in his dissent in Glossip v.
Gross, on the rate at which death sentences are overturned.
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
Driving while Black (and Male, and Young, and...): Evidence of Disparities at the Margin and
the Intersection. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science
Association, Boston, MA, August 30–September 2, 2018. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Leah
Christiani, Derek Epp, Santiago Olivella, Kevin Roach, and Kelsey Shoub)
Policing the Powerless: How Black Political Power Reduces Racial Disparities in Traffic Stops
Outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago IL, April 5–8, 2018. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Leah Christiani,
Derek Epp, Kevin Roach, and Kelsey Shoub)

Why Congressional Capacity Is Not Enough. Paper presented at the State of Congressional
Capacity Conference, New America Foundation, Washington, DC, March 1–2, 2018.
Author meets critics panel on Deadly Justice: A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty. Annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Philadelphia, November 15–18, 2017.
Stasis and Punctuation in State Tax Policy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August 31-September 3, 2017.
(Herschel F. Thomas, Frank R. Baumgartner, and Derek A. Epp)
Emotional Responses to Racially Disparate Policing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Political Science Association, August 31-September 3, 2017. (D’Andra
Orey, Frank R. Baumgartner, and Stuart Soroka)
Assessing Racial Disparities in Traffic Stops. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, August 31-September 3, 2017. (Frank R.
Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp, Leah Christiani, Kevin Roach, and Kelsey Shoub)
Stasis and Punctuation in State Tax Policy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Comparative Agendas Project, Edinburgh, June 15-17, 2017. (Herschel F. Thomas, Frank
R. Baumgartner, and Derek A. Epp)
Policing the Powerless: How Black Political Power Reduces Racial Disparities in Traffic Stop
Outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, IL, April 6–8, 2017. (Kelsey Shoub, Frank R. Baumgartner, and
Derek A. Epp)
Author Meets Critics Panel on The Politics of Information. Annual meeting of the Public
Management Research Association, Aarhus, Denmark, 23 June 2016.
Geographic Disparities in US Capital Punishment. Paper presented at the Duke Journal of
Constitutional Law and Public Policy Spring 2016 Symposium: Death Penalty in
America Post-Glossip, Durham, NC, February 19, 2016. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Woody
Gram, Kaneesha Johnson, Arvind Krishnamurthy, and Colin Wilson)
Budgeting in Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes. Paper presented at the Political Budgeting
across Europe conference, Texas A&M University, December 2015 (Frank R.
Baumgartner, Marcello Carammia, Derek A. Epp, Ben Noble, Beatriz Rey, and Tevfik
Murat Yildirim)
Images of an Unbiased Interest System. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American
Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, September 2–6, 2015. (David Lowery,
Frank R. Baumgartner, Joost Berkhout, Jeffrey M. Berry, Darren Halpin, Marie Hojnacki,
Heike Klüver, Beate Kohler-Koch, Jeremy Richardson, and Kay Lehman Schlozman)
Budgeting in Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes. Paper presented at the annual meetings of
the Comparative Agendas Project, Lisbon, June 2015. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Petra
Bishtawi, Marcello Carammia, Derek A. Epp, Ben Noble, Beatriz Rey, and Tevfik Murat
Yildirim)
Punctuated Equilibrium in Public Budgeting in Authoritarian and Democratic Brazil. Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago,
IL, April 16–19, 2015. (Beatriz Rey, Derek A. Epp, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Policy Competition and Friction. Paper presented at the workshop on The Politics of Non-
Proportionate Policy Response, ECPR Joint Workshops, Warsaw Poland, 29 March – 2
April 2015.

The Mayhem of Wrongful Liberty: Documenting the Crimes of True Perpetrators in Cases of
Wrongful Incarceration. Paper presented at the Innocence Network Conference, Portland
OR, April 11-12 2014. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Amanda Grigg, Rachelle Ramìrez,
Kenneth J. Rose, and J. Sawyer Lucy)
How Robust are Distributional Findings of Punctuated Equilibrium in Public Budgets? Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago
IL, April 2–6, 2014. (Derek A. Epp and Frank R. Baumgartner)
The Diversity of Internet Media: Utopia or Dystopia? Paper presented at the annual meetings of
the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago IL, April 2–6, 2014. (Bryan J.
Dworak, John Lovett, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
The Hierarchy of Victims in Death Penalty Processing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Wilmington DE, March 13–15,
2014. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Seth Kotch, and Isaac Unah)
The Two Worlds of Lobbying: Washington Lobbyists in the Core and on the Periphery. Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago,
August 29–September 1, 2013. (Tim LaPira, Trey Thomas, and Frank R. Baumgartner).
Finding the Limits of Partisan Budgeting. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
Association Française de Science Politique, Paris, July 9-11, 2013. (Derek A. Epp, John
Lovett, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Explaining Punctuations. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Comparative Agendas
Project, Antwerp, Belgium, June 27–29, 2013. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Derek A. Epp)
All News is Bad News: Newspaper Coverage of Politics in Spain. Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the Council for European Studies, Amsterdam, June 24–26, 2013. (Frank R.
Baumgartner and Laura Chaqués Bonafont).
Contraverting Expectations: New Empirial Evidence on Congressional Lobbying and Public
Policy. Paper presented at the SUNY Albany Law School Conference, Under the
Influence? Interest Groups, Lobbying, and Campaign Finance, March 8–9, 2013.
When Is There a Single Media Agenda? Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest
Political Science Association, Chicago, April 12–14, 2012. (John Lovett and Frank R.
Baumgartner)
Searching for Election Effects in US Policymaking and Spending. Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 12–14, 2012.
(Derek A. Epp, John Lovett, and Frank R. Baumgartner)
Who Cares About the Lobbying Agenda? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, August 30–September 3, 2011.
(David C. Kimball, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth L.
Leech, and Bryce Summary)
Developing Policy-Specific Conceptions of Mood: The United States. Paper presented at the
Annual Meetings of the Comparative Agendas Project, Catania, Italy, June 23–25, 2011.
(Mary Layton Atkinson, Frank R. Baumgartner, K. Elizabeth Coggins, and James A.
Stimson)
Legislative Productivity and Divided Government in the US and France. Paper presented at the
Council of European Studies, Barcelona, June 20, 2011. (Frank R. Baumgartner, Sylvain
Brouard, Emiliano Grossman, Sebastien G. Lazardeux, and Jon Moody)
Mood and Agendas: Developing Policy-Specific Conceptions of Mood. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, March 30–April

3, 2011. (Mary Layton Atkinson, Frank R. Baumgartner, Elizabeth Coggins, and James
A. Stimson)
Explaining the Surprising Decline of Capital Punishment in North Carolina. Paper presented at
the annual meetings of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, March 18,
2011, Raleigh, NC. (Frank R. Baumgartner and Isaac Unah)
Ideas and Policy Change. Paper presented at the Governance Symposium on Policy Paradigms
and Social Learning Suffolk University, February 11, 2011, Boston.
Retrospective on 20 years after the publication of Jack L. Walker, Jr.’s Mobilizing Interest
Groups in America, annual meetings of the Southern Political Science Association, New
Orleans, LA, January 8–11, 2011.
The Decline of Capital Punishment in North Carolina. Paper presented at the annual meetings of
the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA, November 17–20, 2010.
(Frank R. Baumgartner and Isaac Unah)
Advocates and Interest Representation in Policy Debates. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1–4, 2010.
(Marie Hojnacki, Kathleen Marchetti, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, David C.
Kimball, and Beth L. Leech)
Author meets critics panel on Lobbying and Policy Change, annual meetings of the Southern
Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, January 7–10, 2010.
Taking Advantage of “Crisis.” Paper presented at the workshop on Politics in Times of Crisis,
University of Heidelberg, Germany, December 4–5, 2009.
Dynamic Threshold Modeling of Budget Changes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, November
5–7, 2009. (Bryan D. Jones, László Zalányi, Frank R. Baumgartner, and Péter Érdi)
Measuring the Size and Scope of the EU Interest Group Population. Paper prepared for the 5th
ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Germany, September 10–12, 2009. (Arndt Wonka,
Frank R. Baumgartner, Christine Mahoney, Joost Berkhout)
The Structure and Stability of Lobbying Networks in Washington. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 2–5, 2009. (with
Timothy M. LaPira and Herschel F. Thomas III)
Comparing the Topics of Front-Page and Full-Paper Stories in the New York Times. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago,
April 2–5, 2009. (with Michelle Wolfe, Amber E. Boydstun)
Author meets critics panel on The Decline of the Death Penalty, annual meetings of the
Academy for Criminal Justice Sciences, Boston, March 13, 2009.
Partisanship and Political Attention in France: Agenda Dynamics and Electoral Incentives. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston,
MA, August 28–31, 2008. (with Sylvain Brouard and Emiliano Grossman)
Tracing Interest-Group Populations in the US and UK. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August 28–31, 2008. (with
Grant Jordan, John McCarthy, Shaun Bevan, and Jamie Greenan)
Advocacy Behavior and Conflict Expansion in Policy Debates. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August 28–31,
2008. (with Marie Hojnacki, Jeffrey M. Berry, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech)

Policy Attention in State and Nation: Is Anyone Listening to the Laboratories of Democracy?
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,
Boston, MA, August 28–31, 2008. (with David Lowery and Virginia Gray)
Legislative Productivity in Comparative Perspective: An Introduction to the Comparative
Agendas Project. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Rennes, April 11–16,
2008. (Sylvain Brouard, Frank Baumgartner, John Wilkerson, Gerard Breeman, Christian
Breunig, Laura Chaqués Bonafont, Christopher Green-Pedersen, Will Jennings, Peter
John, Bryan Jones, David Lowery, Arco Timmermans, and Shaun Bevan)
The Structure of Washington Lobbying Networks: Mapping the Ties that Bind. Paper presented
at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago IL, April
3–6, 2008. (With Timothy M. La Pira and Herschel F. Thomas III)
The Discovery of Innocence: Americans and the Death Penalty. Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Chicago, March 21,
2008.
Patterns of Public Budgeting in the French Fifth Republic: From Hierarchical Control to Multi-
Level Governance. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political
Science Association, Chicago IL, August 30–September 2, 2007. (with Martial Foucault
and Abel François)
Washington: The Real No-Spin Zone. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American
Political Science Association, Chicago IL, August 30–September 2, 2007. (with Jeff
Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth Leech, and David Kimball)
Federal Policy Activity and the Mobilization of State Lobbying Organizations. Paper presented
at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago IL,
August 30–September 2, 2007. (with Virginia Gray and David Lowery)
The Discovery of Innocence and the Decline of the Death Penalty. Paper presented at the
research conference on issue framing, American University, Washington DC, June 21,
2007. (with Suzanna De Boef, and Amber E. Boydstun)
Public Budgeting in EU Commission: A Test of the Punctuated Equilibrium Thesis. Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the European Union Studies Association, Montreal,
Canada, May, 2007. (with Martial Foucault and Abel François)
Does Money Buy Power? Interest Group Resources and Policy Outcomes. Paper presented at the
annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 12–15,
2007. (with Jeff Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth Leech, and David Kimball)
Congressional Influence on State lobbying Activity. Paper presented at the annual meetings of
the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 12–15, 2007. (with Virginia
Gray and David Lowery)
Goals, Salience, and the Nature of Advocacy. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 31–September 3, 2006.
(with Jeff Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth Leech, and David Kimball)
Essays on Policy Dynamics. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research,
Nicosia, Cyprus, April 25–30, 2006. (with Bryan D. Jones, Heather Larsen-Price, James
L. True, and John Wilkerson)
Punctuated Equlibrium in French Budgeting Processes. Paper presented at the European
Consortium for Political Research, Nicosia, Cyprus, April 25–30, 2006. (with Martial
Foucault and Abel François)
The Structure of Policy Conflict. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political

Science Association, Chicago, April 20–23, 2006. (with Jeff Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth
Leech, and David Kimball)
Framing Capital Punishment: Morality, Constitutionality, and Innocence, 1960–2004. Paper
presented in a plenary address by Baumgartner to the annual meeting of the National
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Austin Texas, October 27–30, 2005. (with
Suzanna De Boef, Amber E. Boydstun, Frank E. Dardis, and Fuyuan Shen)
A Model of Choice for Public Policy. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest
Political Science Association, Chicago, April 7–10, 2005. (with Bryan D. Jones)
The Determinants and Effects of Interest-Group Coalitions. Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 2–5, 2004.
(with Christine Mahoney)
An Evolutionary Factor Analysis Approach to the Study of Issue-Definition. Paper presented at
the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 15–18,
2004. (with Suzanna De Boef and Amber E. Boydstun)
Representation and Agenda-Setting. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American
Political Science Association, August 28–31, 2003. (with Bryan D. Jones) (Nominated,
best paper, Public Policy Section.)
The Co-evolution of Groups and Government. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Political Science Association, August 28–31, 2003. (with Beth L. Leech and
Christine Mahoney)
Symbols and Advocacy. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, April 3–6, 2003. (with Marie Hojnacki)
Gaining Government Allies: Groups, Officials, and Alliance Behavior. Paper presented at the
2002. (with Christine Mahoney)
The Demand Side of Lobbying: Government Attention and the Mobilization of Organized
Interests. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, April 25–28, 2002. (with Beth L. Leech, Timothy La Pira, and
Nicholas A. Semanko)
Policy Macro-Punctuations: How the US Government Budget Evolved. Paper presented at the
conference on Budgetary Policy Change: Measures and Models, Nuffield College,
Oxford, March 8–9, 2002. (with Bryan D. Jones and James L. True)
Patterns and Punctuations in the US Budget. Paper presented at the conference on Budgetary
Policy Change: Measures and Models, Nuffield College, Oxford, March 8–9, 2002. (with
Bryan D. Jones and James L. True)
Social Movements and the Rise of New Issues. Paper presented at the Conference on Social
Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy at the University of California, Irvine,
January 11–13, 2002.
Issue Advocacy and Interest-Group Influence. Paper presented at the First General Conference,
European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR 2001), University of Kent at
Canterbury, England, September 6–8, 2001. (with Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki,
Beth L. Leech, and David C. Kimball)
Policy Dynamics. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, April 18–21, 2001. (with Bryan D. Jones)
Where is the Public in Public Policy? Paper presented at the conference on Political
Participation: Building a Research Agenda, Princeton University, October 12–14, 2000.

(with Beth L. Leech)

Advocacy and Policy Argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American
Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 30–September 3, 2000. (with
Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth L. Leech, and David C. Kimball)
Lobbying Alone or in a Crowd: The Distribution of Lobbying in a Sample of Issues. Paper
April 27–29, 2000. (with Beth L. Leech)
The Evolution of American Government, 1947–1999. Paper presented at the annual meetings of
the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September 2–5, 1999. (with
Bryan D. Jones)
Business Advantage in the Washington Lobbying Community: Evidence from the 1996 Lobby
Disclosure Reports. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political
Science Association, Chicago, April 15–17, 1999. (with Beth L. Leech)
Trends in the Production of Legislation, 1949–1994. Paper presented at the annual meetings of
the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 28–31, 1997. (with
Bryan D. Jones, Glen S. Krutz, and Michael C. Rosenstiehl)
Lobbying with Governmental Allies. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest
Political Science Association, Chicago, April 10–12, 1997. (with Beth L. Leech)
New Issues and Old Committees: Jurisdictional Change in Congress, 1947–93. Paper presented
at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 10–
12, 1997. (with Bryan D. Jones and Michael C. Rosenstiehl)
Normative Perspectives on Interest Groups and Lobbying. Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, November 6–8,
1996. (with Nicole Canzoneri)
Problems in the Study of Lobbying. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American
Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 29–September 1, 1996. (with
Beth L. Leech)
Shepsle Meets Schattschneider: Conflict Expansion in Congress. Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 29–
September 1, 1996. (with Bryan D. Jones and Michael C. Rosenstiehl)
Tractability and Triviality in Interest-Group Studies. Paper presented at the annual meetings of
the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 18–20, 1996. (with Beth L.
Leech)
The Shape of Change: Incrementalism and Shifts in Federal Budgeting, 1946–1994. Paper
April 18–20, 1996. (with Bryan D. Jones and James L. True)
Producing Legislation in Congress. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American
Political Science Association, Chicago, August 31–September 3, 1995. (with Bryan D.
Jones, Jeffery C. Talbert, and Glen Krutz)
Policy Agendas in the United States since 1945. Poster presented at the annual meetings of the
Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 6–8, 1995. (with Bryan D. Jones,
Jeffery C. Talbert, Beth L. Leech, Michael C. Rosenstiehl, and James L. True)
Committee Jurisdictions in Congress, 1980–1991. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Political Science Association, New York, NY, September 1–4, 1994. (with
Bryan D. Jones, Michael C. Rosenstiehl, and Ronald Lorenzo)
Public Interest Lobbies in France and the United States. Paper presented at the meetings of the

International Political Science Association, Berlin, Germany, August 21–25, 1994.

The Legislative Importance of Non-Legislative Hearings. Paper presented at the annual meetings
of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 14–16, 1994 (with Bryan D.
Jones and Jeffery C. Talbert)
Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 3–6, 1992. (with Bryan D.
Jones)
Congressional Committees and Jurisdictional Dynamics. Paper presented at the annual meetings
of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 8–11, 1992. (with Bryan D.
Jones and Jeffery C. Talbert)
The Dynamics of Bias. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science
Association, Washington, DC, August 29–September 1, 1991. (with Bryan D. Jones)
Attention and Valence in Agenda-Setting. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, November, 1990. (with Jeffery C.
Talbert and Bryan D. Jones)
Towards the Quantitative Study of Agenda-Setting. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 30–September 2,
1990. (with Bryan D. Jones)
Interest Groups and Agenda-Setting in America. Paper presented at the Conference on Organized
Interests and Democracy, VIth Feltrinelli International Colloquium, Cortona, Italy, May,
Keeping Nuclear Power Off the Political Agenda in France. Paper presented at the Workshop on
the Comparative Political Economy of Science: Scientists and the State, sponsored by the
UCLA Center for International Studies and Overseas Programs, Los Angeles, CA,
January 12–14, 1990.
Explaining Variation in Policy Styles in France. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September 1–3, 1989.
Shifting Images and Venues of a Public Issue: Explaining the Demise of Nuclear Power in the
United States. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science
Association, Atlanta, GA, September 1–3, 1989. (with Bryan D. Jones)
Image and Agenda in Urban Politics. Paper presented at the Second annual Conference on Public
Policy, Department of Public Administration and Policy, State University of New York at
Albany, Albany, NY, April, 1989. (with Bryan D. Jones)
Changing Image and Venue as a Political Strategy. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 14–15, 1989. (with Bryan D.
Jones)
Changing Images and Venues of Nuclear Power in the United States. Paper presented at the
Creating and Maintaining Consensus over Nuclear Power in France: A Preliminary Report.
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association,
Washington, DC, September 1–4, 1988.
Policy Communities in France: The Strategic Implications of Conflict and Consensus. Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago,
September 3–6, 1987.
Survey Research and Membership in Voluntary Associations. Paper presented at the National

Election Studies Conference on Groups and American Politics, Center for Advanced
Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, CA, January 16–17, 1987. (with Jack L.
Walker)
Education Policy Making and the Interest Group Structure in France and the United States: A
Commentary on Pluralism and Corporatism. Paper presented at the annual meetings of
the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 28–31, 1986. (with
Jack L. Walker)
A New Question on Group Affiliations in the 1986 NES Pilot Study. Report to the Board of
Overseers of the National Election Study, May 20, 1986. (with Jack L. Walker)
Politicians and Technicians in the Policy Process: Education Policy in France, 1983–1984. Paper
April 10–12, 1986.
French Interest Groups and the Pluralism-Corporatism Debate. Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA, August 29–
September 1, 1985.
Preemptive and Reactive Spending in U.S. House Races. Paper presented at the annual meetings
of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 20–23, 1983. (with Edie N.
Goldenberg and Michael W. Traugott)
Chair, discussant, or paper presenter at the following meetings, American Political Science
Association, 1985–2019; Midwest Political Science Association, 1983, 1986–87, 1989–
2019; European Consortium for Political Research, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2015;
Southern Political Science Association, 1996–97, 2010, 2011; Council on European
Studies, 2010, 2011, 2013; International Political Science Association, 1994; Western
Political Science Association, 1988, 1999; Southwestern Social Science Association,
1990; Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2009; National
Conference of Black Political Scientists, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2018; American Society of
Criminology 2010, 2017; Comparative Agendas Project annual meetings 2006 (Aarhus),
2007 (Paris), 2008 (Barcelona), 2009 (The Hague), 2010 (Seattle), 2011 (Catania), 2012
(Reims), 2013 (Antwerp), 2014 (Konstanz), 2015 (Lisbon), 2016 (Geneva), 2017
(Edinburgh), 2018 (Amsterdam), 2019 (Budapest) 2020 (Aarhus).
EXTERNAL GRANTS AND AWARDS

Grants Submitted / Pending
-
Grants Funded / Awarded
National Science Foundation, Developing Policy-Specific Measures of Public Opinion, award
number SES 1024291. $157,989 for the period of July 1, 2010 to August 31, 2013. Jim
Stimson, PI; Frank R. Baumgartner, Co-PI.
National Science Foundation, Framing Policy Debates in the European Union, proposal
1102978. $300,000 awarded for the period of August 15, 2011 to July 31, 2013. Christine
Mahoney (University of Virginia), PI; Frank R. Baumgartner, Co-PI; Heike Kluever,
consultant.
Visiting International Scholar, Catalonia Ministry of Education and Research, funding for eight
month visit to the University of Barcelona, December 2011–July 2012 (with Laura
Chaqués Bonafont, University of Barcelona)

Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS), Stanford University. Expenses
for a dozen scholars from the social sciences, computer science, government, and
industry to travel to Stanford and attend a one-week workshop: Tracking, Transcribing,
and Tagging Government: Building Digital Records for Computational Social Science,
June 21–25, 2010. Frank R. Baumgartner and James T. Hamilton (Duke University), PIs
Agence nationale de la recherche (ANR) (France), Les médias, les partis et les agendas
politiques de la 5e République. Emiliano Grossman, Frank Baumgartner, Sylvain
Brouard, Manlio Cinalli, Abel François, Martial Foucault, Pierre Lascoumes, Nicolas
Sauger. Project funded in October 2008.
European Science Foundation (European Union), “The Politics of Attention: West European
Politics in Times of Change.” Proposal with subprojects in Denmark, Netherlands, United
Kingdom, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, and Spain, with Christoffer Green-Pedersen and
others. Submitted April 2007. Projects have been funded starting in 2008 for Denmark,
Spain, United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
National Science Foundation, “New Computer Science Applications in Automated Text
Identification and Classification for the Social Sciences.” Grant # SES 0719703, $55,722,
September 1, 2007 to August 31, 2008. Principal investigator, with John McCarthy.
Camargo Foundation Residential Fellowship for Spring 2007. This covers the period of January
to May 2007. The Foundation maintains a residence for scholars in Cassis, France.
National Science Foundation, “Nanotechnology and Science Federalism.” Grant # NER
0608986, $85,000, August 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007. Co-PI. Paul Hallacher (Penn State) is
PI. Additional Co-PI’s are Roger Geiger, Henry Foley, and Creso Sa.
National Science Foundation dissertation award for Amber Boydstun, “Doctoral Dissertation
Research in Political Science: Agenda Setting and Issue Framing Dynamics on Front
Page News.” Grant # SES 0617492, $10,907, July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007.
Pennsylvania Policy Agendas Database. State of Pennsylvania appropriation to Temple
University for $480,000 over three years, 2005–08. Penn State subcontract for $77,888
awarded March 2006. Additional funds of $26,600 awarded September 2007; $5,500 in
2008; $22,500 in 2009. Joe McLaughlin, Temple University, principal investigator.
National Science Foundation, “Collaborative Research: Database Development for the Study of
Public Policy.” Grant # SBR 0111611, $690,719, January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2007.
Co-Principal Investigator, with Bryan D. Jones.
• Policy Agendas Project focus of NSF press release, January 2005; see
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100599&org=NSF.
National Science Foundation, REU supplemental award for award 0111611, $15,000, awarded
October 12, 2005.
National Science Foundation, “Lobbying and Issue-Definition.” Grant # SBR 0111224,
$235,930, July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2004. Principal Investigator. Co-Investigators are: Jeff
Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth Leech, and David Kimball.
Pew Charitable Trusts / University of Wisconsin, “Lobbying and Television Advocacy,”
$36,503, June 1 to December 31, 2002. With Marie Hojnacki and Ken Goldstein.
National Science Foundation, “Collaborative Research on Lobbying.” Grant # SBR 9905195,
$80,569, August 1, 1999 to December 31, 2000. Principal Investigator. Co-Investigators
are: Jeff Berry, Marie Hojnacki, Beth Leech, and David Kimball.
Norwegian Science Foundation (Norges forskningsråd), “Agenda Setting and Public Policy” to
support teaching a graduate seminar at the University of Bergen, in fall 1998. (69,300

Norwegian Krone, with Richard L. Matland.) Awarded December 1997.

National Science Foundation dissertation award for Beth L. Leech, “Lobbying Strategies of
American Interest Groups,” # SBR 9631232, $8,476, July 15, 1996 to July 14, 1997
National Science Foundation, “Policy Agendas in the United States since 1945.” Grant # SBR
9320922, $245,000, March 15, 1994 to February 28, 1998. (with Bryan D. Jones)
National Science Foundation, Research Opportunities for Undergraduates, supplements to the
Policy Agendas grant, $12,500 per year, 1994, 1995. (with Bryan D. Jones)
French Government Travel Grant ($1,000), 1988.
Bourse Chateaubriand, French Government Dissertation Grant, 1983–84.
Awards
C. Herman Pritchett Best Book Award from the Law and Courts Section of the American
Political Science Association, 2019 (for Suspect Citizens)
Lijphart / Przeworski / Verba Dataset Award, APSA Section on Comparative Politics, 2019 (for
the Comparative Agendas Project)
Best reviewer award, Journal of European Public Policy, 2018
Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, inducted 2017
International Public Policy Association, 2017 award for the best book published in 2015 in
English on the topic of public policy (for The Politics of Information).
Louis Brownlow Book Award, National Academy of Public Administration, 2016 (for The
Politics of Information).
Samuel J. Eldersveld Career Achievement Award, APSA Section on Political Organizations and
Parties, 2011.
Hometown Hero Award, News Talk 1360 WCHL Chapel Hill NC, concerning career
achievement award listed above, July 2011.
Leon D. Epstein Outstanding Book Award, APSA Section on Political Organizations and Parties,
2010 (for Lobbying and Policy Change).
Article selected for inclusion in special issue reprinting the most outstanding articles for the 20th
anniversary issue of JPART, 2010, for “A Model of Choice for Public Policy.”
Gladys M. Kammerer Award, American Political Science Association, for the best publication in
the field of US national policy, 2008 (for The Decline of the Death Penalty).
Best Instructional Political Science Web Site, for www.policyagendas.org, from the Information
Technology and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, 2007.
Mentoring Award from the Public Policy Section of the American Political Science Association,
2005. For mentoring younger members of the profession.
Winner, vote by the members of the Public Policy Section of the American Political Science
Association for Agendas and Instability in American Politics; top vote-getter in an
election where members of the section were asked to identify the top five policy-related
books or articles written in the past ten years. See Policy Currents 11 (2), Summer 2001,
p. 14.
Aaron Wildavsky Award from the Public Policy Section of the American Political Science
Association, 2001, for Agendas and Instability in American Politics. The Wildavsky
Award recognizes work of lasting impact on the field of public policy.
Phi Beta Kappa, The University of Michigan, 1980.

INTERNAL GRANTS, AWARDS, AND SCHOLARSHIPS

Senior Faculty Research and Scholarly Leave, UNC-CH, 2020–21.
Faculty Fellowship, Institute of African American Research, UNC-CH, Fall 2015.
Charles Robson Award for Excellence in Graduate Instruction, UNC-CH, Department of
Political Science, 2013.
Welch Alumni Relations Award, Pennsylvania State University, College of the Liberal Arts,
2008.
Best Graduate Student Advisor, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Political Science,
Spring 2005. Based on a vote by current graduate students.
Faculty Scholar Medal in Social Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, 2005.
Distinction in the Social Sciences Award, Pennsylvania State University, College of the Liberal
Arts, 2003.
“Legislative Lobbying,” $5,000 grant from the Program in American Politics, Texas A&M
University (with Beth L. Leech), 1998.
“Lobbying Congress,” $7,500 grant from the Texas A&M Office of Associate Provost for
Research, Program to Enhance Scholarly and Creative Activities (with Beth L. Leech),
1997.
“Interest Groups and Lobbying in American Politics,” $3,000 grant from the Program in
American Politics, Texas A&M University (with Beth L. Leech), 1996.
Jordan Faculty Fellow, Center for Presidential Studies, Texas A&M University, 1994, 1995.
“Policy Agendas in Congress Since 1945,” $7,500 grant from the Texas A&M Office of
Associate Provost for Research, Program to Enhance Scholarly and Creative Activities
(with Bryan D. Jones), 1993.
International Curriculum Development Grant ($1,100, with Richard Golsan), 1993.
Honors Program Curriculum Development Grant ($6,000, with Bryan D. Jones, Nehemia Geva,
and Alex Mintz), 1993.
Center for Presidential Studies Grant ($1,000, with Bryan D. Jones), 1993.
Center for Energy and Mineral Resources Grant, Texas A&M University ($12,500, with Bryan
D. Jones) 1989.
College of Liberal Arts Summer Research Award ($7,000), 1988.
International Enhancement Grant, Texas A&M University ($1,200), 1988.
Center for Energy and Mineral Resources Grant, Texas A&M University ($3,000) 1988.
Nominee, Gabriel Almond Prize for best dissertation in comparative politics, 1986.
Rackham Pre-Doctoral Fellowship, The University of Michigan, 1985–86.
Rackham Dissertation Grant, The University of Michigan, 1983–84.
Teaching Fellow, The University of Michigan, 1981–83.
Rackham First Year Fellowship, The University of Michigan, 1980–81.
DOCTORAL STUDENTS ADVISED AND ACADEMIC / POLICY PLACEMENTS

Kelly Tzoumis** (Texas A&M, 1992; DePaul University, tenured)
Jeffery C. Talbert** (Texas A&M, 1994; University of Kentucky School of Medicine, tenured)
Shalini Vallabhan* (Texas A&M, 1995; VP for Government Relations, American Cancer
Society Cancer Action Network)
Rachel Gibson** (Texas A&M, 1995; University of Manchester, England, tenured)
Billy Ray Hall** (Texas A&M, 1995; Baylor, now an attorney in private practice)
Beth L. Leech* (Texas A&M, 1998; Rutgers, tenured)

Michael C. MacLeod* (Texas A&M, 1998; Hewitt Associates)

James L. True* (Texas A&M, 1998; Lamar, tenured, retired)
Doris McGonagle* (Texas A&M, 1998; Blinn College, tenured)
Glen Krutz*** (Texas A&M, 1999; Oklahoma State University, Dean of Arts and Sciences)
Nicole Canzoneri** (Texas A&M, 1999; Alexandria, VA schools)
Xingsheng Liu** (Texas A&M, 1999; Texas A&M)
Valery Hunt*** (University of Washington, 2002)
Jens Feeley*** (University of Washington, 2002; NASA)
Matthieu Dalle** (Penn State, French, 2002; University of Louisville)
Suzanne Robbins** (SUNY, Stony Brook, 2003; George Mason University)
Chad Lavin** (Penn State, 2003; SUNY Buffalo (English), tenured)
Andrew Martin** (Penn State, Sociology, 2004; Ohio State University, tenured)
Maria Inclan** (Penn State, 2005; CIDE, Mexico City, tenured)
Christine Mahoney*** (Penn State, 2006; University of Virginia, tenured)
Amber Boydstun* (Penn State, 2008; University of California, Davis, tenured)
Tim LaPira** (Rutgers University, 2008; James Madison University, tenured)
Manuele Citi** (European University Institute, Florence, 2009; Copenhagen Business School)
Sam Workman** (University of Washington, Seattle, 2009; University of Oklahoma, tenured)
Caelesta Poppelaars** (Leiden University, Netherlands, 2009; Leiden)
Erika Martin** (Yale, 2009; SUNY Albany, Public Health)
Paul Rutledge** (West Virginia University, 2009; University of West Georgia, tenured)
Julianna Sandel Pacheco** (Penn State 2010; University of Iowa, tenured)
Stéphanie Yates** (Université de Laval, Quebec City, Canada, 2010; University of Ottowa)
Joost Berkhout** (Leiden University, Netherlands, 2010; University of Amsterdam)
Chris Faricy ** (UNC 2010; Syracuse University, tenured)
Shaun Bevan* (Penn State, 2011; University Edinburg, tenured)
Jiso Yoon* (Penn State, 2011; University of Kansas, tenured)
Isabelle Guinaudeau** (Sciences Po Bordeaux, 2011; CNRS / Sciences Po Bordeaux)
Cecilia Cannon** (Graduate Institute of International and Development Stuides, Geneva, 2012)
Jon Moody* (Penn State 2013; Pew Charitable Trusts)
Mary Layton Atkinson* (UNC 2013; UNC-Charlotte)
C. Elizabeth Coggins** (UNC 2013; Colorado College)
Roy Gava** (PhD 2014, University of Geneva; University of St. Gallen)
Petya Alexandrova** (PhD 2014, Leiden University; EU Asylum Support Office, Malta)
Tinette Schnatterer** (PhD 2014, Sciences Po Bordeaux; CNRS Sciences Po Bordeaux)
Trey Thomas** (PhD 2015, University of Texas at Austin; University of Texas at Arlington)
Tyler Hughes** (PhD 2015, University of Oklahoma; Cal State Northridge)
Derek Epp* (PhD 2015, UNC; University of Texas at Austin)
Nick Howard** (PhD 2015, UNC; Auburn University at Montgomery)
Greg Wolf** (PhD 2015, UNC; Drake University)
Stephen Weir ** (PhD 2015, Trinity University, Dublin)
John Lovett* (PhD 2016, UNC; Wake Forest)
Ehud Segal** (PhD 2017, Hebrew University, Israel; Haifa University, post-doc)
Carmen Huerta* (PhD 2017, UNC Sociology; UNC Office of Student Affairs)
John Wachen** (PhD 2018, UNC Education Policy; Chicago Ill. education consultant)
Zoila Ponce de Leon** (PhD 2018, UNC; Washington and Lee)

Annelise Russell** (PhD 2018, University of Texas; University of Kentucky)

Andrew Tyner** (PhD 2018, UNC; Center for Open Science)
Emily Carty** (PhD 2018 UNC; University of Salamanca, Spain)
Kelsey Shoub* (PhD 2018, UNC; University of South Carolina)
Milad Minooie** (PhD 2018, UNC Mass Communications)
Mike Fliss** (PhD 2019 UNC Epidemiology; post-doc 2019–20, UNC-Chapel Hill)
Amy Sentementes** (PhD 2019 UNC; Penn State)
Serge Severenchuk** (PhD 2019 UNC; post-doc 2019–20, Dartmouth)
Leah Christiani* (PhD 2020 UNC; University of Tennessee)
Beatriz Rey** (ABD Syracuse University; current student)
Emily Wager* (PhD expected 2020 UNC, current student)
Kevin Roach* (PhD expected 2021 UNC, current student)
Kaneesha Johnson** (ABD, Harvard, current student)
Christian Caron* (PhD expected 2021, UNC, current student)
Philip Warncke** (UNC, current student)
Jonathan Schlosser** (UNC, School of Journalism, current student)
Hailey Sherman* (UNC, current student)
* indicates committee chair or co-chair

** indicates committee member
*** indicates another student from the Policy Agendas Project or the Advocacy and Public
Policy Project with whom I have worked closely
SENIOR HONORS THESES ADVISED AT UNC

Sally Stanley, on the effect of District Attorneys on capital punishment, 2020
Sydney Johnson, on the cost implications of LWOP prison sentences, 2020
Sarah McAdon, on the outcomes of traffic tickets in North Carolina, 2019
Olivia O’Malley, on the legal treatment of sex trafficking crimes in North Carolina, 2019
Luke Beyer, on the outcomes of high-level felonies in North Carolina, 2019
Libby Doyle, on the geographical distribution of racial inequities in North Carolina, 2019
Betsy Neill, on mental illness and the death penalty, 2017*
Wallace Gram, on the geographic distribution of executions in the US, 2015
Anna W. Dietrich, on the conditional probability of execution given a death sentence, 2014*
BJ Dworak, comparing traditional news media with social media, 2013*
Alex Loyal, on trends in state legislation concerning the death penalty, 2013
Lindsey Stephens, on the impact of the creation of a statewide Indigent Defense Services office
on the use of capital punishment in North Carolina, 2012
Max Rose, on changing media frames associated with poverty, 2012
Alissa Ellis, on North Carolina’s use of the death penalty with inmates suffering from mental
illness, 2011
(* = Winner of the departmental award for the best senior thesis that year)
COAUTHOR RELATIONSHIPS
• Faculty mentors: Jack L. Walker, Jr., Edie N. Goldenberg, Michael W. Traugott, Joel D.
Aberbach, John Creighton Campbell
• Graduate student colleagues: Mark A. Baskin, Nina P. Halpern

• Faculty colleagues: Bryan D. Jones, James A. Stimson, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki,
David C. Kimball, Suzanna De Boef / Linn, Frank E. Dardis, Fuyuan Shen, Martial Foucault,
Abel François, John Wilkerson, Virginia Gray, David Lowery, Arco Timmermans, Sylvain
Brouard, Gerard Breeman, Laura Chaqués Bonafont, Christopher Green-Pedersen, Will
Jennings, Peter John, Grant Jordan, John McCarthy, Emiliano Grossman, Arndt Wonka,
Péter Érdi, László Zalányi, Isaac Unah, Seth Kotch, Ben Noble, Marcello Carammia, Darren
Halpin, Beate Kohler-Koch, Jeremy Richardson, Kay Lehman Schlozman, D’Andra Orey,
Stuart Soroka, Santiago Olivella, Lee Drutman, Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, David Wilsford,
Saundra D. Westervelt, Kimberly J. Cook, Peter B. Mortensen, Michiel Neytemans, Stefaan
Walgrave, Frédéric Varone, Christopher Wlezien, Rens Vliegenthart, Anna M. Palau, Pascal
Sciarini, Anke Tresch, Paul Delamater, Steve Marshall, Charles Poole, Whitney Robinson
• Graduate students: Jeffery C. Talbert, Beth L. Leech, Michael C. Rosenstiehl / MacLeod,
James L. True, Glen S. Krutz, Nicole Canzoneri, Timothy M. La Pira, Herschel F. Thomas
III, Christine Mahoney, Amber E. Boydstun, Heather A. Larsen-Price, Shaun Bevan,
Christian Breunig, Jamie Greenan, Michelle Wolfe, Joost Berkhout, Kathleen Marchetti,
Mary Layton Atkinson, K. Elizabeth Coggins, Sebastien G. Lazardeux, Jon Moody, Bryce
Summary, Derek A. Epp, John Lovett, Amanda Grigg, Rachelle Ramìrez, J. Sawyer Lucy,
Beatriz Rey, Petra Bishtawi, Tevfik Murat Yildirim, Heike Klüver, Kelsey Shoub, Leah
Christiani, Kevin Roach, Benjamin W. Campbell, Jamie Gold, Andrew W. Martin, Chris
Koski, Paul Rutledge, Edward T. Walker, Adriana Bunea, Bayard Love, Petya Alexandrova,
Mike Fliss
• Undergraduate students: Ronald Lorenzo (Texas A&M), Nicholas A. Semanko (Penn
State), Bryan J. Dworak, Woody Gram, Kaneesha R. Johnson, Arvind Krishnamurthy, Colin
P. Wilson, Max Rose, Anna W. Dietrich, Emily Williams, Betsy Neill, Sarah McAdon,
Marty Davidson, Julio Zaconet, Emma Johnson, Clarke Whitehead, Alisa Mastro, Kate Bell,
Luke Beyer, Tara Boldrin, Libby Doyle, Lindsey Govan, Jack Halpert, Jackson Hicks,
Katherine Kyriakoudes, Cat Lee, Mackenzie Leger, Sarah McAdon, Sarah Michalak,
Caroline Murphy, Eyan Neal, Olivia O’Malley, Emily Payne, Audrey Sapirstein, Sally
Stanley, Kathryn Thacker, Alex Bennett, (UNC-Chapel Hill)
• Non-academics: Kenneth J. Rose, Jennifer E. Thompson, Tim Lyman
INVITED TALKS AND CONFERENCES

Kings College (London), May 21, 2020 (to be rescheduled)
Arizona State University, Pi Sigma Alpha lecture, February 22, 2020
Notre Dame University, November 8, 2019
University of Tennessee, book workshop, September 20, 2019
University of Texas at Austin, September 13, 2019
International Conference on Public Policy, Montreal, Keynote Speaker, June 27, 2019
University of Stuttgart (Germany), June 3, 2019
University of Konstanz (Germany), May 27, 2019
University of St Gallen (Switzerland), May 21, 2019
UNC-Chapel Hill, Odum Institute 95th Anniversary Speakers Series, April 22, 2019
UNC-Greensboro, February 7, 2019
Reed College, book workshop, December 12, 2018
North Carolina Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Criminal Justice System
(NC-CRED), Raleigh, NC, August 24, 2018

Chapel Hill, NC, Public Library, August 13, 2018

Johns Hopkins University, conference on policing and race, May 17–18, 2018
Wayne State University School of Law, conference on congressional oversight, March 23, 2018
New America Foundation, conference on the state of congressional capacity, Washington DC,
March 1–2, 2018
University of Michigan, January 19, 2018
Harvard University, November 6, 2017
Wake Forest University School of Law, November 3, 2017
University of Arizona, October 26, 2017
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, September 27, 2017
Leiden University, The Hague Campus, Netherlands, September 21, 2017
Aarhus University, Denmark, September 19, 2017
University of Antwerp, Belgium, September 14, 2017
ESADE Business School, Madrid, Spain, January 12, 2017
National Academy of Public Administration, Washington DC, November 17, 2016
NC State University, Raleigh, graduate seminar on public policy, October 10, 2016
UNC-Chapel Hill THINKposium, August 17, 2016
Columbia University, “Politics at Work” book workshop, August 15, 2016
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, May 19, May 26, June 16, 2016
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), Mexico City, May 4, 2016
Distinguished Lecturer in the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, National Science
Foundation, October 14, 2015
UNC-Chapel Hill School of Journalism, September 11, 2015
UNC-Chapel Hill Institute of African-American Research, September 9, 2015
University of Glasgow, Scotland, June 12, 2015
Duke University, Ralph Bunche Summer Institute, June 4, 2015
University of Michigan, May 8, 2015
University of Texas, May 6, 2015
University of Oklahoma, April 30, 2015
University of Houston, February 6, 2015
Princeton University, November 10, 2014
University of Minnesota, November 6, 2014
Center for the Study of the American South, UNC-CH, October 28, 2014
University of California, Irvine, January 30, 2014
University of Geneva, January 27, 2014
University of Michigan, September 13, 2013
University of Malta, May 21, 2013
University of Pennsylvania, March 21, 2013
SUNY at Buffalo, March 8-9, 2013
University of South Carolina, March 1, 2013
University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal, February 6, 2013
University of Maryland, November 30, 2012
Appalachian State University, November 6, 2012
University of Geneva, September 5, 2012
UNC-Chapel Hill Conference on Policy Change in Complex Urban Systems, Keynote, March
31, 2012

Georgetown University, March 26, 2012

Oxford University, All Souls College, March 8, 2012
Aarhus University, Denmark, January 26, 2012
Sciences Po Bordeaux, December 1, 2011
UNC-Charlotte, November 10, 2011
Santa Fe Institute, August 2011
University of Florida, July 14, 2011
SUNY Albany, April 24, 2011
University of Michigan, 100th anniversary of the political science department, April 7, 2011
UCLA, February 27, 2011
Washington State University, February 25, 2011
Suffolk University School of Law, Symposium on Peter Hall, February 11, 2011
Trinity College, Dublin, December 13, 2010
Johns Hopkins University, November 4, 2010
National Press Club, Washington DC, debate on Lobbying and Policy Change, September 16,
2010
Hewlett Foundation, San Francisco, symposium on public advocacy, July 2, 2010
Stanford University, CASBS workshop on digital government records, June 21–25, 2010
Sciences Po, Paris, May 19, 2010
University of Milan, Italy, May 12, 2010
Institut National de l’Audiovisuel, Paris France, May 3, 2010
University of Laval, Quebec, April 16, 2010
Northwestern University conference on “Text as Data,” March 11–12, 2010
Kalamazoo College workshop on complexity in the social sciences, March 5, 2010
University of North Carolina, Charlotte, February 18, 2010
University of Heidleberg, conference on “Politics in Times of Crisis,” December 3–4, 2009
Witness to Innocence (Death penalty advocacy group), Philadelphia, PA, October 23–24, 2009
University of North Carolina, Department of Public Policy, October 2, 2009
University of Leiden, Den Haag campus, June 16, 2009
University of Mannheim, Germany, MZES, June 8, 2009
University of Lausanne, Switzerland, May 18, 2009
University of Geneva, Switzerland, May 18, 2009
University of Manchester, England, May 15, 2009
University of Leiden, Netherlands, May 8, 2009
Northwestern University, NICO (complexity series), April 1, 2009
University of Michigan, RWJ Health Policy Scholars Program, March 3, 2009
University of Southern California, February 18, 2009
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Harrisburg PA, January 23–24, 2009
Sciences Po, Paris, Roundtable on US Elections, January 19, 2009
Sciences Po, Paris, Social Movement Effects on Public Policy, January 5, 2009
Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IDC, Herzliya, Israel, December 14–21, 2008
SPIRIT / Sciences Po, Bordeaux, France, November 28, 2008
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, November 7, 2008
University of Antwerp, October 29, 2008
Wageningen University, NL, keynote speaker, Agriculture in Transition, October 28, 2008
University of Antwerp, workshop on US-EU lobbying, October 23–24, 2008

University of Washington, Seattle, American Politics series, October 10, 2008

Cevipof / Sciences Po, Paris, France, Groupe Argent et Politique, June 23, 2008
SPIRIT / Sciences Po, Bordeaux, France, June 9, 2008
Cevipof / Sciences Po, Paris, France, “Pôle Action Publique” series, May 14, 2008
Syracuse University workshop on US-EU lobbying studies, April 24–25, 2008
Yale University, April 15, 2008
Wayne State University, Detroit, March 20, 2008
CONNEX workshop on lobbying, University of Mannheim, Germany, March 6–8, 2008
University of North Carolina, February 15, 2008
University of Washington, Seattle, November 2, 2007
Harvard University, Graduate School of Education, Askwith Education Forum, October 4, 2007
University of Antwerp, September 20–21, 2007
University of Aberdeen, July 1, 2007
University of Barcelona, June 14, 2007
University of Aarhus, Denmark, June 8, 2007
Netherlands Institute of Government, The Hague, keynote speech, May 23, 2007
University of Geneva, May 7, 2007
Oxford University, March 6, 2007
World Congress Against the Death Penalty, Paris France, February 1–3, 2007
University of Newcastle, January 25–26, 2007
Université de Montréal, November 18, 2006
Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, October 27, 2006
University of Newcastle, England, May 3–4, 2006
UCLA Law School, Conference on Capital Punishment, April 8, 2006
University of Manchester, England, March 17, 2006
Mount St. Mary’s University, Maryland, February 23, 2006
University of Wisconsin, Madison, February 10, 2006
Indiana University, January 27, 2006
University College, London, England, School of Public Policy, Distinguished Visiting Speaker,
January 16–20, 2006
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Austin Texas, October 28, 2005
Yale University, Aspen Conference on Climate Change, October 6–8, 2005
University of Aarhus, Denmark, Workshop on Comparative Agenda-Setting, July 1–2, 2005
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, June 15, 2005
University of Manchester, England, June 14, 2005
Centre de Sociologie des Organisations (CSO–CNRS), Paris, France, June 10, 2005
University of Leiden, Netherlands, Workshop on Reform Miracles, May 27–28, 2005
University of Exeter, England, May 18, 2005
Cevipof / Sciences Po, Paris, France, “Pôle Action Publique” series, May 11, 2005
University of Leiden, Netherlands, Workshop on Interest Groups in the EU, April 14–16, 2005
University of Utrecht, School of Governance, Netherlands, March 17, 2005
University of Antwerp, Belgium, March 15, 2005
University of Mannheim, Germany, Center for European Social Research, January 24, 2005
University of Aarhus, Denmark, January 21, 2005
University of Trento, Italy, January 19, 2005
European University Institute, Florence, Italy, November 22, 2004

University of Aberdeen, Scotland, November 19, 2004

University of Leiden, Netherlands, June 10–12, 2004
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, May 24–June 4, 2004
University of North Carolina, American Politics Research Group, April 2, 2004
University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Conference on Management Strategy and the
Business Environment, March 26–27, 2004
Harvard University, Conference on The Transformation of American Politics: Policies,
Institutions, and Participation, March 5–6, 2004
University of Kentucky, Martin School of Public Policy, January 23, 2004
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, December 15–19, 2003
Rutgers University, November 21, 2003
University of Arizona, Conference on Research Policy as an Agent of Change, October 10–11,
2003
Pennsylvania State University, College of Communications, September 26, 2003
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, August 18–19, 2003
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 24th Annual Capital Punishment Training
Conference, Airlie Conference Center, Warrenton, VA, July 17–20, 2003
Yale University, School of Forestry, Conference on Punctuated Equilibrium Models of
Environmental Policymaking, June 30, 2003
The Justice Project, Washington DC, May 15, 2003
University of Michigan, Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellows Program, April 10, 2003
Pennsylvania State University, Hazelton Campus, November 7, 2002
University of Michigan, Conference on Social Movements and Organizations, May 10–11, 2002
West Virginia University, April 19, 2002
Nuffield College, Oxford University, England, Conference on Budgetary Policy Change:
Measures and Models, March 8–9, 2002
University of California, Irvine, Conference on Social Movements, Public Policy, and
Democracy, January 11–13, 2002
University of Chicago, May 21, 2001
University of Kentucky, April 13, 2001
Temple University, March 14, 2001
Columbia University, January 26, 2001
Harvard University, November 3, 2000
Princeton University, Conference on Political Participation: Building a Research Agenda,
October 13–14, 2000
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, May 15–19, 2000
University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, April 10, 2000
Pennsylvania State University, Department of French, February 28, 2000
Western Michigan University, Sam Clark Lecturer, March 15–16, 1999
University of California, Santa Barbara, February 12, 1999
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, October 1998
University of Bergen, Norway, October 1998
University of Texas School of Public Health, October 2, 1997
Harvard University Conference on Civic Engagement, September 26–28, 1997
University of Michigan, 5th Annual Jack L. Walker Memorial Conference of Political Affairs:
The Politics (or Un-Politics) of the Underclass and Unemployed, March 20, 1992

UCLA Workshop on Comparative Political Economy of Science, January 1990

Feltrinelli Foundation Conference on Organized Interests and Democracy, Cortona, Italy, 1990
LEGAL EDUCATION TRAININGS PRESENTED

Fair and Just Prosecution, DA workshop on capital punishment, Durham NC, December 6, 2019
National Police Accountability Project, Durham NC, October 17, 2019
NC NAACP, Raleigh NC, December 7, 2018
American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, August 3, 2018
NC Committee on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Criminal Justice System (NC-CRED),
Wake Forest University School of Law, November 3, 2017
NC Association of District Court Judges, Asheville NC, October 5, 2016
UNC School of Government, training for judges, April 6, 2016
UNC School of Government, Racial Equity Network (public defenders), July 24, 2015
North Carolina Public Defenders and Investigators, Greensboro NC, May 15, 2015
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AND MEMBERSHIP

University / College / Department service at UNC-Chapel Hill:
University
Faculty Co-Chair, Campus Safety Commission, 2019–20
Faculty Council (elected position), 2012–19
Carolina Summer Reading Program Selection Committee, 2013–14; Chair, 2014–15
Member, review team, Institute for African American Research, Spring 2016
Faculty Affiliate, Institute of African American Research, 2014–
Office of Undergraduate Research, Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF)
selection committee, 2018
College of Arts and Science
Member, Advisory Board, Center for the Study of the South, 2016–
Member, Advisory Committee, Department of Public Policy, 2019–2022
Adjunct Professor of Public Policy, 2019–
Member, Dean’s Faculty Diversity Advisory Group, 2016–19
Chair, Student Learning Outcomes for General Education Courses Committee, 2017–18
Co-Chair, Diversity Task Force, 2015–16
Member, Interdisciplinary Grants Awards Committee, 2013
Member, Dean’s Task Force on Faculty Diversity, 2010–11
Department of Political Science
Director of PhD Placement, 2014–17, 2018–; interim Placement Director, Fall 2012
Member, post-tenure review committees, 2010–13, 2014–17; Chair 2012–13, 2019–20
Member, Committee on Faculty Mentoring (2016–18)
Diversity Liaison, 2011–17
Chair, Diversity Affairs and Recruitment, 2010–17 (Member, 2009–10)
Chair, American Politics Talent Search Committee, 2015–16
Chair, Dawson Chair Search Committee, 2016–17
Member, Strategic Planning (SWOT) Committee, 2016–17
Director of Graduate Admissions, 2013–14
Member, Salary Review Committee, 2011–12, 2014–15

Member or chair, ad hoc faculty recruitment committees, 2009–15, 2016–17

Member, internal evaluation (promotion) committees, 2013–14, 2016–17
Member, best MA thesis committee, 2013, 2020; best graduate student publication award
committee, 2015
Editorial boards
Policy Studies Journal, 2003 –
Journal of European Public Policy, 2004 –
Public Administration, 2008 –
Journal of Public Policy, 2010 –
Gouvernement et Action Publique, 2010 –
Interest Groups and Advocacy, 2011–
Governance, 2012 –
French Politics, Society, and Culture, 2013 –
West European Politics, 2015–
Politics, Groups, and Identies, 2017–
Interdisciplinary Political Studies, 2017–
International Review of Public Policy, 2018–
Political Research Quarterly, 2006–14
American Journal of Political Science, 2006–09
Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 2006–10
Journal of Politics, 1993–2001
Series editor, Palgrave Macmillan series on Comparative Studies of Political Agendas, with
Laura Chaqués Bonafont, Christoffer Green Pedersen, Frédéric Varone, and Arco
Timmermans. Publications began in 2012, as listed below:
– Eva-Maria Euchner. 2019. Morality Politics in a Secular Age: Strategic Parties and
Divided Governments in Europe.
– Laura Chaqués Bonafont, Anna M. Palau, and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2015. Agenda
Dynamics in Spain.
– Peter John, Anthony Bertelli, Will Jennings, and Shaun Bevan. 2013. Policy Agendas in
British Politics.
– Isabelle Engeli, Christoffer Green-Pedersen and Lars Thorup Larsen, eds. 2012. Morality
Politics in Western Europe: Parties, Agendas and Policy Choices.
Book review board, French Politics, Society, and Culture (formerly French Politics and
Society), 1997 – 2012
Tenure and promotion reviews for the following colleges and universities: Aberdeen (Scotland),
Alabama-Birmingham, Arizona, Arizona State, Australian National, Brandeis, British
Columbia (Canada), California at Berkeley, California at Los Angeles, California at
Riverside, California at San Diego, Chicago, Colorado at Denver, Colorado at Boulder,
Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Denver, Duke, East Carolina, Edinbourg (Scotland),
Georgia, Georgia State, Georgetown, Harvard, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel),
Johns Hopkins, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Lamar, London School of
Economics (UK), Malta (Malta), Marquette, Maryland, Massachusetts, Memphis, Miami,
Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana State, New School for Social
Research, Ohio, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Potsdam (Germany), Pittsburgh,

Princeton, Purdue, Reed, Roosevelt, Rutgers, SciencesPo Paris (France), Southampton

(UK), SUNY-Albany, SUNY-Buffalo, St. John Fisher College, Syracuse, Tel Aviv
(Israel), Temple, Texas at Austin, Texas at Dallas, Villanova, Virginia, Washington,
Wellesley, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Yale
Manuscript reviewer, proposal reviewer, or consultant for:
Journals: American Political Science Review; Perspectives on Politics; PS; American
Journal of Political Science; Journal of Politics; Polity; Political Research Quarterly;
American Politics Quarterly; Journal of Theoretical Politics; Public Choice; Social
Science Quarterly; Social Forces; Social Problems; Legislative Studies Quarterly;
Journal of Legislative Studies; Congress and the Presidency; Interest Groups and
Advocacy; Presidential Studies Quarterly; Political Behavior; Party Politics; Journal of
Information Technology and Politics; Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law; State
Politics and Policy Quarterly; State and Local Government Review; Local Government
Studies; Electoral Studies; Political Communication; World Politics; Comparative
Politics; Comparative Political Studies; European Union Politics; Comparative
European Politics; Journal of Common Market Studies; Canadian Journal of Political
Science; Scandinavian Political Studies; Public Administration Review; Policy and
Politics; Public Administration; Administration and Society; Governance; Politics and
Governance; Regulation and Governance; Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory; Urban Affairs Review; Government and Policy; Economics and Politics;
Journal of Policy History; Human Welfare; Journal of Public Policy; Journal of
European Public Policy; West European Politics; Journal of European Politics; Acta
Politica; Policy Studies Journal; Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis; Policy Studies
Review; Review of Policy Research; Political Science Research and Methods; Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics; Southeastern Political Review; Politics and
Policy; Australian Journal of Political Science; Research and Politics; Applied
Behavioral Science Review; International Review of Administrative Sciences; Wetlands;
Environmental Politics; Global Environmental Politics; Journal of Environmental Policy
and Planning; International Planning Studies; Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management; Women and Politics; Milibank Quarterly; Journal of International
Business Studies; Business and Politics; International Migration Review; Education
Evaluation and Policy Analysis; Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory;
Politics; The Social Science Journal; Social Science Research; Cambridge Review of
International Affairs; Review of International Political Economy; Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology; Criminology; American Journal of Criminal Justice;
International Journal of Applied Criminal Justice; Journal of Experimental Criminology;
International Journal of Police Science and Management; Police Quarterly; Journal of
Global Governance; KOME; Big Data and Society; Gouvernement et Action Publique;
American Sociological Review; Science; Science Advances; Sociological Imagination;
Journal of the Center for Policy Analysis and Research; Social Work in Public Health
University Presses: Princeton, Chicago, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Cornell, California,

Michigan, Pittsburgh, Kansas, State University of New York, New York University, Ohio
State, Georgetown, Manchester (UK), Brookings Institution
Commercial and other Publishers: HarperCollins, Westview, Longman, Routledge, St.

Martin’s, Allyn & Bacon, Congressional Quarterly, Haworth Press, Resources for the
Future Press, Palgrave Macmillan
Funding Agencies: National Science Foundation (US), Social Science Research Council
(UK), British Academy, European Social Research Council, European Research Council,
European Science Foundation, Social Science and Humanities Research Council
(Canada), Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences, Irish Academy of
Science, National Science Foundation (Switzerland), Research Grants Council (Hong
Kong), Hungarian Scientific Research Fund, Isreali Science Foundation, Council for the
Earth and Life Sciences (Netherlands), Research Foundation – Flanders (Belgium),
Danish Council for Independent Research, University of Milan (Italy), Australian
Research Council, Agence Nationale de la Recherche (France), Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (Japan), Agency for Management of University and Research
Grants (AGAUR) (Catalonia), Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Millenium Science
Initiative (Government of Chile), Austrian Science Fund, MacArthur Foundation,
Spencer Foundation, Earhart Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts
Camargo Foundation, selection review board, 2009–14
Other: Educational Testing Service, Decision Insights, Inc., Handbook of Decision-Making
National Science Foundation:
Member, Committee of Visitors, Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, 2020
Interdisciplinary Behavioral and Social Science Research review panel, 2016
Distinguished Lecturer, SBE Division, 2015
Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI) panel, 2009
Workshop on Cyberinfrastructure Needs in the Social Sciences, October 22, 2004
Chair, Committee of Visitors, Political Science Program, 2004
IGERT Proposal review panel, 2003
IGERT Preproposal review panel, 2002
Political Science advisory panel, 2000–02
Outside evaluations:
University of Glasgow, Policy Scotland external advisory board, 2013–2018
Political Science Department, Purdue University, October 2015
Political Science Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, January 2008
Political Science Department, Graduate Programs, Western Michigan University,
December 2005
Political Science Department, Syracuse University, October 2005
Political Science Department, University of British Columbia, Canada, September 2005
Political Science Department, Michigan State University, Spring 2004
M.A. in Public Policy Program, SUNY-Stony Brook, October 1999
Professional Service and Association Work
American Political Science Association:
Association-wide assignments
Special Projects Fund Selection Committee, 2018
Vice-President, 2015–16

Member, APSR editor selection committee, 2014–15

Member, Lasswell Award Committee, 2012 (for best dissertation in public policy)
Member, Nominating Committee, 2004
Chair, Nominating Committee, 2003
Chair, EE Schattschneider Award Committee, 2002 (for best dissertation in American
politics)
Section on Public Policy
Best paper on comparative public policy committee, 2012, 2013
Short Course on the Comparative Policy Agendas Project, annual meetings, August 30,
2011. (with Bryan D. Jones and others)
President, 2008–09
President-elect (section organizer), 2007–08 (29 panels)
Short Course on Teaching Public Policy, workshop on comparative approaches, annual
meetings, August 27, 2008. (with Kent Weaver)
Member, selection committee for editor, Policy Studies Journal, 2008
Short Course on the Comparative Policy Agendas Project, annual meetings, August 30,
2006. (with Bryan D. Jones, John Wilkerson, and others)
Member, Aaron Wildavsky Award selection committee, 2005–06
Short Course on the Policy Agendas Project, annual meetings, August 31, 2005. (with
Bryan D. Jones, John Wilkerson, and others)
Short Course on the Policy Agendas Project, annual meetings, August 27, 2003. (with
Bryan D. Jones, John Wilkerson, and others)
Member, Executive Council, 1997–2000
Member, Nominating Committee, 2000
Short Course on Using the Policy Agendas Project in Your Research, annual meetings,
August 30, 2000 (with Bryan D. Jones)
Chair, Aaron Wildavsky Award selection committee, 1997–98
Section on Political Organizations and Parties
Chair, Samuel Eldersveld Career Achievement Award Committee, 2019
Member, Leon Epstein Award committee for best book, 2011
Member, Selection committee for special issue of Party Politics, 2010
Chair, Samuel Eldersveld Career Achievement Award Committee, 2008
Chair, 2003–05
Member, Emerging Scholar Selection Committee, 2002
Member, Nominating Committee, 1999–2000
Division on Politics and Society in Western Europe
Program Chair, annual meetings, 1998 (18 panels)
Conference Group on French Politics and Society
Program organizer, 1993–97 (2 to 4 panels per year)
Member, Stanley Hoffman Award for the best article on French politics, 2009
Midwest Political Science Association:

Member, Best Poster Award Committee, 2010
Member, Patrick J. Fett Award Committee, 2008
Member, Selection Committee for Editorship of the AJPS, 2004
Member, Committee on the Annual Program, 1996–97

Program co-chair, annual meetings, 1995 (approx. 300 panels and 2,000 participants)
Southern Political Science Association:
Member, Joseph L. Bernd Best Journal of Politics Paper Award Committee, 2018
Member, Malcolm Jewell Award Committee for best paper by a graduate student
presented at the 2010 meetings
Chair, Section on Interest Groups, annual meetings, 2002 (8 panels)
Chair, Section on Interest Groups, annual meetings, 1996 (5 panels)
Association Française de Science Politique:
Comité de direction, groupe argent et politique (2005–10)
Other:
Chair, Charles Levine memorial book prize selection committee, International Political
Science Association, committee on Structures and Organization of Government,
to recognize a distinguished book in the field of comparative public
administration, 2005–06
Member, Nominating Committee, Midwest Public Administration Caucus, 2005
Member, National Election Studies 1997 Pilot Study Planning Committee
Member of: American Political Science Association; Midwest Political Science Association;
Conference Group on French Politics and Society, APSA Organized Sections on Public
Policy, Race and Ethnic Politics, and Political Organizations and Parties
Community Service:
Member, Board of Directors, Healing Justice Project, Washington DC, 2015–2019
Pro-bono consulting for various civil rights, death penalty, and other legal and advocacy
causes, 2010–
References available on request

Exhibit 10
May 7, 2020 Affidavit submitted by Diana Powell,

Founder, CEO and Executive Director of Justice Served
N.C., Inc. in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No.
19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF filSTICE
COUNTY OF WAKE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Docket No. 19-cv-15941
COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE;

filSTICE SERVED NC, INC.; WASH AW A Y
UNEMPLOYMENT; NORTH CAROLINA
STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP;
TIMOTHY LOCKLEAR; DRAKARUS JONES;
SUSAN MARION; HENRY HARRISON;
ASHLEY CAHOON; and SHAKITA NORMAN
Petitioners,
AFFIDAVIT OF DIANA POWELL
V.
TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official capacity

as Speaker of the North Carolina House of
Representatives; PHILIP E . BERGER, in his
official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the
North Carolina Senate; THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official capacity as
Chairman of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections; STELLA ANDERSON, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina State
Board of Elections; KENNETH RAYMOND, in
his official capacity as member of the North
Carolina State Board of Elections; JEFF
CARMON, in his official Capacity as member of
the North Carolina State Board of Elections; and
DAVID C. BLACK, in his official capacity as

member of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections,
Respondents .

AFFIDAVIT OF DIANA POWELL
I, Diana Powell, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1. I am the founder, CEO and Executive Director of Justice Served N.C., Inc. ("Justice
Served"), a position that I have held since founding the organization on September 24, 2012. I am
a U.S. citizen, resident of Wake County, North Carolina, and a registered voter. I am over eighteen
years old and competent to testify.
2. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this affidavit, except for those
matters identified as based on information and belief, and if called upon to do so, could and would
competently testify thereto.
3. As Executive Director of Justice Served, my responsibilities include: working
directly with individuals entangled in the criminal justice system and assisting them with
reintegrating into society; empowering our community with weekly "Bring Back the Village"
gatherings; and advocating for policy change and reentry initiatives across the State.
4. In addition to my position as Executive Director of Justice Served, I am a Statewide
Outreach Director for the North Carolina Second Chance Alliance ("Second Chance Alliance"), a
Board Member for the A. Philip Randolph Institute ("APRI") and an ordained minister.
Overview of Justice Served's Mission
5. Justice Served is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Raleigh, North
Carolina that works with people who find themselves entangled in the criminal justice system. The
fundamental mission of Justice Served is to ensure these individuals are able to reintegrate into
society.
6. Justice Served provides community-based alternatives to incarceration and
facilitates mentorship programs for people with involvement in the criminal justice system geared

at helping them transition into civic life. This includes the Bring Back the Village Mentoring
Program, the Safe Space Youth Program, the Youth Gang Prevention Program and a Court
Advocacy Program.
7. As part of its central mission, Justice Served works with a network of community
partners, formerly incarcerated people, people in transition, and their families as they transition
back to family and community life. Justice Served educates justice-involved community members
on a number of topics related to reintegration into society, including transitional housing, record
expunctions, and driver's license restoration.
8. Justice Served convenes gatherings where people with life experience with criminal
justice and prison systems can network, exchange knowledge and resources, and solve problems.
This includes our weekly Monday "Bring Back the Village" gatherings at the Lighthouse in
Raleigh to empower North Carolinians to become leaders and effect change within their
community.
9. Justice Served advocates to ensure that the interests of its clients, their families, and
their communities are represented on the local, state, and national levels and that representatives
in government and positions of power come to hear and know these community's interests, values,
and beliefs, as they consider, shape, and enact laws and policies. Greater public understanding of
the system can further shape perception and policy.
10. Beyond its direct client and community engagement efforts, Justice Served
additionally advocates across the State and in the North Carolina General Assembly for policy
changes, innovative reentry initiatives, and legislation to end the collateral consequences of
incarceration and reduce barriers to reentry for justice-involved individuals.

11. Justice Served seeks to eliminate harsh and unfair probation and post-release felony
disenfranchisement laws that are responsible for racial disparities in democratic participation and
representation in NC.
12. Because of this felony disenfranchisement scheme, roughly 50,000 North
Carolinians are unable to vote today due to a felony conviction, even though they have been
released from incarceration - and some who were never even incarcerated - and are living in
communities across the state.
13. Justice Served is committed to the restoration of voting rights for justice-involved
individuals as part of its portfolio of policies and programs empowering justice-involved
individuals as they reenter and begin to serve in, with, and for their communities. Promoting
participation in the democratic process is central to Justice Served's mission of empowering its
clients to successfully reintegrate back into society.
14. Justice Served diverts resources away from its other reintegration work in order to
educate people, including people disenfranchised under N.C.G.S. 13-1, about their voting rights
(or lack thereof), and to register (or re-register) them to vote in accordance with North Carolina
law.
Justice Served's Work with and Advocacy for Disenfranchised Individuals
15. Justice Served serves diverse citizens across the state of North Carolina. Some of
these clients are unable to vote due to a prior felony conviction despite having been released from
incarceration.
16. We work to minimize or negate the collateral consequences experienced by justice-
involved individuals, including voter disenfranchisement, so that our communities do not continue
to suffer the long-term effects of those consequences. Court costs, fines, and fees borne by

individuals reentering their communities extend their disenfranchisement: sometimes the longer
people are unable to pay these costs, the longer they are unable to vote.
17. Justice Served directly serves justice-involved individuals and their communities.
We offer personal and professional mentoring and education on a number of topics related to
reintegration into society, including transitional housing, barriers to employment, record
expunctions, and driver's license restoration. For example, Justice Served takes preapplications
for expungement and driver's license restoration at its intake site in Raleigh, and updates applicants
throughout the lengthy process.
18. Justice Served is also a member of the North Carolina Second Chance Alliance
("Second Chance Alliance"), where I serve as a Statewide Outreach Director. The Second Chance
Alliance is a statewide coalition of people with criminal records, their family members, service
providers, congregations, community leaders and concerned citizens that have come together to
address the causes of criminal records and the barriers they create to successful reentry. Justice
Served regularly participates in the work and advocacy of the NC Second Chance Alliance
including the 2019 Second Chance Lobby Day, and the subsequent launch and development of
four NC Second Chance Alliance regional chapters .
19. Justice Served works alongside APRI and the Second Chance Alliance on various
"Get Out the Vote" (GOTV) activities, including phone banks to call justice-involved North
Carolinians to educate them on their voting rights . We regular educate individuals on whether or
not they are eligible to vote and how they can register (or re-register) to vote in North Carolina.
20. As part of these phone banking activities, I regularly speak with people who are
confused as to whether or not they are eligible to vote after having been convicted of a crime. I
have spoken to individuals who are unsure of whether or not they are on misdemeanor probation

or felony probation, as well as individuals who are unsure if their probation has been extended due
to an inability to pay court costs, fees, fines or restitution.
21. Many of our clients have expressed to me that they are afraid to be prosecuted for
inadvertently voting before they have completed their full probation or post-release sentence,
including paying all of the associated fines and fees. These men and women remain incredibly
fearful of casting a ballot even after their voting rights have been restored .
22. There are a large number of Justice Served clients who are regularly involved in
programs, advocacy, and campaign work to educate and encourage others to participate in the
democratic process but are still personally disenfranchised due to N .C.G.S. 13-1.
Impact on Justice Served and its Clients
23. Continuing to uphold North Carolina's probation and post-release felony
disenfranchisement law will substantially and irreparably harm the mission of Justice Served and
its clients. This law prevents not only the full and meaningful (re)integration of individual Justice
Served clients into their communities; it obstructs the ability of Justice Served organizationally to
effectuate its greater policy goals through democratic mobilization. While voting is a personal,
individual right, its collective impact is of course far greater. Disenfranchisement prevents justice-
involved individuals from advocating for themselves, their families, and their communities in the
most direct way possible: participation in the democratic process. Disenfranchisement dissociates
individuals from their local communities, and society generally, in direct opposition to the very
mission of Justice Served.
24. I have seen first-hand how North Carolina's felony disenfranchisement law silences
the voice of justice-involved individuals, as it is just another way in which they are being told that
they are not full members of the community in which they live.

25. I have also seen first-hand the positive transformation that takes place when
someone we serve does finally exercise their right to vote after being disenfranchised. I recall
escorting a young man to the polls to show support for him and to re-assure him that he did have
a right to cast a ballot after previously being disenfranchised under N. C.G. S. 13-1. After he walked
out of the voting booth, he became a new person - I could see he finally had his power back.
26. Justice Served regularly expends significant, precious staff time and organizational
resources to support those who are currently and formerly incarcerated in the State of North
Carolina.
27. Disenfranchising Justice Served clients obstructs participation in one of the most
important elements of its core mission empowering people to take them from where they are to
where they want to be: democratic engagement. If this Court refuses to declare that North
Carolina's probation and post-release felony disenfranchisement law violates the North Carolina
Constitution and to enjoin Defendants from denying the fundamental right to vote to people
previously convicted of a felony who are living in society, Justice Served's central mission will
remain unattainable .

I affirm nd r th p na'lti, tru .
ut nM y
Dia a Po,. ll
1 On April 2, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Chief Justice Cheri Beasley issued Emergency Directive
5, which states that "When it is required that any pleading, motion, petition, supporting affidavit, or other
document of any kind to be filed in the General Court of Justice be verified, or that an oath be taken, it shall be
sufficient if the subscriber affirms the truth of the matter to be verified by an affirmation or representation in
substantially the following language: "I (we) affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing
representation(s) is (are) true. (Signed) ________ "

Exhibit 11
May 5, 2020 Affidavit Submitted by Corey Purdie,

Executive Director of Wash Away Unemployment, in
Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-CVS-
15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF filSTICE
COUNTY OF WAKE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Docket No. 19-cv-15941

filSTICE SERVED NC, INC.; WASH AW A Y
UNEMPLOYMENT; NORTH CAROLINA
STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP;
TIMOTHY LOCKLEAR; DRAKARUS JONES;
SUSAN MARION; HENRY HARRISON;
ASHLEY CAHOON; and SHAKITA NORMAN
Petitioners,
AFFIDAVIT OF COREY PURDIE
V.
TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official capacity

as Speaker of the North Carolina House of
Representatives; PHILIP E. BERGER, in his
official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the
North Carolina Senate; THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official capacity as
Chairman of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections; STELLA ANDERSON, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina State
Board of Elections; KENNETH RAYMOND, in
his official capacity as member of the North
Carolina State Board of Elections; JEFF
CARMON, in his official Capacity as member of
the North Carolina State Board of Elections; and
DAVID C. BLACK, in his official capacity as

member of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections,
Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT OF COREY PURDIE
I, Corey Purdie, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1. I am the Executive Director of Wash Away Unemployment ("WAU"), a position I
have held since April 2010. I am a U.S. citizen, resident of New Bern, North Carolina, and a
registered voter. I am over eighteen years old and competent to testify.
2. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this affidavit, except for those
matters identified as based on information and belief, and if called upon to do so, could and would
competently testify thereto.
3. I have a personal connection to felony disenfranchisement. At age sixteen, I was
convicted as an adult and spent ten years in prison, being released at age twenty-six. I was
routinely discriminated against inside prison and after my release as a person who was convicted
of a felony. I had no resources, job opportunities, or transportation and was lucky to have family
that could help me with food and housing; I likewise suffered the mental and emotional impacts
of reentry, including reconnecting with my family and children who I had not seen during the
course of my incarceration. In short, I personally experienced all of the barriers that Wash Away
Unemployment participants routinely face with reentry. My life revolved solely around basic
survival. Even when my voting rights were restored, my dehumanizing experience with
incarceration discouraged me from voting or otherwise participating in the democratic process.
After having my voting rights taken away, even when they were returned, I truly felt that my voice
did not matter.
4. As Executive Director of WAU, my responsibilities encompass overseeing the
entire organization, including ensuring organizational functionality and capacity. I go to prisons
to perform pre-release assessments of returning citizens to make sure they have supportive

environments to return to, including things like housing, transportation, and employment
prospects: all of the things that I did not have after my release. We identify employment
qualifications and match returning citizens with employers and job prospects. We assess housing
needs for returning citizens and place them in one of the eighty beds we have in Craven County
for returning citizens in our Home Transitional Network.
5. In addition to my role as Executive Director of WAU, I work with the North
Carolina Second Chance Alliance advocating for laws and policies to help restore opportunities
for justice-involved people. I serve as a Board Member of Yokefellow Prison Ministry, a faith-
based organization that allows me to lead weekly meetings and listening sessions with small
groups in NC correctional institutions, providing encouragement and support. I serve as a Board
Member with the North Carolina Justice Center, a progressive research and advocacy organization,
working to eliminate poverty in North Carolina by ensuring that every household in the state has
access to the resources, services, and fair treatment it needs to achieve economic security.
Additionally, I serve on numerous other boards and work with other organizations to carry the
voice of those who have been silenced by the system of mass incarceration. I use these
opportunities to represent the disenfranchised, who cannot yet represent themselves.
6. After being released from prison, I started my first business, Miracle Wash, in 2007.
I had limited availability to resources and education and began a car washing business to support
myself. Since 2007, Miracle Wash has expanded its mobile detailing services to include locations
in Raleigh and Charlotte, North Carolina and evolved to establish an Auto Haven facility in New
Bern, North Carolina. Further, Wash Away Unemployment was born to further address the issues
people face reentering into society from prison. Through my businesses, I have hired over 500
people with criminal records through WAU and my car washing and detailing companies. I

personally understand and appreciate the value that gainful employment brings to justice-involved
individuals' lives and that they in turn bring to the local businesses that hire them. My businesses
would be less successful and less valuable without the people I have hired through WAU.
Overview of Wash Away Unemployment's Mission
7. Wash Away Unemployment was founded in 2010 as a 501(c)(3) in New Bern,
North Carolina that supports justice-involved people with life skill training, housing resources,
transportation, and family reconciliation. W AU'S mission is to alleviate the escalating problem
of high unemployment for disadvantaged groups such as ex-military, formerly incarcerated people,
community youth, and those on government assistance.
8. The fundamental mission of W AU is the preparation of individuals for successful
entry into the job market, which helps develop confident employees, financially secure families,
and stronger, safer communities. Since its founding, W AU has served over 2,000 community
members, who have in turn amplified W AU' s impact throughout their communities. As part of its
central mission, W AU works directly with individuals who have faced employment barriers
because of their criminal records. WAU helps connect these individuals to community resources
to facilitate employment. Through collaboration with community partners like Craven
Community College, W AU supports individuals in transition to ensure success in the employment
environment. W AU is further committed to eliminating barriers for formerly incarcerated
individuals, including the restoration of voting rights, the removal of barriers to employment, and
the removal of barriers to receive housing and financial aid.
9. In 2015, Wash Away Unemployment established HOME Transitional Network to
aid formerly incarcerated people impacted by homelessness upon their release from the
Department of Public Safety. HOME provides transitional housing for individuals returning from

incarceration. HOME's innovative approach to transitional housing offers independent housing
in single homes, transportation for returning program participants, as well as access to congregate
housing facilities. HOME also offers on site mental and physical healthcare assessments by
licensed nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
Work with Disenfranchised Individuals
10. WAU advocates for individuals with criminal records, including people
disenfranchised under N.C.G.S. § 13-1, to obtain steady housing and gainful employment to
support themselves and their families. We work with coalition partners to minimize or negate the
collateral consequences experienced by justice-involved individuals so that our communities do
not continue to suffer the long-term effects of those consequences.
11. WAU regularly participates with the work and advocacy of the NC Second
Chance Alliance, a statewide coalition of people with criminal records, their family members,
service providers, congregations, community leaders and concerned citizens that have come
together to address the causes of criminal records and the barriers they create to successful
reentry.
12. WAU participated in Second Chance Lobby Day on May 7, 2019 with NC's
Second Chance Alliance. Second Chance Lobby Day mobilized citizens from across North
Carolina to come to the North Carolina General Assembly in Raleigh and meet in person with
their state representatives, share their stories about how the justice system has impacted them,
and to advocate for the Second Chance Act and related policies and provisions. This advocacy
most recently culminated in the successful passage of the Second Chance Act in the North
Carolina State Senate. If passed by the North Carolina State House of Representatives and
signed into law by Governor Roy Cooper, the Second Chance Act would dramatically loosen

NC's criminal record expunction statutes, providing more opportunity for people to clear their
records of dismissed charges and low-level criminal convictions.
13. WAU recently took part in the City of New Bern's implementation of "Ban the
Box," a nationwide initiative that requests states, cities, and counties institute laws or policies that
require removal of conviction history questions from job applications and delaying background
checks until later in the hiring process. These initiatives provide applicants a fair chance at
employment by removing the stigma of a conviction or arrest record from the hiring decision,
allowing employers to consider job candidates' qualifications first.
14. WAU has regularly helped sponsor criminal record expunction clinics in Eastern
North Carolina. These clinics provide community members with information and guidance on
how they can get one or more charges removed from their criminal records or receive other forms
of relief for the collateral consequences of arrest and convictions.
15. We most recently participated in the 2020 National Day of Empathy on March 25,
2020. The Day of Empathy is sponsored by #cut50, a bipartisan nationwide effort to cut crime
and incarceration across all 50 states run in large part by leaders impacted by the criminal justice
system. The Day of Empathy brings organizations like WAU and concerned community
members together with elected officials to share their experiences and stories in order to
exemplify the human consequences of a criminal justice system that has gotten too big, too
unfair, and too brutal. This work brings impacted people and their families together with elected
officials, using media and storytelling to share their stories and demonstrate the collective,
nationwide strength of the criminal justice reform movement.
Impact on Wash Away Unemployment and its Participants

16. Continuing to uphold North Carolina's probation and post-release felony
disenfranchisement law will substantially and irreparably harm the mission of WAU and its
participants by preventing their full and meaningful (re)integration into their communities. The
primary goal of obtaining secure employment is the first step towards the larger mission of
maintaining secure communities. Disenfranchisement prevents justice-involved individuals from
advocating for themselves, their families, and their communities in the most direct way possible:
participation in the democratic process. Disenfranchisement dissociates individuals from their
local communities, and so too society writ large, in direct opposition to the very mission of WAU.
17. Participants in WAU' s housing assistance program are negatively impacted by
North Carolina's probation and post-release felony disenfranchisement law because they cannot
vote due to being on probation and post-release supervision, despite the fact that they live, work,
and pay taxes in North Carolina communities.
18. Many WAU participants have shared with me that they feel silenced, voiceless, and
powerless by their inability to vote. Participants have shared that they feel discouraged by the
collateral consequences of conviction, especially the loss of voting rights, and have abandoned
hope that they will ever experience their full potential and personal growth in other areas of their
life because they have been barred from fully and directly participating in society. They know that
their reentry in society is only nominal when they still have to pay taxes and contribute to society
but cannot fully exercise their rights to shape it.
19. WAU participants cannot vote in elections that have consequences for justice-
involved individuals. State and local candidates run on platforms that often include approaches to
criminal justice that vary from tough-on-crime stances to more therapeutic models of justice.
Candidates often pursue policies that are directly averse to the interests and growth of justice-

involved individuals. Unable to participate, WAU participants are left to the good or ill-will of
others. Party platforms directly impact justice-involved individuals: being unable to participate in
elections that determine criminal justice related policies leave WAU participants voiceless on
issues that directly impact their lives.
20. WAU participants with children are deprived of using the democratic process to
advocate for the well-being of their children in choices like electing school superintendents or
school board members, thus compounding the negative inter-generational impacts of
disenfranchisement.
21. Criminal court-related fines and fees substantially and irreparably impact WAU's
mission and participants . WAU participants have shared that they often devote significant portions
of their paychecks and earnings to pay the fees and fines associated with their criminal convictions,
which diverts critical financial resources from basic daily needs and decreases the real, meaningful,
beneficial impacts of employment. These women and men are further financially encumbered by
monthly probation and post-release supervision fees.
22. WAU has already expended significant, precious staff time and organizational
resources to support those who are formerly incarcerated in the State of North Carolina.
23. N.C.G.S. § 13-1 forces WAU to divert its resources to educating its participants
about whether and when their rights are restored. The current law creates confusion among
WAU' s participants about whether they have the ability to vote after they have been released from
incarceration. Some participants have expressed to me that they have a fear of voting and getting
arrested for doing so.
24. Disenfranchised individuals are denied hope along with their right to vote. They
lose hope in the system that has stripped them of their vote and their voice to change it.

Disenfranchising individuals and stripping them of their rights thus discourages democratic
participation and engagement if and when that right is ever restored. Perceptions that directly
impacted people do not want to vote or would not vote even if their rights were intact can be easily
answered: give people hope and they will want to contribute; give people a voice and they will
speak; give people their rights and they will exercise them.
25. If this Court refuses to declare that North Carolina's probation and post-release
felony disenfranchisement law violates the North Carolina Constitution and to enjoin Defendants
from denying the fundamental right to vote to people previously convicted of a felony who are
living in society, WAU will be unable to complete - or even attempt - its central mission and
efforts to fully, completely, and meaningfully reunite people with their communities and society.

× ¿ºº·®³ô «²¼»® ¬¸» °»²¿´¬·»- ±º °»®¶«®§ô ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» º±®»¹±·²¹ ®»°®»-»²¬¿¬·±²- ¿®» ¬®«»òï
Û¨»½«¬»¼ ±² Ó¿§ ÁÁÁ craven

5th îðîðô ¿¬ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁô Ò±®¬¸ Ý¿®±´·²¿ò
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Ý±®»§ Ð«®¼·»
ï
Ñ² ß°®·´ îô îðîðô ·² ®»-°±²-» ¬± ¬¸» ÝÑÊ×Üóïç °¿²¼»³·½ô Ý¸·»º Ö«-¬·½» Ý¸»®· Þ»¿-´»§ ·--«»¼ Û³»®¹»²½§
Directive 5, which states that "When it is required that any pleading, motion, petition, supporting affidavit, or other
¼±½«³»²¬ ±º ¿²§ µ·²¼ ¬± ¾» º·´»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ù»²»®¿´ Ý±«®¬ ±º Ö«-¬·½» ¾» ª»®·º·»¼ô ±® ¬¸¿¬ ¿² ±¿¬¸ ¾» ¬¿µ»²ô ·¬ -¸¿´´ ¾»
-«ºº·½·»²¬ ·º ¬¸» -«¾-½®·¾»® ¿ºº·®³- ¬¸» ¬®«¬¸ ±º ¬¸» ³¿¬¬»® ¬± ¾» ª»®·º·»¼ ¾§ ¿² ¿ºº·®³¿¬·±² ±® ®»°®»-»²¬¿¬·±² ·²
substantially the following language: "I (we) affirm, under ¬¸» °»²¿´¬·»- º±® °»®¶«®§ô ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» º±®»¹±·²¹
representation(s) is (are) true. (Signed) _______ _
ïï

Exhibit 12
Amicus Brief Submitted by the North Carolina Justice

Center and Down Home NC, along with accompanying
affidavits, in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No.
19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ,-·· ,, 1,NTHE.GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
COUNTY OF WAKE '... • . C,. SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
l 9-cv-15941
COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITL} PYE; ,·.

JUSTICE SERVED NC, INC; W A:Si-I· ~
AW A Y UNEMPLOYMENT; NORTH
CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF
THE NAACP; TIMOTHY LOCKLEAR;
DRAKARUS JONES; SUSAN MARION;
HENRY HARRISON; ASHLEY CAHOON;
SHAKITA NORMAN,
Plaintiffs,
V.
TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE NORTH MOTION OF NORTH CAROLINA
CAROLINA HOUSE OF JUSTICE CENTER AND DOWN HOME
REPRESENTATIVES; PHILIP E. BERGER, NC FOR LEA VE TO FILE BRIEF AS
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AMICUS CURIAE
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA SENATE; THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; DAMON CIRCOSTA, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAP A CITY AS CHAIRMAN OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD
OF ELECTIONS; STELLA ANDERSON, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAP A CITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ST ATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
KENNETH RAYMOND, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAP A CITY AS MEMBER OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD
OF ELECTIONS; DAVID C. BLACK, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
Defendants.

-2-
The North Carolina Justice Center ("NCJC") and Down Home NC respectfully move this
Court for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and Defendants
North Carolina State Board of Elections have consented to this motion; Defendants North Carolina
House of Representative and North Carolina Senate "take no position [on the motion] and leave
the matter to the discretion of the court." Amici are not seeking to argue the brief. The amicus
curiae brief is attached to this motion. In support of this motion, NCJC shows the following:
Nature of Applicant's Interest
The North Carolina Justice Center ("the Justice Center" or "NCJC") is a non-profit legal
services provider with a mission to eliminate poverty in North Carolina by ensuring that every
household in the state has access to the resources, services, and fair treatment it needs to achieve
economic security. The North Carolina Justice Center is made up of a number projects, including
the Fair Chance Criminal Justice Project, which is a team of lawyers who partner with impacted
people, congregations, concerned community members, advocacy organizations, and decision-
makers to change local and state policies and practices to make the criminal justice system more
fair from arrest to reentry. The Fair Chance Criminal Justice Project's mission is to improve
procedures, practices, and policies throughout the criminal justice system to treat people more
fairly and to ensure people can reintegrate with their families and communities when exiting the
criminal justice system. The Justice Center has long worked on combating the collateral
consequence of a criminal record including felony disenfranchisement. NCJC is part of a coalition
to end felony disenfranchisement and includes attorneys who have represented people prosecuted
for voting while under supervision for a felony conviction in both Alamance and Hoke Counties.
Down Home North Carolina (DHNC or Down Home NC) is a community organization
that works to build power for poor and working people of all races in rural North Carolina. Down

-3-
Home NC is founded on the belief that small towns and rural areas cannot be ignored if we want
to see positive change at the state and national level. Through our network of member-led, county-
based chapters, we are engaged in year-round organizing, mutual aid programs, leadership
development, multi-racial movement building, and civic engagement.
Reasons Why an Amicus Brief is Desirable
The issues raised by plaintiffs in the complaint are important because felony
disenfranchisement and its enforcement methods efficiently strip away the political voice of entire
geographical communities. Denying a person on felony probation or post-release the right to vote
is a record-based disqualification that disproportionately impacts people of color. This brief will
provide the Court insight about the chilling effect of prosecutions for voting while on felony
probation or post-release. The Justice Center has experience defending people prosecuted for
mistakenly voting while under supervision for a felony conviction. Down Home NC has
experience registering people to vote and advocating for the rights of people prosecuted for voting
while on felony probation or post-release. The brief will highlight the intent and actual chilling
effect of the enforcement mechanism on voter turnout of people with criminal records.
Questions to be Addressed in the Amicus Brief
The question of law before this Court is whether felony disenfranchisement 1s
unconstitutional under Article I§§ 10, 11, 12, 14 and 19 of the North Carolina constitution. This
amicus will discuss the intent and impact of a harmful byproduct of felony disenfranchisement -
enforcement through criminal prosecutions. The chilling effect that criminal prosecutions for
voting while under supervision for a felony conviction has on people with criminal records and
their families should be contemplated by this Court while deciding the constitutionality of the
state's automatic record-based disenfranchisement scheme.

-4-
Position on Question Presented
Amici urge the Court to rule for Plaintiffs.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the North Carolina Justice Center and Down Home NC
respectfully request this Court grant the motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support
of plaintiffs, Community Success Initiative, Inc., et al.
Respectfully submitted, this the 24th day of July, 2020.
THE NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
J~
N.C. Bar No. 54949
The North Carolina Justice Center
224 S. Dawson St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
P.O. Box 28068
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 856-2164
jonathan@ncjustice.org

-5-
I hereby certify that a copy of foregoing motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief has been
duly served via email upon:
Daryl Atkinson (N.C. Bar No. 39030) Brian D. Rabinovitz

Whitley Carpenter (N.C. Bar No. 49657) 114 W. Edenton St.
400 W Main St., Suite 203 Raleigh, NC 27603
Durham, NC 27701 BRabinovitz@ncdoj.gov
(9 I 9) 323-3 889 Counsel .fior Leaislative
b
daryl@forwardjustice.org Defendants
wcarpenter@forwardjustice.org
Paul M. Cox
Penda Hair* Olga Vysotskaya
P.O.Box42521 114 W. Edenton St.
Washington, D.C. 20015 Raleigh, NC 27603
phair@forwardjustice.org pcox@ncdoj.gov
Counsel for Plaintiffs OVysotskaya@ncdoj.gov
Counsel/or State Board
R. Stanton Jones* Defendants
Elisabeth S. Theodore*
Daniel F. Jacobson*
Graham White*
601 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001-3743
(202) 942-5000
stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com
Elisabeth.theodore@amoldporter.com
Daniel.jacobson@amoldporter.com
graham.white@amoldporter.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Benjamin L. Berwick*
15 Main Street, Suite 312
Watertown, MA 02472
(202) 579-4582
ben.berwick@protectdemocracy.org
Farbod K. Faraji*
77 Pearl Street
Middletown, CT 06459
(202) 579-4582

-6-
farbod.faraji@protectdemocracy.org
Stephanie Llanes*
115 Broadway, 5th Floor,
New York, NY 10006
(202) 579-4582
stephani e.llanes@protectdemocracy.org
*Admitted Pro Hae Vice
Respectfully submitted, this the 24th day of July, 2020.
THE NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
Jo~~
N.C. Bar No. 54949
The North Carolina Justice Center
224 S. Dawson St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
P.O. Box 28068
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 856-2164
jonathan@ncjustice.org

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF WAKE 19-CV-15941
COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE; )

JUSTICE SERVED NC, INC.; WASH AWAY )
UNEMPLOYMENT; NORTH CAROLINA )
STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; )
TIMOTHY LOCKLEAR; DRAKARUS JONES; )
SUSAN MARION; HENRY HARRISON; )
ASHLEY CAHOON; SHAKITA NORMAN, )
Plaintiffs, )
V. )
TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL )
CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE NORTH )
CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; )
PHILIP E. BERGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL )
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE )
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SENATE; THE ) [PROPOSED]
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ) BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE,
ELECTIONS; DAMON CIRCOSTA, IN HIS ) NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE
OFFICIAL CAP A CITY AS CHAIRMAN OF ) CENTER AND DOWN HOME NC
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF )
ELECTIONS; STELLA ANDERSON, IN HER )
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF )
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF )
ELECTIONS; KENNETH RAYMOND, IN HIS )
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE )
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF )
ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON, IN HIS )
OFFICIAL CAP A CITY AS MEMBER OF THE )
ELECTIONS; DAVID C. BLACK, IN HIS )
OFFICIAL CAP A CITY AS MEMBER OF THE )
ELECTIONS, )
Defendants. )

-11-
INDEX
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... !
I. The Personal Effect of Prosecutions on African-American North Carolinians ..................... 2
A. Affected Voters .......................................................................................................... 2
B. Affected Voters' Rights Workers ............................................................................... 5
II. Enforcement of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws Suppress the African-American Vote....7
A. Felony Disenfranchisement Laws Are Unduly Harsh and Their Application Has
Racial and Political Components ............................................................................... 7
B. Felony Disenfranchisement Laws Suppress the African-American Vote Beyond
Those They Explicitly Disenfranchise ..................................................................... 1O
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 1I

-lll-
Table of Authorities
Statutes
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-273 ............................................................................................................... 8
N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-275(5) ........................................................................................................ 1,2
NC Gen. State §163-55(a)(2) (2017) .............................................................................................. 8
Journal Articles
Aman McLeod, Ismail K. White, and Amelia R. Gavin, "The Locked Ballot Box: the
Impact of State Criminal Disenfranchisement Laws on African American Voting
Behavior and Implications for Refonn," 11 VA. J. Soc. POL'Y & L. 66 (2003),
available at
http://polisci.osu.edu/sites/polisci.osu.edu/files/l l _ Va._J._ Soc._Pol'y _%26 _ L._ 66,_%
5Bl %5D.pdf .............................................................................................................................. 10
Bridgett A. King and Laura Erickson, "Disenfranchising the Enfranchised: Exploring the
Relationship Between F e!ony Disenfranchisement and African American Voter
Turnout," JOURNALOF BLACKSTUDIES,Vol. 47, No. 8, Nov. 2016, 799-821 ......................... 10
Melanie Bowers and Robert R. Preuhls, "Collateral Consequences of a Collateral
Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political
Participation ofNonfelons," SOCIALSCIENCEQUARTERLY, Vol. 90, Issue 3 (Sept.
2009) .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Pamela S. Karlan, "Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate
Over Felon Disenfranchisement," Research Paper No. 75, Stanford Public Law and
Legal Theory Working Paper Series, available at
https://papers.ssm.com/sol3/papers.cfrn?abstract_id=484543 (last visited 13 July 2020) ....... 11
Pippa Holloway, "A History of Stolen Citizenship," 12 Origins: Current Events in Hist.
Perspective 9, -June 2019 ............................................................................................................ 8
Sam Cleveland, SLAPPing Down Discriminatory Voter Fraud Prosecutions, 103 MINN.
L. REv. (2019), available at https://minnesotalawreview.org/2019/02/11/slapping-
down-discriminatory-voter-fraud-prosecutions/ ......................................................................... 8
News Articles
Adam Lawson, Gaston residents take pleas for illegal votes, Gaston Gazette (July 26,
2019), available at https://www.gastongazette.com/news/20190726/gaston-residents-
take-pleas-for-illegal-votes .......................................................................................................... 9
Crystal Mason, I was Arrested for Voting, but I won't let the Government Intimidate Me,
The Washington Post (September 30, 2019, 5:26 PM),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-was-arrested-for-voting-but-i-wont-let-
the-govemment-intimidate-me/20 l 9/09/30/7b626 l b8-dfbf- l l e9-8dc8-
498eabc l 29a0 _story.html ........................................................................................................... 4

·IV-
Dashiell Coleman, Prosecution possible in Gaston voting cases, Gaston Gazette (Aug.
24, 2018), available at https://www.gastongazette.com/news/20180824/prosecution-
possible-in-gaston-voting-cases .................................................................................................. 9
Jack Healy, Arrested,jailed and charged with a Felony, For Voting, The News &
Observer (Aug. 2, 2018), available at https://www.newsobserver.com/news/po1itics-
government/article2160091 OS.html ............................................................................................ 8
Jack Healy, Arrested, Jailed, and Charged with a Felony. For Voting, The New York
Times (August 2, 2018), .............................................................................................................. 2
Sam Levine, A Black Woman Faces Prison Because of a Jim Crow-era Plan to 'Protect
White Voters', The Guardian (December 16, 2019, 6:00 PM),
https ://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20 19/ dec/l 6/no1th-caro Iina-felony-vote-law-
b lack-woman ............................................................................................................................... 3
Websites
"Eligible Eight" Best Practice Responses, You Can Vote, available at
https://static l .squarespace.com/static/5c6493eefb l 8207f45208219/t/5e l 36394e7b 77fl 99544 7
be8/l 57832898 l 3 59/The+Eligible+8+ .pdf.. ............................................................................... 6
Bob Hall and Isela Gutierrez, The Deceit of Voter Fraud, Democracy North Carolina (2017),
available at https://democracync.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FraudReport.pdf ................ 8
Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, Community Corrections Policy & Procedures,
North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice
(April 2019), available at https://files.nc.gov/ncdps/documents/files/Policy.pdf. ...................... 2
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and The Sentencing Project, Free the Vote:
Unlocking Democracy in the Cells and on the Streets, ............................................................... 5
National Conference of State Legislators, Felon Voting Rights, October 14, 2019, available at
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx .................... 1
North Carolina State Board of Elections, Post-Election Audit Report (2017), available
athttps://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/Post-
Election%20Audit%20Report _ 20 l 6%20General%20Election/Post-Election _ Audit_ Report. pdf
·····················································································································································9

-1-
ARGUMENT
North Carolina is one of twenty-one states that enforces felony disenfranchisement laws
by making it a felony to register or vote while serving an active sentence, probation or parole for
a felony conviction. National Conference of State Legislators, Felon Voting Rights, October 14,
2019, available at https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-
rights.aspx. This legal scheme has long served to disenfranchise African-Americans from voting
in North Carolina and across the United States, not only because it actively bars this population
from voting but also because its enforcement, including prosecutions under N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 163-275(5), instills fear in eligible voters and discourages them from exercising their
fundamental right to vote.
The anti-democratic effect of voter prosecutions is not academic. Neither the legal
precedent nor the statistics can adequately convey the harrowing impact that has been visited on
voters in the state of North Carolina and throughout the nation. A pervasive sense of fear and
lack of clarity has been exacerbated by the prosecutions that have occurred across the state,
chilling the voting activity of many members of society. To document the full impact of the
chilling effect thus requires considering the issue through multiple lenses.
First, the personal experience of voters themselves reflect that certain people, primarily
African-American voters are discouraged from attempting to exercise their fundamental right to
vote because of the fear caused by the disenfranchisement laws and their enforcement. This
includes those with no felony records. Second, this fear is rational given that the felony
disenfranchisement laws are unduly harsh and punitive and their enforcement serves the goal of
voter suppression rather than election integrity. Lastly, the chilling effect of felony

-2-
disenfranchisement laws and their enforcement reflected in individual's personal nairntives is
also borne out by the evidence. Felony disenfranchisement laws and their enforcement haim
African-American communities and prevent the full participation of their eligible voters.
Accordingly, the Court should rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this matter.
I. The Personal Effect of Prosecutions on African-American North Carolinians.
A. Affected Voters
Before any prosecution under the felony disenfranchisement scheme becomes a data point, it
is first a personal tragedy. People who have been prosecuted under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-275(5)
are working to reintegrate into the community and support themselves and their families.
Prosecution and conviction of these voters inhibits these positive actions. People who are
prosecuted for voting when they thought they were eligible express feeling permanently
excluded from the democratic process from that point onward, effectively extending any
sentence they receive in perpetuity.
For example, Taranta Holman, a citizen of Alamance County who was prosecuted in
2017 for voting while on probation, was quoted in the news as stating: "[e]ven when I get this
cleared up, I still won't vote. That's too much of a risk." Jack Healy, Arrested, Jailed, and
Charged with a Felony. For Voting, The New York Times (August 2, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/us/arrested-voting-north-carolina.html. Mr. Holman was
one of the "Alamance 12," a group of twelve North Carolinians in Alamance County who were
prosecuted in 2018 for voting while on probation or parole in the 2016 election. Nine of the
twelve are black. Mr. Holman was unaware 1 that he could not vote in the 2016 presidential
1 The complexity of sentencing and lack of uniformity across probation offices in the state result
in many people not getting the information they need once eligible to vote. See Division of Adult

-3-
election and went to the polls at the urging of his mother. Id. When his family told him about
the warrant out for his arrest in the local newspaper, he thought it was a joke. Mr. Holman's
resultant belief that voting is a "risk" reflects the hann inflicted by this type of prosecution and
the longstanding effect of exclusion from civic society.
The fear instilled by felony disenfranchisement laws and the shadow that remains over a
justice-involved person's life, is echoed in the story of Anthony Haith, another member of the
Alamance 12. Mr. Haith's affidavit is appended hereto as Exhibit A. Mr. Haith was prosecuted
in 2018 for voting in the 2016 election while on probation. Ex. A at paragraph 4. When he
arrived at the polls and voted in 2016, he was directed to a polling station to fill out his ballot.
Ex. A at paragraph 6. Mr. Haith stated, "No one told me that I could not vote." Id. When he was
put on probation, Mr. Haith was informed of many things he was prohibited from doing, but
voting was not one of them. Ex. A at paragraph 5. He was shocked when the police showed up
to arrest him, stating, "I thought I was just exercising my right to vote and had no idea I was
barred from doing so." Ex. A at paragraph 7. "Being prosecuted shook my faith in the process
that people fought and died for me to be able to participate in." Ex. A at paragraph 8. Anthony
remains fearful of voting until this day, recalling the feelings of standing before the judge and
being treated "as if I had knowingly committed a grave wrong, no matter how much I told them
that I was unaware of what I was doing." Ex. A at paragraph 10.
In a similar example, Lanisha Bratcher registered to vote in Hoke County during the
March 2016 primary. Like Mr. Haith, nobody told her she could not vote when she was put on
probation. Sam Levine, A Black Woman Faces Prison Because of a Jim Crow-era Plan to
Correction and Juvenile Justice, Community Corrections Policy & Procedures, North Carolina
Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice (April 2019),
available at https://files.nc.gov/ncdps/documents/files/Policy.pdf.

-4-
'Protect White Voters', The Guardian (December 16, 2019, 6:00 PM),
https ://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019 / dec/16/north-caro Jina-felony-vote-law-black-
woman. Later that year, she went to the polls after a dinner event put on by her church; she had
no intention of "tricking anybody or being malicious in any kind of way" by voting. Id. Ms.
Bratcher's life was turned upside down by the felony voter conviction, and she ultimately ended
up leaving her job, citing frustration at having to deal with the charges publicly, for something
she never even intended to do. Id. She expressed apprehension at ever voting again, again
demonstrating a feeling of permanent exclusion from this foundational right. Id. The legacy of
felony disenfranchisement prosecutions aligns directly against the principles of democracy that
the institution of voting purports to uphold
North Carolinians' experiences of exclusion are echoed by the experiences of those
prosecuted under similar laws in other states. For example, in Texas, Crystal Mason was
arrested and charged with illegal voting in 2016 after casting a provisional ballot. Crystal
Mason, I was Arrested for Voting, but I won't let the Government Intimidate Me, The
Washington Post (September 30, 2019, 5:26 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-
was-arrested- for-voting-but-i-wont-let-the-govemment-intimidate-me/2019 /09 /3 0/7b626 l b8-
dfbf- l l e9-8dc8-498 eabc l 29 a0_story.html. Ms. Mason was considered ineligible to vote because
she was on federal supervised release for a previous tax fraud conviction. Id. Similar to the
experiences of the North Carolina residents, no one had ever informed Ms. Mason that she could
not vote. Id. Even though she was busy working to rebuild her life and support her children, she
was targeted because of her past convictions and involvement with the justice system. Id. This
type of targeting leads to the ostracization of justice-involved people and contributes to the

-5-
pervasive fear among their communities regarding voting, ultimately chilling both their vote and
broader participation in the voting process.
B. Affected Voters' Rights Workers
The chilling effect of such prosecutions on African-American voters is felt throughout the
communities where they take place.2 Not only are the prosecuted voters themselves fearful of
ever resuming voting after their prosecutions, but community members are also impacted by the
prosecutions, subsequently becoming less likely to engage in the voting process.3 Community
volunteers who have engaged in efforts to register people to vote recount their sadness and
frustration with the impact of the fear caused by prosecutions on their work. These workers
encounter people who have never been disqualified, or who are no longer disqualified, from
voting who hold on to apprehension based on the pervasive fear of a felony conviction or jail
time.
For example, Deborah Smith, a voter registration worker with volunteer experience, has seen
the chilling effect of prosecutions in real time. Ms. Smith testified in an affidavit appended to
this brief as Exhibit B. Not only has she worked and talked with people disenfranchised by the
current law because they are still on probation or serving a sentence, she has also spoken to
people eligible to vote who are fearful of doing so because of past convictions. Ex. B at
2 For further discussion of the data on this issue, see infra Section H.B.
3 See infra Section 11.B; see also NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and The
Sentencing Project, Free the Vote: UnlocldngDemocracy in the Cells and on the Streets,
December 19, 2016, available at https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/4669/ (noting
that"(f]elony disenfranchisement affects more than individual voters themselves-it diminishes
the voting strength of entire communities of color, which are too often already plagued with
concentrated poverty, substandard housing, limited access to healthcare services, failing public
schools, and environmental hazards. As a result, people in these communities have even less of
an opportunity to effect much-needed positive change through the political process").

-6-
paragraph 4. Many people choose not to vote out of fear that there will be repercussions from
the government because of their criminal record. Others are fearful based on prosecutions of
fellow community members they have heard about, such as the Alamance 12. Ex.Bat paragraph
5. To them, the risk of voting is not worth any risk ofreceiving another conviction or going to
jail, even though they are now eligible. Id.
Ms. Smith has seen this fear when trying to register people to vote. Outside of the public
library in Graham, North Carolina, she spoke to a man in his 60s about registering to vote. Ex. B
at paragraph 8. He infonned her that he had never voted because he thought he was ineligible
because of a misdemeanor juvenile charge he received when he was 16 years old. Id. He said
that his fear of voting was confinned by the recent prosecution of the Alamance 12. Id. Ms.
Smith tried her best to reassure the man that he was eligible to vote and to get him registered, but
his fear was too entrenched and profound. Id. Fear of prosecution can effectively strip people of
their fundamental right and prevent them from contributing to the civic process of this country.
Ms. Smith is even more discouraged when she talks to voters who have been prosecuted
under the disenfranchisement laws. She vividly remembers how a member of the Alamance 12
had moved away from Alamance county right before he was charged with felony voting. Ex. B at
paragraph 7. He moved to Wilmington with his family for a new job opportunity and to plant
roots for a new beginning. Id. It was only shortly after he moved that he was charged for voting
while on probation. Id. He subsequently lost his job. Id.
Ms. Smith's experiences are not an anomaly.4 Felony disenfranchisement laws have a
profound effect on real people, and its impact is more than a number. Each individual affected
4 See "Eligible Eight" Best Practice Responses, You Can Vote, available at
https://staticl .squarespace.com/static/5c6493eetb 18207f452082 l 9/t/5e 136394e7b77fl 99544 7be

-7-
represents a loss to our democracy. Furthermore, each individual story must be understood in the
overarching context of an enforcement scheme that effectively targets the African-American
vote.
II. Enforcement of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws Suppress the African-American

Vote.
Each story of a felony disenfranchisement prosecution occurs in a historical and societal
context. First, the criminalization of voting while on probation and parole is disproportionately
punitive, heightening the fear instilled by its enforcement, which is both racialized and
politicized. Second, the study of voting patterns reveals that the enforcement of felony
disenfranchisement laws not only harms individuals by separating them from the franchise, but it
harms entire communities by diluting and deterring the eligible Afiican-American vote. The
negative effect of felony disenfranchisement laws and their enforcement on potential African
American voters is clear.
A. Felony Disenfranchisement Laws Are Unduly Harsh and Their Application

Has Racial and Political Components
The 1901 General Assembly's express purpose for allowing prosecution of people who vote
while under felony supervision was to keep African Americans from voting. 5 The law, both then
and in its current form, provides that anyone serving a sentence for a felony conviction, in most
cases entirely unrelated to elections or voting, is barred from voting in North Carolina. NC Gen.
8/1578328981359/The+Eligible+S+.pdf (highlighting eight common scenarios volunteers

encounter when registering voters).
5 Criminal prosecutions as a tactic for voter suppression is consistent with our nation's history.
The criminal legal system, which was built, honed and finnly established during the Jim Crow
era is rife with racism. Historically the system has been used as a tool to preserve racial order
and keep communities of color is an inferior socio-economic status. See Michael Wines, How
Charges of Voter Fraud Became a Political Strategy, The New York Times (Oct. 21, 2016),
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/l 0/22/us/how-charges-of-voter-fraud-became-a-
political-strategy.html.

-8-
State §163-55(a)(2) (2017). Anyone who votes or attempts to vote while barred by the felony
disenfranchisement law is subject to prosecution for a felony. Id.
In contrast, many people who engage in unlawful election behavior under North Carolina
criminal laws are subject to prosecution at the misdemeanor level only, and, even if convicted,
are not statutorily barred from voting in future elections. For example, such crimes as voter
intimidation by a public official or interference with elections are classified as Class 2
misdemeanors. See N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 163-273.
Since the days of early felony disenfranchisement laws in North Carolina criminal
prosecutions for voting while on felony probation or parole have been used as a political tactic to
discourage and legally prevent communities of color from voting. 1 See, e.g. See, e.g. PIPPA
HOLLOWAY, A History of Stolen Citizenship, 12 Origins: Current Events in Hist. Perspective
9, -June 2019 at 13
Over the past few years, criminal prosecutions for alleged voter fraud have increased in
the US. Sam Cleveland, SLAPPing Down Discriminatory Voter Fraud Prosecutions, 103 MINN.
L. REV. (2019), available at https://minnesotalawreview.org/2019/02/11/slapping-down-
discriminatory-voter-fraud-prosecutions/. To date, there have been criminal indictments for
voting while felony supervision in at least 15 counties in North Carolina that stem from the 2016
general election. Bob Hall and Isela Gutierrez, The Deceit of Voter Fraud, Democracy North
Carolina (2017), available at https://democracync.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/FraudReport.pdf. In 2016, then Alamance County District Attorney Pat
Nadolski prosecuted twelve individuals for voting on felony probation, including Mr. Holman
and Mr. Haith, to "maintain the integrity of the voting system." Jack Healy, Arrested,jailed and
charged with a Felony, For Voting, The News & Observer (Aug. 2, 2018), available at

-9-
https:/ /www .newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article216009105 .html. While
prosecutors cite to voter fraud or attacks on the integrity of the electoral system when they
discuss prosecution, it is evident that most people who vote while on probation or parole do not
do so with intent to sway elections or to break the law. In 2018, when Gaston County district
attorney, Locke Bell, prosecuted twelve people who voted while disqualified in the 2016
election, he acknowledged that the individuals he was prosecuting were unaware they were not
able to vote. Adam Lawson, Gaston residents take pleas for illegal votes, Gaston Gazette (July
26, 2019), available at https://www .gastongazette.com/news/20190726/ gaston-residents-take-
pleas-for-illegal-votes. He prosecuted them anyway, because "you're not allowed to vote
illegally." Dashiell Coleman, Prosecution possible in Gaston voting cases, Gaston Gazette (Aug.
24, 2018), available at https://www.gastongazette.com/news/20180824/prosecution-possible-in-
gaston-voting-cases. The accused, who were mostly African-American, and mostly Democrats, 6
overwhelmingly maintained that they did not know they were disqualified from voting when
they cast their vote. Since the statute that criminalizes voting while on felony probation has been
interpreted as a strict liability statute, a felony conviction is possible even when the voter did not
knowingly or intentionally violate the law.
The context of felony disenfranchisement prosecutions therefore renders them effective,
not to preserve the integrity of elections, but rather to prevent communities of color from voting.
6 According to the 2018 State Board of Elections Report, 68% of the people who voted while on
felony probation were African American and 66% were registered with the Democratic party.
North Carolina State Board of Elections, Post-Election Audit Report (2017), available at
https ://s3. amazonaws. com/ dl.ncsbe.gov Isboe/Post-
El ection %20Audit%20Report_2016%20General %20Election/Post- Election_ Audit_ Report.pdf.

-10-
B. Felony Disenfranchisement Laws Suppress the African-American Vote Beyond

Those They Explicitly Disenfranchise.
The active enforcement of felony disenfranchisement laws-including criminal
prosecution-not only suppresses the vote of those directly targeted, but suppresses the vote of
fellow community members. In a national study, researchers concluded that "eligible African
American voters who live in states where a greater percentage of the voting age African
American population is barred from voting due to a felony conviction are less likely to vote."
Bridgett A. King and Laura Erickson, "Disenfranchising the Enfranchised: Exploring the
Relationship Between Felony Disenfranchisement and African American Voter Turnout,"
JOURNALOFBLACKSTUDIES,Vol. 47, No. 8, Nov. 2016, 799-821, Page 812, 815 (noting effect
holds true even when controlling for socioeconomic status). The profundity of the effect is such
that it reaches the behavior of voters with no felony record and who have never been justice-
involved. See Aman McLeod, Ismail K. White, and Amelia R. Gavin, "The Locked Ballot Box:
the Impact of State Criminal Disenfranchisement Laws on African American Voting Behavior
and Implications for Reform," 11 VA. J. Soc. POL'Y & L. 66, 80 (2003), available at
http:/ /polisci.osu.edu/sites/polisci.osu.edu/files/11 _ Va._J._ Soc._Pol'y _%26 _ L._ 66,_%5B 1%5D.
pdf ( concluding "the probability of voting declines at a greater rate for African Americans
compared to Caucasian Americans, when they live in states with restrictive criminal
disenfranchisement laws, even for those who have never been convicted of a crime") (emphasis
added); Melanie Bowers and Robert R. Preuhls, "Collateral Consequences of a Collateral
Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political Participation of
Nonfelons," SOCIALSCIENCEQUARTERLY,
Vol. 90, Issue 3 at 738 (Sept. 2009).

-11-
CONCLUSION
Voter disenfranchisement laws in North Carolina explicitly suppress the vote of people
on probation or parole, who are disproportionately African-American. Enforcement of these
laws effectively broadens the suppression effect by instilling fear not only in the people
prosecuted beyond the time they become eligible to vote, but by significantly impacting other
co1nmunity members who are impacted by the enforcement of the laws as well. Not only does
the enforcement of felony disenfranchisement laws reduce Black communities' political clout by
removing voters from the rolls, therefore, but it further penalizes those same communities by
chilling all Black voters' participation in our democracy. 7 For these reasons, the North Carolina
Justice Center and Down Home NC urges the Court to rule in favor of the Plaintiff in this matter.
7 Pamela S. Karlan, "Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate Over
Felon Disenfranchisement," Research Paper No. 75 at 17, Stanford Public Law and Legal Theory
Working Paper Series, available at https://papers.ssm.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=484543
(last visited 13 July 2020) (; see also King and Erickson at 815-16 ("[T]he removal of the right to
vote [] affects not only the political power of the individual but also the collective political power
of[] communities.").

-12-
NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
~~attw.>
Jo~n
NC State Bar No. 54949
Laura Holland
Quisha Mallette
Emily Turner
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919) 856-2164
Facsimile: (919) 856-2175
Email: jonathan@ncjustice.org
laura@ncjustice.org
quisha@ncjustice.org
emilyt@ncjustice.org

EXHIBIT
A
SUPERIOIR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF WAKE 19-cv-15941
CO:rvrMUNITYSUCCESS INITIATIVE;
JUSTICE SERVED NC, INC.; WASH
AWAY UNEMPLOYMENT; NORTH
DRAKARUS JONES; SUSAN MARION; AFFIDAVIT OF ANTHONY HAITH
HENRY HARRISON; ASHLEY
CAHOON; SHAKITA NORMAN,
Plaintiffs,
V.
TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SPEAKER
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES; PHILIP E.
BERGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPA CITY AS PRESIDENT PRO
TEMPORE OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA SENATE; THE NORTH
ELECTIONS; DAMON CIRCOSTA, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE NORTH
ELECTIONS; STELLA ANDERSON, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE NORTH
ELECTIONS; KENNETH RAYMOND,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE NORTH
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; DAVID C.

BLACK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS MEMBER OF THE NORTH
ELECTIONS,
Defendants.
Anthony Haith, being duly sworn, declares the following:
1. My name is Anthony Haith, I am over 18 years of age, and I am fully
competent to make this declaration.
2. I live in Alamance county and have previously been charged with
voting while on probation for a felony.
3. I live in Alamance county and work as a dishwasher at a local
restaurant. I have done some volunteer work with Down Home NC, which is a
community led organization focusing on raising the voices of working people and
fixing issues affecting our democracy, by attending meetings and handing out flyers.
4. I was prosecuted in Alamance County for voter fraud in 2018, along
with 11 other people. We are sometimes known as the "The Alamance 12."
5. When I voted in the 2016 election, I was still on probation for a
previous conviction. I did not know I was unable to vote, or I would not have voted.
When I was put on probation, I was informed of many things that I could not do or
have. However, no one ever told me that I could not vote.
6. When I arrived at the polls, no one told me I could not vote. I was only
directed to a polling station to cast my ballot.

7. In 2018, the police came to my house looking for me with a warrant. I
was shocked, because I thought I was just exercising my rights when I voted.
8. Throughout the prosecution and being charged, I was thinking of the
many people that had died and fought for us to vote. I had always thought that you
were cheating yourself and society if you did not vote.
9. After talking with other Alamance 12 members, a lot of us are scared
to vote now. It was very difficult dealing with the process of getting prosecuted for
something that I did not even know was a crime, and dealing with the fallout
afterwards.
10. I am still fearful of voting now. I do not want to go to jail for voting. I
vividly remember how the judge looked at me standing in the courtroom, as if I had
knowingly committed a grave wrong, and I will never forget it.
11. I told them in court that I was unaware that what I was doing was
wrong, but there was no change in how the State treated me or looked at me.
12. Being prosecuted has affected my job search. Many employers will not
give me an interview or take me seriously as a candidate because of the charge.
13. Even though I was ultimately not convicted for felony voting, I am still
fearful of voting until this day.
14. I honestly do not know if I will ever vote again given everything that
went on and how I was treated throughout the prosecution process.

This, the ,1.U:::...
'2..,day of July, 2020.
~f-e • .,/J,vt
Anthony Haith
ALAMANCE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
,.d
03
. h e7'\~ day of July, 2020.
hist
Notary Public _ _
My Commission Exp1res. 0Ctbttir
J1;;;/o-Z;/

EXHIBIT
B
COUNTY OF WAKE 19-cv-15941

JUSTICE SERVED NC, INC.; WASH
AWAY UNEMPLOYMENT; NORTH
DRAKARUS JONES; SUSAN MARION; AFFIDAVIT OF DEBORAH SMITH
HENRY HARRISON; ASHLEY
CAHOON; SHAKITA NORMAN,
Plaintiffs,
V.
TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SPEAKER
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES; PHILIP E.
BERGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPA CITY AS PRESIDENT PRO
TEMPORE OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA SENATE; THE NORTH
ELECTIONS; D.AM:ONCIRCOSTA, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPA CITY AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE NORTH
ELECTIONS; STELLA ANDERSON, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE NORTH
ELECTIONS; KENNETH RAYMOND,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE BOARD_OF
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; DAVID C.
BLACK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS MEMBER OF THE NORTH

ELECTIONS,
Defendants.
Deborah Smith, being duly sworn, declares the following:
1. My name is Deborah Smith, I am over 18 years of age, and I am fully
competent to make this Affidavit.
2. I live in Alamance county and I volunteer with the local chapter of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on different
issues affecting the local community.
3. Through the NAACP's Political Action Committee, I work on voter
registration in and around the community. I have been involved with these types of
efforts for about 4~5 years now.
4. In my volunteer role of encouraging people to register to vote, and
assisting them with the registration process, I have often been hampered in my
efforts when I encounter individuals with criminal records who have shared fears
about voting in fear of retaliation such as prosecution or even jail time. Many of
these people were eligible to vote at the time I was trying to assist them, however
they declined to register based on a risk of receiving a new charge.
5. I worked on voter registration efforts in 2018. 12 voters were
prosecuted in Alamance county during that year ("The Alamance 12"), and the
prosecution was widely publicized. This made my job even more difficult. Many
people with criminal records cited this as a new source of fear regarding voting.

They likened themselves to the people charged with felonies for voting, and feared
the same consequences if they were to try to vote.
6. In my volunteer efforts, I have also encountered people who are
interested in voting, but cannot because they are still on probation or serving a
sentence.
7. One of the members of the Alamance 12 had moved away from the
Alamance county area right before he was charged. After moving to Wilmington
with his family for a new job opportunity, he was charged with a felony for voting in
the 2016 election. He subsequently lost his job.
8. For example, shortly after the Alamance 12 case received publicity, I
was volunteering to register voters outside of the public library in Graham, North
Carolina. I tried to persuade a man in his 60s to register to vote. He had never
registered to vote before, stating that he was not eligible based on a convicted of a
juvenile offense that occurred when he was 16. The conviction was only for a
misdemeanor, however he still thought that he did not have the right to vote. The
prosecution of The Alamance 12 only further confirmed his fears of voting~
¥J:6t persuade hinr to xe~istor ta vote

s·e@:r_:ld: £>S
9. In my work, I try to convince people to register to vote so that they are
able to make a difference or change in their community. My job is made that much
harder when I am working with people who are disenchanted with the system of
voting and representation.,

10. When I first started voting, it made me feel like an important part of
society and like I was effecting change. I think that it gives you a chance to express
grievances and try to make things different through your efforts, regardless of the
outcome.
This, then day of July, 2020.
Deborah Smith
ALAMANCE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
i-J.
,py,-v,.,,_,reme, this the~ day of July, 2020.
~aryPublic
My Commission Expires: OM~f:/3 26l/ 1

Exhibit 13
Wake County Superior Court’s Order Dated September 4,

2020 Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No.
19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTI C E
2J?0SEP- ll Pfl q: 28 SUPERIORCOURTDIVISION
COUNTY OF WAKE FILE NO . 19 CVS 15941
1 1 11' I ' •-
• • .-:. , , ...:
cf"'\ ,
• , C..• S. C.
1..-1
COMMUNITY SUCCESqJrITIATIVE,
et al., ·
Plain tiffs,
V. ORDER
TIMOTHY K MOORE, in his official
capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina
House of Repres entatives , et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the undersigned three-judge panel upon Plaintiffs mot i on
for summary judgment or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction.
In this litigation, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that N.C.G.S. § 13-1, the North
Carolina statute providing for the restoration of rights of citizenship-which includes the
right to vote-for persons convicted of a crime, is facially unconstitutional and invalid
under the North Carolina Constitution to the extent it prevents persons on probation,
pa role, or post-release supervision from voting in North Carolina elections. Specifically,
Plaintiff s contend Section 13-1 of our General Statutes violates Article I, Sections 10, 11,
12, 14, and 19 of our Constitution. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants, their agents,
officers, and employees from 1) pr eventing North Carolina citizens released from
incarc eratio n or not sentenced to incarc era tion from registering to vote and voting due to a
felony conviction, and 2) conditioning restoration of the ability to vote on payment of any
financial obligation.

Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in this matter on November 20, 2019, and am
amended complaint on December 3, 2019. Defendants filed answers to and motions to
dismiss the amended complaint in January 2020; the motions to dismiss were subseque:mtly
withdrawn . On May 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed th e present motion for summary judgment or,
in the alternative, a preliminary injunction.
On Jun e 17, 2020, this action was transferred to a three-judge panel of Superior
Court, Wak e County, pursuant to N .C.G.S . § 1-267.1 and N.C.G.S. § lA -1, Rule 42(b)(4). On
June 24, 2020, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, pursuant to
N.C.G.S. § 1-267.1, assigned the undersigned three-judge panel to preside over the facial
con stitutional challenges raised in this litigation.
On August 19, 2020, Plaintiffs' motion was virtually heard by the undersigned
three-judge panel via WebEx pursuant to th e Chief Justice's orders regarding virtual
hearings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic . The matter was thereafter taken under
advisement.
Voting Qualifications for Individuals Convicted of Felonies
Article VI, Section 2 of the North Carolina Constit ution delineates certain
qualifications , or disqualifications, affecting a person's ability to vote in our State. Relevant
to this case is Article VI, Subsection 2(3), which dictates that "[n]o person adjudged guilty of
a felony against this State or the United States, or adjudged guilty of a felony in another
state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, shall be permitted
to vote unless that person shall be first res tored to the rights of citizenship in the manner
prescribed by law." N.C . Const . art. VI,§ 2(3).

Plaintiffs' action challenges the "manner prescribed by law"-N.C.G.S. § 13-1-in
which voting rights are automatically restored to individuals convicted of felonies. The
current iteration of this statute reads as follows:
Any person convicted of a crime, whereby the rights of citizenship are

forfeited, shall have such rights automatically restored upon the
occurrence of any one of the following conditions:
(1) The unconditional discharge of an inmate, of a probationer, or of

a parolee by the agency of the State having jurisdiction of that
person or of a defendant under a suspended sentence by the court.
(3) The satisfaction by the offender of all conditions of a conditional
pardon.
United States, the unconditional discharge of such person by the
agency of the United States having jurisdiction of such person, the
unconditional pardon of such person or the satisfaction by such
person of a conditional pardon.
(5) With regard to any person convicted of a crime in another state,
the unconditional discharge of such person by the agency of that
state having jurisdiction of such person, the unconditional pardon
of such person or the satisfaction by such person of a conditional
pardon.
N.C.G.S. § 13-1.
Undisputed Material Facts Regarding the History of Restoration of

Rights of Citizenship in North Carolina 1
The manner prescribed by law to restore the rights of citizenship for certain persons
has a long and relevant history. In 1835, North Carolina amended its constitution to permit
the enactment of general laws regulating the methods by which rights of citizenship-
including the right to vote-are restored to persons convicted of "infamous crimes."
Infamous crimes included offenses which warranted "infamous punishments." Thereafter in
1
The Court does not make findings of fact on a motion for summary judgment; instead, to be "helpful lo
the parties and the courts," the Court should "articulate a summary of the material facts which [the Court] considers
are not at issue and which justify entry of judgment." Hyde Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Dixie Leasing Corp., 26 N.C. App.
138, 142, 215 S.E.2cl 162, 165 ( I975).

1840, a general law was passed regulating the restoration of rights, including granting he
courts unfettered discretion in restoring rights of citizens hip .
After the civi l war, North Carolina adopted a new constitution which allowed all
men to vote , eliminated property-based voting limitations, and abolished slavery. Persoms
convicted of specific crimes were not expressly forbidden by the constitution from voting- ;
however, a combination of constitutional amendments-including an amendment in 1875
that provided for the disenfranchisement of persons convicted of felonies and infamous
crimes-and laws passed over the following decades maintained limitations on the
restoration of rights for persons convicted of certain crimes, thereby continuing to deny
such persons the ability to vote. Judicial discretion remained part of the process for
restoring a person's rights of citizenship.
These limitations lasted until 1971, when, as a result of the efforts of the only two
African Americans in the legislature, the reference to infamous crimes was removed from
the constitutional provision and voting rights were taken away from only persons convicted
of felonies. In 1973, there were three African American legislators who again attempted to
amend N .C.G.S. § 13-1 to automatica lly restore citizenship rights upon completion of an
active sentence. They were unsuccessful, only succeeding in removing additional proc ed ur al
barriers that disproportionately impacted African Americans and the poor.
Today, the restoration of rights under N.C.G .S. § 13-1 is automatic upon a person's
"unconditional discharge" and is not expressly subject to a discretionary decision by a
government official, e.g., a judge. But while the final decision to restore a person's rights of
citizenship is not left to the discretion of a judge, there do remain a number of discretionary
decisions, especially in sentencing, that have a direct effect upon when a person's right to
vote is restored , along with the qualifications and requirements that must ultimately be
satisfied before a person convicted of a felony is permitted to vote . Importantly in this case,
4

one such group of decisions pertain to the assessment of monetary costs arising from a
felony conviction, e.g., fees, fines, costs, restitution, and other debts.
In deliberating on Plaintiffs' claims, we found it appropriate and compelling to
consider the legislative history of N.C .G.S. § 13-1. While Defendants predominantly urge us
to consider only the history of N.C.G.S. § 13-1 from the 1971 and 1973 legislative sessions,
this does not accurately reflect the legislative origination and evolution of North Carolina 's
restoration ofrights statute, which we find necessary to rule on Plaintiffs' claims.
Today, N.C.G.S. § 13-1 remains written almost exactly as it was after the 1973
amendments, which precludes the restoration of citizenship rights until the completion of
the sentence, including any period of parole, post-release supervision or probation.
Summary Judgment
Plaintiffs contend the challenged statute violates rights guaranteed by five specific
provisions of the Declaration of Rights in our Constitution: Article I, Sections 10, 11, 12, 14,
and 19.
Article I, Section 10, declares that "[a]ll elections shall be free." N.C. Const. art. I, §
10.
Article I, Section 11, declares that "[a]s political rights and privileges are not
dependent upon or modified by property, no property qualification shall affect the right to
vote or hold office." N.C. Const. art. I, § 11.
Article I, Section 12, declares, in relevant part, that "[t]he people have a right to
assemble together to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and
to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances[.]" N.C. Const. art. I, § 12.
Article I, Section 14, declares, in relevant part, that "[f]reedom of speech and of the
press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained[.]"
N.C . Const . art. I, § 14.

5

Article I, Section 19, declares, in relevant part, that "[n]o person shall be denied the
equal protection of the laws ." N.C. Const. art. I, § 19.
Applicable Legal Standards
On a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he judgment sought shall be rendered
forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on fil e ,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issues as to any mater ia l
fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." N .C.G.S. § lA-1, Rule
56(c) (2017). Moreover, "[s]ummary judgment, when appropriate, may be rendered agai n st
the moving party." Id.
When, as here, the case is a declaratory judgment action challenging the facial
constitutionality of a statute, the courts presume "that any act passed by the legislature is
constitutional," and "will not strike it down if [it] can be upheld on any reasonable ground."
State u. Bryant, 359 N.C. 554 , 564, 614 S.E.2d 479, 486 (2005) (quoting State u. Tho,npson,
349 N .C. 483, 491, 508 S.E.2d 277, 281-82 (1998)); Cooper u. Berger, 370 N .C. 392, 413, 809
S .E.2d 98, 111 (2018) (explaining that courts will not declare a law invalid unless it is
determined to be "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt"). Accordingly, "[a]n
individual challenging the facial constitutionality of a legislative act 'must establish that no
set of circumstances exists under which the [a]ct would be valid."' Thompson, 349 N .C. at
491 (second alteration in original) (quoting United States u. Sa.lenno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107
S . Ct. 2095, 2100 (1987)).
However, while "North Carolina caselaw generally gives acts of the General
Assembly great deference, such deference is not warranted when the burden shifts to a
law's defender after a challenger has shown the law to be the product of a racially
discriminatory purpose or intent." Holmes u. Moore,_ N.C. App . _,_, 840 S.E .2d 244, 256
(2020) (internal citation and quotation omitted) (citing Arlington Heights u. Metropolitan
6

Hou.sing Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-6 (1977). When this burden shifts, "the general standai.rd
applied to facial constitutiona l challenges is also inapplicable because the Arling/,on
Heights framework dictates the law's defenders must instead 'demonstrate that the law
would have been enacted without' the alleged discriminatory intent." Id. at_, 840 S.E.2d
at 256-7 (quoting Hwiter v. Underwood, 47 1 U.S. 222, 228 (1985)). "Discriminatory
purpose 'may often be inferred from the totality of th e re levant facts, including the fact, if it
is true, that the law bears more heavily on one race than another."' Id. at_, 840 S.E.2d at
255 (quoting Washington v. Da.vis, 426 U.S . 229, 242 (1976)).
Cla.im on Violation of the Free Elections Clause
Plaintiffs first contention is that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 violates the Free Elect .ions Clause
of the North Carolina Constitution. As to this contention, this majority of the three-judge
panel concludes that there is a genuine issue of material fact and that neither Plaintiffs nor
Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. The Motion for Summary
Judgment is denied as to this claim .
Cla.im on Violation of the Equal Protection Clause
Plaintiffs' second contention is that N.C,G.S . § 13-1 violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the North Carolina Constitution by depriving all persons with felony convictions
who are not incarcerated but are on probation, parole or post-release supervision with
substantia lly eq ual voting power. The majority finds that as to this contention there is a
genuine issue of material fact and neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter oflaw.
Plaintiffs' next contend that N,C.G.S. § 13-1 violates the Equal Protection Clause in
three separate ways , First, by depriving all persons with felony convictions subject to
proba tion, parole or post -release supervision, who are not incarcerated, of the right to vote.
Second, by depriving the African American Community of substantially equa l voting power.
7

And third, by creating an impermissible class-based classification by conditioning the
restoration of the right to vote on the ability to make financial payments. The panel wa
presented with extensive evidence on these contentions through the submission of expe t
reports . Plaintiffs offered, and the panel admitted, the reports of Dr. Frank Baumgartn e r,
Dr. Orville Vernon Burton, and Dr. Traci Burch. Legislative Defendants offered the
testimony of Dr. Keegan Callanan. The panel allowed the admission of Dr. Callanan's
report over the objection of Plaintiffs, ruling by separate Order that the arguments rais e d
by Plaintiffs would be considered in determining the weight to be given to Dr. Callanan's
report. The majority concludes, for the purposes of this order, that Dr. Calla nan's report
was unpersuasive in rebutting the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts, was flawed in some of its
analysis and, while Dr. Callanan is an expert in the broad field of political science, his
experience and expertise in the particular issues before this panel are lacking. Therefore,
the majority assigns no weight to the report.
As to the first and second bases for the alleged violation of the Equal Protection
Clause, this majority of the three-judge panel concludes that there is a genuine issue of
material fact and that neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
As to the third basis for the alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause, that
N .C.G .S. § 13-1 creates in impermissible class-based classification by conditioning the
restoration of the right to vote on the ability to make financial payments, the majority of
this three judge panel concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. In making this conclusion, we
acknowledge that the United State Supreme Court has determined that the right to vote is
a fundamental right. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-62, 84 S. Ct . 1362
(1964) . We further acknowledge that while the United States Supreme Court has held that
8

wealth is not a "suspect classification" that calls for heightened scrutiny, San Antonio
Inclep . Sch . Dr:st. l '. Roclrig1.1,c

z, 411 U.S. 1, 29, 93 S. Ct. 1278 (1973); Ortwein u. Schwab, 410
U.S. 656, 660, ~rnS. Ct . 1172 (197:3), it has further held that when a wealth classification is
used to restrict the right to vote or in the administration of justice, it is subject to
heightened scrutiny, not the rational basis review urged by Defendants in this case. M.L.B.
u. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 124, 117 S. Ct. 555 (1996).
As Defendants correctly argue, the express words of N.C.G.S. § 13-1 do not in and of
themselves create different classifications of persons convicted of felonies-all such persons
remain disenfranchised until they have been "unconditionally discharged." However, by
requiring an unconditional discharge that includes payments of all monetary obligations
imposed by the court, N.C.G.S. § 13-1 creates a wealth classification that punishes felons
who are genuinely unable to comply with the financial terms of their judgment more
harnhly than those who are able to comply. By requiring payment of all monetary
obligations, N.C .G.S. § 13-1 provides that individuals, otherwise similarly situated, may
have their punishment alleviated or extended solely based on wealth.
We also note that, because of the judicial discretion built into the criminal laws, the
amount of the financial burden, as well as the length of a probationary term, imposed by a
judge varies from judge to judge, district to district, or division to division . The amount of
restitution, if any is owed, is subject to the cooperation of a witness and the diligence of the
prosecutor in obtaining a restitution amount sought. As noted above, this is not unlike the
judicial discretion allowed when a felon was required to petition a court for restoration of
citizenship rights, or the discretion of the character witnesses a petitioning felon was
required to produce . Or, as testified by Senator Henry Michaux, "the whole statute is an
impediment to having ... rights restored depending on the psyche of the judge who is going
to render that decision." Micha.u.x Dep a.t 46:9-13. Further, probation may be extended for
9

up to five years, then an additional three with the consent of the probationer, to allow tune
for the compliance with the financial obligation of restitution. The impact is that a pers cr.
m
remains disenfranchised for up to eight years because he has been unable to pay-an
impermissible and unconstitutional wealth-based restoration of citizenship rights,
including the right to vote. Because we find Plaintiffs prevail as a matter oflaw on this
issue, by separate order, we also grant Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to
alleviate irreparable harm.
Clairn on Violation of the Right to Free Assembly and the Right to Free Speech
Plaintiffs' third contention is that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 violates the Right of Free
Assembly and Petition and the Right to Free Speech Clauses of the North Carolina
Constitution. As to this contention, this three-judge panel concludes that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Summary Judgment is therefore granted in favor of Defendants as to this claim.
Claim. on Violation of the Ban on Property Qualifications .
Plaintiffs final contention is that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 violates the Constitutional ban on
Property Qualification by conditioning restoration of the right to vote on having property
(i.e. sufficient means to pay financial obligations imposed pursuant to a felony judgment.)
Section 13-1 of our General Statutes imposes upon a person convicted of a felony the
requirement of an "unconditional discharge" - and, consequently, the inherent
qualifications persons must meet to obtain such a discharge-to regain the right to vote.
Even though N.C.G.S. § 13-1 was enacted due to ATticle VI,§ 2(3), ofour Constitution, this
statute, lilrn all enacted laws, must not run counter to a constitutional limitation or
prohibition, including those guaranteed in the Declaration of Rights contained in Article I
of our Constitution. Section 11 of Article I declares that "[a]s political rights and privileges
are not depend ent upon or modified by property, no property qualification shall affect the
10

right to vote or hold office," N.C. Const . art . I,§ 11. Importantly, the "fundamental purp "°se"
for which the Declaration of Rights was enacted is "to provide citizens with protection fr om
the State 's encroachment upon these [enumerated] rights." Corum , v. Univ. of N. C., 330
N.C . 761, 782, 413 S.E.2d 276, 290 (1992) .
Article I, § 11, of our Constitution is clear : no property qualification shall affect th e
right to vote . Therefore , when legislation is enacted that restores the right to vote, ther e by
establishing qualifications which certain persons must meet to exercise their right to vot e,
such legislation must not do so in a way that makes the ability to vote dependent on a
prop erty qualification. The requirement of an "unconditional discharge" imposed by
N .C.G.S. § 13-1 does exactly that-the ability for a person convicted of a felony to vote is
conditioned on whether that person possesses, at minimum, a monetary amount equal to
any fees, fines, and debts assessed as a result of that person's felony conviction.
As to this contention, this majority of the three-judge panel concludes that there is
no genuine issue of material fact and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law . The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs on this claim .
Because we find Plaintiffs prevail as a matter of law on this issue, by separate order, we
also grant Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to allev iat e irreparable harm.
Conclusion
Upon considering the pleadings, parties' briefs and submitted materials, numerous
amicus briefs, arguments, and the record established thus far, this majority of the
three -judge panel determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact that N.C.G.S.
§ 13-1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the .North Carolina Constitution by creating
an impermissible class -based classification by conditioning the restoration of the right to
vote on the ability to make financial payment, and, therefore, concludes that Plaintiffs are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law; that there is no genuine issue of material fact that
11

N.C.G.S. § 13-1 violates th e Ban on Proper ty Qualifications of the North Carolina
Constitution and, th erefore, concludes that Pl ai ntiffs are entitl ed to judgment as a matt -er
oflaw; that t here is a genuine issu e of mat er ial fact whether N.C.G.S. § 13-1 violates th e
Equal Protection Clause of th e North Carolina Constitution in the other manners put fo::rth
by Plaintiffs, as discussed above, and neith er party is entitl ed to judgm ent as a matter o.f
law; that there is a genuin e iss ue of material fact whether N .C.G.S. § 13-1 violates the Free
Ele ctions Clause of the North Carolina Constitution and neith er p ar ty is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law ; and, that there is no genuine issu e of material fact that
N.C .G.S. § 13-1 does not violate the Right to Free Speech or Right of Assembly and Petition
provisions of the North Carolina Constitution and, therefore concludes that Defendants are
entitl ed to judgm ent as a mat ter oflaw .
Th e Honorable John M. Dunlow concurs in part and diss ent s in part from portion s
of this Ord er.
For the foregoing reaso ns , Plaintiffs' motion for summary jud gment , or in the
alte rn ative a preliminary injunction , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
I. Count 1 (Free Elections Clause) Summary Judgm ent is DENIED.

II . Count 2 (Equal Pro te ction Clause) Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part.
Pr elim inary Injunction is GRANTED und er separate ord er.
III. Count 3 (Freedom of Speech and Asse mbly Clau ses ) is GRANTED in favor of
Defendants.
IV. Coun t 4 (Ban on Property Qu alificat ions) is GRANTED . Pr eliminary
Injunction is GRANTED und er separate order.
SO ORDERED, this the l/ day of Sep:.z::rr, 20rO .

(/\k if loU--
Gr egory, Superior Court Judge
i jority of this Three Judge Panel

NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
COUNTY OF WAKE FILE NO. 19 CVS 15941
COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE,

et al .,
Plaintiffs ,
V. ORDER ON SUMMARYJUDGMENT
(DISSENT)
TIMOTHY K. MOORE , in his official
House of Repr ese ntativ es, et al.,
Defendant s.
Judge Dunlow concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Article VI, Section 2, Part 3 of th e North Carolina Constitution provides :
(3) Disqualification of felon. No p erso n adjudged guilty of a felony against this

State or the Unit ed States, or adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that
also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, shall be permitted
to vote unl ess that person shall be first restored to the rights of citizenship in
the mann er pre scri bed by law.
Plaintiffs' complaint in this action does not challenge this North Carolina
Constitutional provision denying convicted felons the right to vote. This particular provision
has not been decla red unconstitutional. In fact, this provision was pr eviously challenged and
found to be constitutional. Fincher v. Scott , 32 F. Supp. 117 (M.D.N.C., 1972), affd 411 U.S.
961, 93 S.Ct . 2151, 36 L.Ed.2d 681 (1973) .
Plaintiffs' complaint here makes a facial challenge to N.C.G.S. § 13-1, the statute
enacted by the legis lature prescribing the manner by which a convicted felon's rights of
citizenship (which includ es the right to vote) are restored. That statute provides:

forfeited, shall hav e such rights automatically restored upon the
occurr e nce of a ny one of the following conditions:

(l) The unconditional discharge of an inmate , of a probationer, or
of a parolee by t h e age ncy of the Stat e hav in g juri sdiction of that person
or of a defendant under a su spe nded se nt ence by t h e court.
(2) The un conditio n al pardon of th e offender.
(3) The satisfactio n by the offender of all cond itions of a

condi t ional pardon.
( 4) With r ega rd t o any person conv ict ed of a crime against the

United States, the unconditional di sch arge of such person by the agency
of the U ni ted States having j uri sdiction of suc h per son, t h e
un condit iona l pardon of such pers on or t he sa ti sfaction by suc h p erson
of a cond ition al pardon.
(5) With regard t o any person conv icted of a crime in anoth er

state, the uncondi ti onal discharge of s uch pers on by the agency of that
state having ju risdicti on of such person , the uncondition al pardon of
such per son or the satisfactio n by such per son of a conditional pardon.
N.C.G.S. § 1:3-l
In assessing Plaintiff s' facial challenge to this statut e, thi s Court is bound to adhere
to th e principl es of law p re viou sly enunciat ed by our appellate courts. Our Supreme Court
h as mad e it clear th at, "[A] facial challenge to a legislative act is ... the 'most difficult
challenge to mount success fully. "' State v. Bryant, 359 N.C. 554, 564, 614 S.E.2d 479, 485
(2005) (quotin g United States u. Salerno, 481 U.S . 739, 745 (1987). Here, the plaintiff mu st
show that , "th ere are no circumstances und er which the statute might be constitutional. "'
N .C. State Bd. Of Educ. v. State, 814 S.E.2d 67, 74 (2018) (citin g B eaufort Cty. Bd. Of Edit c.
u. B eaufort Cty . Bd. Of Cornm'rs, 363 N.C. 500, 502, 681 S.E.2d 278, 280 (2009)). "The fact
th at [th e challeng ed] stat ut e mi ght opera te un con stit ution ally und er some conceivable se t of
circumstances is in suffici ent to render it wholly invalid. " State v. Thomp son , 349 N .C. 483,
491 , 508 S.E.2d 277, 282 (1998) (qiwtin g Salemo, 481 U.S . at 745).

In addition to the extreme ly high bar faced by plaintiffs' facial challenge to N.C. G.S.
§ 13-1, this Court is also required to presume this duly enacted North Carolina statu t e is
constitutional. Wayne Cty . Citizens Ass'n for Better Tax Control v. Wayne Cty. Bdl. Of
Comm'rs, 328 N.C. 24, 29, 399 S.E.2d 311, 314-15 (1991). This Court must give g-Teat
deference to acts of the General Assembly, and this Court must not declare an act
unconstitutional unless this Court determines that it is unconstitutional beyond a reason,,able
doubt. See Rhyne u. K-Ma rt Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 167, 594 S.E.2d 1, 7 (2004) and Coope r u.
Berge r, 370 N.C. 392, 413, 809 S.E.2d 98, 111 (2018).
It is with these guiding principles of law in mind that we now turn to the application
of those guidelines to the facts and circumstances of the present action.
The Plaintiffs, throughout their complaint, briefs, filings and arguments, complain of
North Carolina's "disenfranchisement scheme", "disenfranchisement statute", and
"disenfranchisement of citizens." The disenfranchisement of which Plaintiffs complain is in
no way attributable to N.C.G.S. § 13-L No reasonable reading of the plain language of
N.C.G.S. § 13-1 could be interpreted to disenfranchise any person. Rather, the sole purpose
of N.C.G.S. § 13-1 is to provide a mechanism whereby individuals who have been convicted
of a felony offense may be re-enfranchised .
Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Frank R. Baumgartner's, report provides little support for
Plaintiffs' theory or a finding that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 has a disparate impact on one race as
opposed to another. Dr. Baumgartner, submitted a 36 page report detailing his analysis as
to, "five sets of issues related to the disenfranchisement of persons who are on probation or
post-release supervision follow1:ng a felony conuiction in North Carolina state court."
(emphasis added) Dr. Fran/7, R. Baurnga rtner, Expert Report on North Carolina's
Disenfranchisement of Individuals on Probation and Post-Release Supervision, May 8, 2020,
p.2. (Hereinafter referred to as "Dr . Baumgartner's Report"). In his report, Dr. Baumgartner
3

finds, "the disenfranchisement of persons on probation and post-release supervision from a
North Carolina state court conviction differentially affects different racial groups. Although
Blacks comprise just 22 percent of the voting age population in North Carolina, they comprise
42 percent of persons disenfranchised while on probation or post-release supervision." DI'.
Baumgal'tnel''s Repol't, p. 3-4. All of Dr. Baumgartner's analysis is made on the impact of
disenfranchisement resulting from a felony conviction and the provisions of Article VI,
Section 2, Part 3 of the North Carolina Constitution . Dr. Baumgartner's Report does not
contain, and Plaintiffs have not otherwise offered, any expert analysis as to the number of
persons re-enfranchised under the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 13-1, nor as to the racial
demographics of persons re-enfranchised under the provisions of N. C.G.S . § 13-1.
This lack of evidence as to the effects of N.C.G.S . § 13-1 is particularly troubling in
this case where the majority has found discriminatory intent to be a motivating factor in the
enactment of N.C.G.S. § 13-1. As a result of that finding, which was based on Dr.
Baumgartner's analysis, the majority declined to accord any judicial deference to the act of
the legislature in adopting N.C.G.S. § 13-1 and applied a strict scrutiny standard in reviewing
the legislative act.
Our North Carolina Supreme Court has previously addressed the legislative intent
associated with the adoption of Chapter 13 of the North Carolina General Statutes . In the
case of State v. Currie , 284 NC 562, 202 S.E.2d 153 (1974), our Supreme Court, in reviewing
the legislative history ofN.C.G.S. § 13-1 thru 13-4, held, "It is obvious that the 1971 General
Assembly in enacting Chapter 902 [now Chapter 13] intended to substantially relax the
requirements necessary for a convicted felon to have his citizenship restored." Id. at 565, 202
S.E.2d at 155. This holding by our Supreme Court mitigates against a finding by this panel
that the General Assembly , in enacting N.C.G.S. § 13-1, acted with discriminatory intent.

This Judge, as does the majority, finds Dr. Baumgartner's Report to be thoro~1gh,
credible, believable, and compelling. The fundamental flaw in Plaintiffs' case lies not in Dr.
Baumgartner's analysis, but in the Plaintiffs' assertion (and burden to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt) that the Legislature's enactment of N.C.G.S. § 13-1 is the cause of Dr.
Baumgartner's findings.
The majority also finds the right to vote is a fundamental right, and, "when a wealth
classification is used to restrict the right to vote or in the administration of justice, it is subject
to heightened scrutiny, not the rational basis review urged by Defendants in this case." Our
Supreme Court has held, "the right to vote, per se, is not a constitutionally protected right."
White v. Pate, 308 N.C. 759, 768, 304 S.E. 2d 199, 205 (1983) (quoting Rivera-Rodriguez v.
Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1, 9, 72 L.Ed. 2d 628, 635, 102 S.Ct. 2194 2199 (1982)).
See also Comer v. Ammons, 135 N.C. App 531 (1999) . Moreover, convicted felons, who have
lost their voting rights, lack any fundam ·ental interest to assert. See Johnson v. Bredesen,
6'24 F.3d 742 (2010).
N.C.G.S § 13-1 does not create a wealth classification. The only classes created by the
challenged statute is convicted felons who have completed their sentence and convicted felons
who have not completed their sentence. The challenged statute does not itself impose any
fines, fees, or other costs on people convicted offelonies who are on probation, parole, or post-
release supervision. The monetary obligations of which Plaintiffs complain are imposed by
other provisions of North Carolina law that are not challenged by the Plaintiffs in this action.
CONCLUSION
There is no dispute that disenfranchisement (that is the subject of this action) is the
result of a felony conviction. There is no dispute that the complained of disenfranchisement
is mandated by Article VI, Section 2, Part 3 of the North Carolina Constitution. There is no
dispute that Plaintiffs' complaint does not challenge Article VI, Section 2, Part 3 of the North
s

Carolina Constitution . Plaintiffs hav e failed to offer any evidenc e as to the impact of N.C _G.S.
§ 13-1 on the numb er of p ers ons re-enfranchised und er th e statut e's provisions, or as to the
rac ial demo gra phic s of persons r e-enfran chi se d und er the statut e's provisio ns. As such , this
Court mu st accord great defere n ce to the acts of the Legislature. Because the chall enged
stat ut e does not affect a fund a mental right, nor does it create an imp er mi ss ible wealth-based
classification, nor hav e the Pl aintiff s shown a disparate impa ct on a susp ect cla ss res u l ting
from th e challenged statut e, r ational bas is review is the appropriat e sta ndard to be applied
in thi s facial challenge.
Count 1 (Free Elections Clause)
Jud ge Dunlow concurs in the result reac h ed by th e majority as to Count I (Free
Elections Clause) in that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgm ent is DENIED . For th e
reasons sp ecified h ere inabov e, Judg e Dunlow would find ther e is no genuin e issu e of mat eria l
fact and gra nt summary judgm ent in favor of the Defend ants on this claim.
Count 2 (Equal Protections Clause)
Count 2 (a)
Th e majo rity finds th ere is a genuin e issue of ma ter ial fact as to wh eth er N.C.G .S. §
13-1 violat es th e Equal Prot ection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution by depriving all
p erso ns with felony convictions who are not in carcerate d but are on probation, parol e or post-
release sup ervision with substantiall y equ al voting power. For the reasons specified
here in above, Jud ge Dunlow would find there is no genuin e iss ue of material fact and grant
summ ary judgm ent in favor of th e Defend ants on this claim .
Count 2 (b)
Th e majority finds th ere is a gen uin e iss u e of mat erial fact as to whether N.C .G.S. §
13-1 violat es the Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Const itution by deprivin g
the African Amer ica n community of sub stan ti ally equal votin g power, and deni es the
6

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons specified hereinabove, J U1dge
Dunlow would find there is no genuine issue of material fact and grant summary judgment
in favor of the Defendants on this claim.
Count 2 (c)
The majority finds there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether N.C.G.S. §
13-1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution by creating an
impermissible class-based classification by conditioning the restoration of the right to vote
on the ability to make financial payments and grants summary judgment in favor of the
Plaintiffs . For the reasons specified hereinabove, Judge Dunlow would find there is no
genuine issue of material fact and grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on
this claim.
Count 3 (Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses)
Judge Dunlow concurs in the result reached by the majority as to Count III (Freedom
of Speech and Assembly Clauses) in that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED. For the reasons specified hereinabove, Judge Dunlow would find there is no
genuine issue of material fact and grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on
this claim .
Count 4 (Ban on Property Qualifications)
The majority finds there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether N.C.G.S. §
13-1 violates Article I, § 11 (Ban on Property Qualifications) of the North Carolina
Constitution and grants summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. For the reasons
specified hereinabove, Judge Dunlow would find there is no genuine issue of material fact
and grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on this claim.

This the 4th day of September, 2020.
JohwM. Dunlow
Superior Court Judge

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the persons indicat e d
below , pursuant to the Court's July 15, 2020 Case Management Order , vi a e-mail transmission ,
addres sed as follows :
Daryl Atkinson Brian D. Rabinovit z

Whitley Carpenter 114 W. Edenton St.
daryl@forwa rdjustice .org Raleigh, NC 27603
wca rpente r@forwa rdj ustice .org BRabinovitz@ncdoj .gov
Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Legislative Defendants
R. Stanton Jones* Paul M. Cox

Elisabeth S. Theodore * Olga Vysotskaya
Daniel F. Jacobson * 114 W . Edenton St.
Graham White * Raleigh, NC 27603
stanton .jones@arnoldporter .com pcox@ncdoj .gov
elisa beth .theodo re@a rnold porter .com OVysotskaya@ncdo j .gov
da n ie I.ja co bson@a rno Id porter.com Counsel for State Board Defendants
graham.white@arnoldporter.com
Farbod K. Faraji *
Aditi Juneja *
farbod .fa raji@protectde mocracy .o rg
ad iti .ju neja@p rotectdemocracy .o rg
* Admitted pro hac vice
Thi s the 4 t h day of September 2020 .
· rator, 10th Judicial District

kelli e.z.myers@nccourts .org
Service is made upon local counse l for all attorneys who have been granted pro hac vice admission, with
the same effect as if personally made on a foreign attorney within this state .

Exhibit 14
Wake County Superior Court’s Order Dated September 4,

2020 Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary
injunction in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No.
19-CVS-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

NORTH CAROLINA 1?0SEP-4 PMlj : 29 IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUST I CE
COUNTY OF WARE ~,, t<:·:: CQ . , ( . S, C. FILE NO. 19 CVS 15941
COMMUNITY SUCCES S INITIATIVE, ___ -

1
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V. ORDER ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official

House of Representatives, et a.l.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the undersigned three-judge panel upon Plaintiffs motion
for summary judgment or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction.
In this litigation, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that N.C.G.S. § 13-1, the North
Carolina statute providing for the restoration of rights of citizenship-which includes the
right to vote-for persons convicted of a crime, is facially unconstitutional and invalid
under the North Carolina Constitution to the extent it prevents persons on probation,
parole, or post-release supervision from voting in North Carolina elections. Specifically,
Plaintiffs contend Section 13-1 ofour General Statutes violates Article I, Sections 10, 11,
12, 14, and 19 of our Constitution . Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants, their agents,
officers, and employees from 1) preventing North Carolina citizens released from
incarceration or not sentenced to incarceration from registering to vote and voting due to a
felony conviction, and 2) conditioning restoration of the ability to vote on payment of any
financial obligation .

Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter on November 20, 2019, and an
amended complaint on December 3, 2019. Defendants filed answers to and motions to
dismiss the amended complaint in January 2020; the motions to dismiss were subsequent ly
withdrawn. On May 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the present motion for summary judgment or,
in the alternative, a preliminary injunction.
On June 17, 2020, this action was transferred to a three-judge panel of Superior
Court, Wake County, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1-267.1 and N.C.G.S. § lA-1, Rule 42(b)(4). On
June 24, 2020, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, pursuant to
N.C .G.S. § 1-267.1, assigned the undersigned three-judge panel to preside over the facial
constitutional challenges raised in this litigation.
On August 19, 2020, Plaintiffs' motion was virtually heard by the undersigned
three-judge panel via WebEx pursuant to the Chief Justice's orders regarding virtual
hearings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was thereafter taken under
advisement.
Upon considering the pleadings, parties' and amici's briefs and submitted materials,
arguments, pertinent case law, and the record established thus far, the Court finds and
concludes, for the purposes of this Order, as follows:
Voting Qualifications for Persons Convicted of Felonies
Article VI, Section 2 of the North Carolina Constitution delineates certain
qualifications, or disqualifications, affecting a person's ability to vote in our State. Relevant
to this case is Article VI, Subsection 2(3), which dictates that "[n]o person adjudged guilty of
a felony against this State or the United States, or adjudged guilty of a felony in another
state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, shall be permitted

to vote unless that person shall be first restored to the rights of citizenship in the mann e r
prescribed by law." N.C . Const. art. VI, § 2(3).
Plaintiffs' action challenges the "manner prescribed by law" in which voting righ c s
are automatically restored to persons convicted of felonies. The current iteration of the
restoration of rights statute reads as follows:

forfeited, shall have such rights automatically restored upon the
occurrence of any one of the following conditions:
(1) The unconditional discharge of an inmate, of a probationer, or of

a parolee by the agency of the State having jurisdiction of that
person or of a defendant under a suspended sentence by the court.
(3) The satisfaction by the offender of all conditions of a conditional
pardon.
United States, the unconditional discharge of such person by the
agency of the United States having jurisdiction of such person, the
unconditional pardon of such person or the satisfaction by sw::h
person of a conditional pardon.
(5) With regard to any person convicted of a crime in another state,
the unconditional discharge of such person by the agency of that
state having jurisdiction of such person, the unconditional pardon
of such person or the satisfaction by such person of a conditional
pardon.
N.C.G.S. § 13-1. That the present-day version of the statute requires the unconditional
discharge of a person convicted of a felony is of particular import in this case when
considering 1) the history of how our State has provided for the restoration of rights of
citizenship, and 2) what is required of a person convicted of a felony to ultimately obtain an
unconditional discharge.
History of Restoration of Rights of Citizenship in North Carolina
The manner prescribed by law to restore the rights of citizenship for cer~.ain persons
has a long and relevant history. In 1835, North Carolina amended its constitution to permit
the enactment of general laws regulating the methods by which rights of citizenship-

including the right to vote - are restored to persons convicted of "infamous crimes."
Infamous crimes included offenses which warranted "infamous punishments." Thereaft e r in
1840, a ge neral law was passed regulating the restoration of rights, including g1:anting he
courts unfettered discretion in restoring rights of citizenship.
After the civil war, North Carolina adopted a new constitution which allowed all
men to vote, eliminated property-based voting limitations, and abolished slavery. Persons
convicted of specific crimes were not expressly forbidden by the constitution from voting;
however, a combination of constitutional amendments-including an amendment in 187 5
that provided for the disenfranchisement of persons convicted of felonies and infamous
crimes-and laws passed over the following decades maintained limitations on i;he
r estoration of rights for persons convicted of certain crimes, thereby continuing to deny
such persons the ability to vote. Judicial discretion remained part of the process for
restoring a person's rights of citizenship.
These limitations lasted until 1971, when the reference to infamous crimes was
removed from the constitutional provision and voting rights were taken away from only
persons convicted of felonies . Later, the statute was further amended to remove certain,
express requirements that must be met by a person convicted of a felony to hav e their
rights of citizenship restored.
Today, the restoration ofrights under N.C.G.S. § 13-1 is automatic upon a person's
"unconditional discharge" and is not expressly subject to a discretionary decision by a
government official, e .g., a judge. But while the final decision to restore a perso:i's rights of
citizenship is not left to the discretion of a judge, there do remain . a number of discretionary
decision s, esp ecially in sentencing, that have a direct effect upon when a per son's right to
vote is restor ed, along with the qualifications and requir ements that must ultimately be
satisfied before a person convicted of a felony is permitted to vote. Importantly in this case,

one such group of decisions pertain to the assessment of monetary costs arising from a
felony conviction, e.g., fees, fines, costs, restitution, and other debts .
Injunctive Relief
Plaintiffs have moved , in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction pending a
resolution of this action on the merits . "The purpose of a preliminary injunction is
ordinarily to preserve the status quo pending trial on the merits. Its issuance is a matter
of discretion to be exercised by the hearing judge after a careful balancing of the equities."
State ex rel. Edmist en u. Fayettev£lle Street Christian School, 299 N.C. 351, 357, 261 S .E . 2d
908, 913 (1980). A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy" and will issue "only
(1) if a plaintiff is able to show lihelihood of success on the merits of his case and (2) if a
plaintiff is lilrnly to sustain irreparable loss unless the injunction is issued, or if, in the
opinion of the Court, issuance is necessary for the protection of a plaintiffs rights during
the course of litigation." A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClu ,re, 308 N.C. 393, 401, 302 S.E.2d
754, 759-60 (1983) (emphasis in original); see also N.C.G.S. § lA-1, Rule 65(b). When
assessing the preliminary injunction factors, the trial judge "should engage in a balancing
proce ss, weighing potential harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is not issued against the
pot ential harm to the defendant if injunctive relief is granted. In effect, the harm alleged
by th e plaintiff must satisfy a standard of relative substantiality as well as irreparability ."
Williams v. Greene, 36 N.C. App. 80, 86, 243 S.E .2d 156, 160 (1978) .
Article VI, § 2(3), of our Constitution takes away the right to vote from persons
convicted of felonies but does not command the manner in which the right to vote is
restor ed, leaving it only to be in "the mann er prescribed by law. " Hence, it is the
implem enting legislation that determines whether a person convicted of a felony has met
the requisite qualifications to exercise the fundamental right to vote . Plaintiffs in this case
chall eng e the facial constitutionality of that implementing legislation, contending N.C .G.S.

§ 13-1 violates rights guaranteed by multiple provisions of the Declaration of Rights in
Article I of our Constitution. Plaintiffs specifically contend that the statute
unconstitutionally conditions the ability to vote on the possession and remittance of cer t.ain
monetary amounts arising out of a person's felony conviction and that the statute
unconstitutionally prevents persons convicted of a felony who have been released from
incarceration, or were not sentenced to incarceration, from registering to vote and voting.
Plaintiffs' burden to show a lilrnlihood of success on the merits of their claims is
substantial because when a plaintiff challenges the facial constitutionality of a statute, t he
courts presume "that any act passed by the legislature is constitutional," and "will not
strike it down if [it] can be upheld on any reasonable ground." State u. Bryant, 359 N.C.
554, 564, 614 S.E.2d 479, 486 (2005) (quoting State u. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483 , 491, 508:
S.E.2d 277, 281-82 (1998)); Cooper u. Berger, 370 N.C. 392, 413, 809 S.E.2d 98, lll (2018)
(explaining that courts will not declare a law invalid unless it is determined to be
"unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt"). Accordingly, "[a]n individual challenging the
facial constitutionality of a legislative act 'must establish that no set of circums~ances exists
under which the [a]ct would be valid."' Thompson, 349 N.C. at 491 (second alteration in
original) (quoting United States u. Salermo, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 2100
(1987)).
Pla.intiffs' Claims Relating to Persons Su,bject to Financial Obligations

as a Result of a Felony Conviction
Section 13-1 of our General Statutes imposes upon a person convicted of a felony the
requirement of an "unconditional discharge"-and, consequently, the inherent
qualifications persons must meet to obtain such a discharge-to regain the right to vote.
Even though N.C.G.S. § 13-1 was enacted due to Article VI,§ 2(3), ofour Constitution, this
statute, like all enacted laws, must not run counter to a constitutional limitation or

prohibition, including those guaranteed in the Declaration of Rights contained in Articl I
of our Constitution. Section 11 of Article I declares that "[a]s political rights and privile g;-es
are not dependent upon or modified by property, no property qualification shall affect th €
right to vote or hold office," N.C. Const. art. I, § 11, and Section 19 of Article I declares, in
relevant part, that "[n]o person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws," N.C.
Const. art. I, § 19. Importantly, the "fundamental purpose" for which the Declaration of
Rights was enacted is "to provide citizens with protection from the State's encroachmen t
upon these [enumerated] rights." Cornm u. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761, 782, 413 S.E.2d
276, 290 (1992).
Article I, § 11, of our Constitution is clear: no property qualification shall affect the
right to vote. Therefore, when legislation is enacted that restores the right to vote, there b y
establishing qualifications which certain persons must meet to exercise their right to vote,
such legislation must not do so in a way that makes the ability to vote dependent on a
property qualification. The requirement of an "unconditional discharge" imposed by
N.C .G.S. § 13-1 does exactly that-the ability for a person convicted of a felony to vote is
conditioned on whether that person possesses, at minimum, a monetary amount equal to
any fees, fines, and debts assessed as a result of that person's felony conviction.
Article I, § 19, of our Constitution is equally clear that no person shall be denied the
equal protection of the laws. Therefore, when legislation is enacted that restores the right
to vote, thereby establishing terms upon which certain persons are able to exercise their
right to vote, such legislation must not do so in a way that imposes unequal terms. The
requirement of an "unconditional discharge" imposed by N.C.G.S. § 13-1 does exactly that-
the terms upon which a person convicted of a felony is able to exercise the right to vote are
not equa l; the terms are instead dependent on that person's financial status and whether

that person has the ability to pay the fees, fines, and debts assessed as a result 0f the
person's felony conviction .
In light of the above, the Court finds there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiifs
will prevail on the merits and show beyond a reasonable doubt that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 is in.
violation of Article I, §§ 11 and 19 of the North Carolina Constitution because, by requir i ng
an "unconditional discharge," the statute makes the ability to vote by a person convicted. of
a felony dependent on a property qualification and imposes unequal terms on that person
exercising the right to vote.
The loss to Plaintiffs' fundamental rights guaranteed by the North Caro lina
Constitution will undoubtedly be irreparable with voting set to commence in a matter of
weeks for the upcoming 2020 general election. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have shown a
likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claims that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 violates multiple
fundamental rights guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution as those rights pertain
to persons convicted of felonies and assessed fees, fines, and debts as a resu lt of that
conviction. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to sustain irreparable loss to
their fundamental rights guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution unless the
injunction is issued, and likewise, issuance is necessary for the continued protection of
Plaintiffs' fundamental rights guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution during the
course of the litigation until there has been a full and final adjudication of all claims
asserted in Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
As to a balancing of the equities, after weighing the potential harm to Plaintiffs if
the preliminary injunction is not issued against the potential harm to Defendants if
injunctive relief is granted, the Court concludes the balance of the equities weig-hs in
Plaintiffs' favor. Indeed, the harm alleged by Plaintiffs is both substantial and irreparable
should an election pass by with Plaintiffs being precluded from exercising their

fundamental right to vote simply as a result of them being subject to an assessment of fees,
fines, and debts arising from a felony conviction.
Plaintiffs' Claims Relating to Persons Released from, or Not Subject to, Inca.rcemtio n.
a.s a Result of a. Felony Conviction
Plaintiffs also contend N.C.G.S. § 13-1 impermissibly violates Article I, §§ 10, 12, 14,
and 19 of our Constitution because the statute, by conditioning a restoration of the right to
vote on an "unconditional discharge of an inmate, of a probationer, or of a parolee,"
precludes persons convicted of felonies who have been released from incarcerafrm, or were
not subject to incarceration, from registering to vote and voting.
Plaintiffs have put forward persuasive, historical evidence regarding the restoration
of rights in our State for those persons convicted of felonies, particularly as it relates to the
discretion left to government officials that ultimately determines when a person's rights are
restored, as well as the disparate impact of that discretion on persons of lower vvealth and
persons of color. Defendants, however, have also put forward numerous state interests
supporting the statute's requirement that rights be restored to persons convicted of felonies
only upon and until such time as that person is unconditionally discharged, without regard
to whether a person has been subject to incarceration.
Based upon the record thus far, while not making any findings whether t,he interests
put forward by the state are supported by the facts or empirical evidence, the G)urt cannot
conclude that Plaintiffs have met their substantial burden to demonstrate beyond a
reasonable doubt that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 facially violates Article I, §§ 10, 12, 14, and 19 by
preventing persons convicted of a felony who have been released from incarceration, or were
not subject to incarceration, from registering to vote and voting. The Court therefore limits
the injunctive relief provided in this order to those issues on which Plaintiffs prevail on
their Motions for Summary Judgment.

Conclusion
Under these circumstances, the Court, in its discretion and after a caref 11l balanc i ng
of the equities, concludes that the requested injunctive relief shall issue in regard to those
persons convicted of a felony and currently precluded from exercising their fundamental
right to vote solely as a result of them being subject to an assessment of fees, fines, or oth er
debts arising from a felony conviction. The Court further concludes, in its discretion and
after a careful balancing of the equities, that the requested injunctive relief shall not issue
in regard to those persons convicted of a felony who have been released from incarceration,
or were not subject to incarceration, but remain precluded from registering to vote and
voting solely on account of that person not being incarcerated. The Court further concludes
that security is required of Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the North Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure to secure the payment of costs and damages in the event it is later
determined this relief has been improvidently granted.
The Honorable John M. Dunlow concurs in part and dissents in part from portions of
this Order.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' alternative motion for a preliminary injunct i on
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
I. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction regarding Plaintiffs' claims

under Article I, §§ 11 and 19 for those persons convicted of a felo1:.yand, as a
result, made subject to property qualifications is GRANTED.
a. Defendants, their officers, agents, contractors, servants, employees, and
attorneys, and any persons in active concert or participation with them
who receive actual notice in any manner of this Order are hereby enjoined
from preventing a person convicted of a felony from registering to vote
and exercising their right to vote if that person's only remainjng barrier to
obtaining an "unconditional discharge," other than regular conditions of
probation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343(b), is the payment of a
monetary amount.

b. Defendants, their officers, agents, contractors, servants, employees, an d
attorneys, and any persons in active concert or participation with therm
who receive actual notice in any manner of this Order are hereby enjo i ned
from preventing a person convicted of a felony from registering to vote
and exercising their right to vote if that has been discharged from
probation, but owed a monetary amount upon the termination of their
probation or if any monetary amount owed upon discharge from
probations was reduced to a civil lien .
c. Referenc es in this Order to "Defendants" encompasses all ind~viduals and
entities referenced in this paragraph .
II . Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction regarding Plaintiffs' claims

under Article I, §§ 10, 12, 14, and 19 for those persons convicted of a felony
but not subject to incarceration is DENIED.
III. This Preliminary Injunction shall continue in effect until there is a full
determination of the merits of the claims in this action, unless otherwise
expressly superseded by a subsequent order of the Court.
IV. Plaintiffs' bond in the amount of $1000 is sufficient and proper for the
issuance of this Order.
SO ORDERED, this the 4 day of September, 2020.
Lisa C. Bell,
regory, Superior Court Judge
11

NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTI C E
COUNTY OF WAKE FILE NO. 19 CVS 15941
COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE,

et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V. ORDER ON INJUNCTIVE RELIE F

(DISSENT)
TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official
House of Representatives, et al .,
Defendants.
John Dunlow, dissenting.
For the reasons specified in my dissent to the majority's Order on summary judgment,
I would find that Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of the case
and deny injunctive relief.
This the ~ day of September, 2020.
(}A,~ !)/,~
J ohJJ/M. Dunlow

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the persons indicated
below, pursuant to the Court's July 15, 2020 Case Management Order, via e-mail transmission,
addressed as follows :
Daryl Atkinson Brian D. Rabinovitz

Whitley Carpenter 114 W . Edenton St.
da ryl@forwa rd justice .org Raleigh, NC 27603
wcarpenter@forwardjustice.org BRabinovitz@ncdoj .gov
Counselfor Plaintiffs Counselfor Legislative Defendants
R. Stanton Jones* Paul M. Cox

Elisabeth S. Theodore * Olga Vysotskaya
Daniel F. Jacobson * 114 W . Edenton St.
Graham White * Raleigh, NC 27603
stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com pcox@ncdoj .gov
e lisa beth .theodo re@a rno Id porter .com OVysotskaya@ncdoj .gov
daniel.jacobson@arnoldporter.com Counselfor State Board Defendants
graham.white@arnoldporter .com
Counselfor Plaintiffs
Farbod K. Faraji *
Aditi Juneja *
fa rbod .fa raj i@p rotectdemocracy .org
ad iti .ju neja@p rotectde mocracy .o rg
Counselfor Plaintiffs
* Admitted pro hac vice
This the 4 th day of September 2020.
Kell~
Trial Court Administrator, 10th Judicial District
kellie .z.myers@nccourts .org
Service is made upon local counsel for all attorneys who have been granted pro hac vice admission , with
the same effect as if personally made on a foreign attorney within this state.

Exhibit 15
August 25, 1876 Newspaper Clippings from The

Centennial (Warrenton, North Carolina).

News papers · The Centennial (Warrenton, North Carolina) · Fri, Aug 25, 1876 · Page 2
by ~ ancestry·
https://www.newspapers.com/image/66373779 Downloaded on Sep 13, 2020
::~
.. - ,. , ::
....,,.. --
r,·..-:~:;:~
T'!,1!-:!'~'W.!!:!:,.
01\"I:
•.,_ ,,__...,,.r.,.
-~~---;"-"
LANI> IIH1<£A1 1,
...~.:.:':::'.":"'....!."
J""'..-{
..·,:~·~.;;:ro•·..;·::,:
\
Copyright © 2020 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved. Newspaperj "™

News papers - The Centennial (Warrenton, North Carolina) · 25 Aug 1876, Fri · Page 2
by ~ ancestry· Downloaded on Sep 13, 2020
It does not matt~r bow great a crim-

in be is, we are for tl;le negro nd
w n hi to vote. This is what they
y. by their acts. Now hen, while
:, .
it unfortunately is true that the
re t maj rity of the cri~inals are
ne roes, e o not tliink it becom~
ing- in their boa ted friends tq he
telling th m ~f it. A.nd we believe
the negro should vote for tM rntifi-
c t·on of the amendment, because
is option will tend to restrain
t ei ce om crime. If the color-
ed people wo 1 levate themselves
in · l and . they
. . moral scale,
Clipped By:
niharachoudhri
Sun, Sep 13, 2020
Copyright © 2020 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved. Newspaperi "

Exhibit 16
Article VI, § 1 of the 1868 Constitution of the State of

North Carolina, as Amended Following the Constitutional
Convention of 1875.

CONSTITUTION
OF THE
STATEOF NORTH
CAROLINA,
AS A.\,IE:SDED BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION
OF1875,
PREAMBLE.
We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful Preamble.

to Almighty God, t.he Sovereign Ruler of nations, for the
preservation of the American Union, and the existence
of our ci,il, political and religious liberties, and acknowl-
edging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of
those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more
certain se~urity thereof, and for the bett er government of
this State, ordain and establish this constitution :
ARTJCLE I.
DECLARATIOS OF RIGHTS.
That the great, general and essentia l principles of lib-

erty and free government may be recognized and estab-
lished, and that the relations of this State to the Union
nncl government of the United States, and those of the
people of this State to the rest of the American people
may be defined nnd affirmed, we do declare:
SECTIO:S l. Tliat we hold it to be self-evident that all The ,.,111:llit) tn.i
ri~ht.~ of mPn ,
men arc created equal ; that they arc endowed by th eir

OJ." NORTH CAROLIXA. LXXXIU
purposes ; also, wearing appnrel , arms for muster, house·

hold and kitchen furniture , the mechanical and agricul-
tural implement!' of mechanics and farmers; libraries and
scientific instruments, or any other personal property, to
a value not exceeding three hundred dollars.
S.!!:c.6. The taxes levied by the Corn missioners of the Taxe s 10,·ied by
• • • County Commie •
several counties for county purposes, shall be levied lll slonors .
like manner with the State taxes, and shall never exceed
the double of the -State tax, except for a special purpose,
and with the special npproval of the General Assembly.
SEC. 7. Every act of the General Assembly levying a Acts le\'yln g t:tx~•
. l b" l . h . . b shall st.:lte obj ect ,
tax, shal 1 state t h e specia o ~ect to w 11c 1t 1s to e ap• &c.
plied , and it sh-all be applied to no other purpose.
ARTICLE VI.
SUFFRAG E AXD ELI G IBILITY TO OFFIC:f:.
S ECTIOX 1. Every mal e person born in the United Q.u,.Hftc"u on so f

~tates, an d every ma le person who Iias been natura 11ze
~ . d a11elcctor.
1
twent y-one years old or upward, who shall have resided
in th e State twelve month s next preceding the election,
and ninety days in the county in which he offers to vote,
shall be deemecl an elector. But no person, who, upon
conviction or confession in open Court, shall be adjudged
guilt y of felony , or nny oth er crim e infamous by the laws
of thi s State, a nd her('after committ ed, shall be deemed
a n elector, u11less such perso n shall be restor ed to t.he
right s of citi zcnshjp in a mann er pr escribed by law.
Si-:c. 2. It sh all be th e clnty of the General Assembly to Re~ist r:\li on of
prov1"d e, f rou1 tim
. e to tun
. e, for t I1e reg1strat10n
. . of a 11e1ec· e lecto rs .
tors ; and no person shall be all owed to vote without reg·
ist rntion, or to register, with out first taking an oath or

Exhibit 17
Copy of Chapter 275, § 62 of the 1876-77 Session Laws

of North Carolina.

1876-'77-CIIAPTER 275.
or precinct, or shall cause or procure his name, or that

of any other person, to be registered, knowing that he or
the person whose name he has procured to he registered,
is not entitled to yote in the ,rnr<l or e1ection precinct
wherein such r eg istration is made, at the ensuing election
to be held therein, or "·ho shall fa,lsely personate any
registered yoter, shall be deemed guilty of a crime infa-
mous by the laws of the state, and shall be punished for
each and e,·ery such offence by a fine not exceeding one Pcnalt)1•
thousand dollars, or imprisonm ent at hard labor for n
term not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion
of i,he court.
SEc. G2. If a person be challenged as bein2: convicted
of any crime ·which excludes l11111 • from t l1e rig l1t of suf- Criminal
1engct1.s chal-
frage, he shall be req nired to answer any questions in
relation to such alk•ged conviction; but hi s answer to
such questions shall not be used against him in any
criminal prosecution, but if any person so convicted
shall vote at any election, without having been legally
restored to the rights of citizenship, he shall be de em ed
guilty of an infamous crime, and, on conYiction th er eof, Penaltyforperson
convicted, voting.
shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars, or imprisonment at hard labor not exreeding two
years, or both.
SEc, 63. The judges of election shall in no case rec eive
the rnte of any person unless they shall be satisfied that ~fcl:~~ 1~~!.,
\dl~!-
1
such person is in all r espect3 qualified and entitled to amine voters.

Yote; and for the purpose of satisfying theim elves as to
tlrn right of any person \\-ho shall claim a right to vote,
they shall have po\\' er to examine such person, and any
other person or person~, under oath or affirmation, touch-
ing such right. An<l if any ju<lgc of elect ion sha ll re-
cci \·e, or assent to receive, th e vote of any person cha l-
lenged, without requiring sud1 person to take the oath or
affirmation hcrcinbefore pr escr ib ed, all<l if sut.:li person
shall not be qualified and entitlc:d to vote, such judge of
election so receiving or assenting to reccirn such vote,

Exhibit 18
The Democratic Handbook (1898), Prepared by the State

Democratic Executive Committee of North Carolina.

9/21/2020 Democratic Party (N.C.). State Executive Committee. The Democratic Hand Book. 1898. Prepared by the State Democratic Executive Co…
About | Collections | Authors | Titles | Subjects | Geographic | K-12 | Facebook ~ | Buy DocSouth Books
The Democratic Hand Book. 1898.

Prepared by the State Democratic Executive Committee of North Carolina:
Electronic Edition.
Democratic Party (N.C.). State Executive Committee
Funding from the Institute for Museum and Library Services

supported the electronic publication of this title.
Text transcribed by Apex Data Services, Inc.

Image scanned by Matthew Kern
Text encoded by Apex Data Services, Inc., Andrew Leiter, and Natalia Smith
First edition, 2002
ca. 480 K
Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
2002.
/n'IINTH
If:./ UNITED
STAliES
Source Description:
(title page) The Democratic Hand Book. 1898. Prepared by the State Democratic Executive Committee of North Carolina
Democratic Party (N.C.). State Executive Committee
200 p.
Raleigh
Edwards & Broughton
1898.
Call number C329 N87d c.3 (North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-CH digitization project, Documenting the American South.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved. Encountered typographical errors have been preserved,
and appear in red type.
All footnotes are inserted at the point of reference within paragraphs.
Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding
line.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as " and " respectively.
All single right and left quotation marks are encoded as ' and ' respectively.
All em dashes are encoded as --
Indentation in lines has not been preserved.
Running titles have not been preserved.
Spell-check and verification made against printed text using Author/Editor (SoftQuad) and Microsoft Word spell check
programs.
Library of Congress Subject Headings
Languages Used:
• English
LC Subject Headings:
https://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/dem1898/dem1898.html 1/90
• North Carolina -- Politics and government -- 1865-1950.

• Campaign literature -- North Carolina.
• Elections -- North Carolina.
• Democratic Party (N.C.)
• Republican Party (N.C.)
• Democratic Party (N.C.) -- Handbooks, manuals, etc.
• Populist Party (N.C.)
• African Americans in the civil service -- North Carolina.
Revision History:
• 2002-10-11,
Celine Noel and Wanda Gunther
revised TEIHeader and created catalog record for the electronic edition.
• 2002-04-03,
Natalia Smith, project manager,
finished TEI-conformant encoding and final proofing.
• 2001-12-10,
Andrew Leiter
finished TEI/SGML encoding
• 2001-11-20,
Apex Data Services, Inc.
finished transcribing the text.
.•• H ...
DEMOCRATIC
:HAND BOOKt
1898.
rii:tU•1.1u~D !IJ\ P n1n
,ta 'D mo -rad 'E ecutl e C mmlttee

of orth Co ol n •
RALl!: I CH :
nllWARDS ·, BIIOtrQIIW , I'Rt:, T1!RS M>,D Bnm~li!S.
I !198 •
[Title Page Image]
THE
DEMOCRATIC
HAND BOOK.
1898.
PREPARED BY THE
State Democratic Executive Committee
of North Carolina.
RALEIGH:
EDWARDS & BROUGHTON, PRINTERS AND BINDERS.
1898.
Page verso
ROOMS DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,

RALEIGH, N. C., August 13, 1898.
The condition of public affairs that confronts us calls for the most strenuous efforts on the part of all patriotic North Carolinians
to restore good government to our beloved State; and it is hoped that this book will be found of value in presenting the issues of
the campaign to the people.
F. M. SIMMONS,
Chairman.
JOHN W. THOMPSON,
Secretary.
Page 3
DEMOCRATIC HAND BOOK.

1898.
Brief Statement of Some Fundamental and

General Principles.
Under the American system of government the people and the people alone are the sovereigns. They are the final arbiters
and judges of all public questions. This sovereignty of the people was first proclaimed to the world as the basic principle of human
government on the 4th of July, 1776, by the American colonies, and upon it was constructed our American system of government.
Thomas Jefferson, the great author of this new system of government, seeing the necessity for some proper method by and
through which the people could assert and make effective this sovereignty, organized the Demorcratic Party, laying its foundations
by the side of the foundations of the Government itself; and upon this foundation he proceeded to build up a political organization
in which all men who really believed in the rule and equality of the people could take part and work together for the upbuilding and
perpetuation of a government by the people, of the people, and for the people.
Men may cry out against government by party; but the fact remains that it is the only means yet devised by which the people
can effectively work together in the enforcement of their sovereign will. It is but natural that in a Government like ours, in which
every man is a sovereign, different men should have different opinions as to certain questions of governmental policy. It was so in
the very beginning of our national existence, is so to-day, and has been all along throughout our wonderful history. Jefferson
recognized this, and when he organized the Democratic Party, he sought to unite with him, in that great work, only those, who like
himself, believed in the equality and sovereignty of the people,
Page 4
and who favored making them strong and powerful and independent. The Democratic Party therefore soon became the party of
the people, clinging to the American system of government, teaching the individuality, equality and sovereignty of all men,
guarding and protecting the rights and opportunities of all, and seeking, by every proper means, to build up a great and powerful
people.
It is no wonder that a party thus organized should have a life coequal with the Government itself. Other parties have risen,
flourished, failed, passed away and been forgotten; but the Democratic Party organized in the first days of the Republic, has
survived them all, and is to-day still the great party of the people. As we study its wonderful history we find that the most splendid
achievements of the American people have been accomplished when it was in power or as a direct result of forces put in motion
by it.
There is above all others one great lesson in the life of this party that every student of history should learn and that every
Democrat should know. It is this. That the Democratic people, having been taught the equality of all men, will stand no bossism.
They will choose and follow their leaders as long as their leaders consult them and lead where they wish to go; but when those
chosen as leaders assume the role of dictators or bosses they will repudiate them, even though by doing so their party goes out of
power. We had a remarkable instance of this from 1892 to 1896. The Democratic Party came into power in 1892 with a majority
and a unanimity almost without precedent in the history of our country. Some of Mr. Cleveland's Mugwump admirers set agoing
the heresy that he was greater than his party and that it was for him to dictate the policy of his party and for all others to support
that policy whether they liked it or not. Unfortunately for Mr. Cleveland and his party, he undertook to play the role suggested by
his Mugwump admirers. As a consequence, he and the Democratic people soon came to the parting of the ways. He did not deign
to consult their wishes; but, relying on the immense power lodged in him, he undertook to command their obedience, and to force
them to adopt his policy regardless of their views as to their interest or the interest of their country. Mr. Cleveland had his followers,
and the people had their leaders. The conflict between him and the Democratic people split in twain the party that had elevated
him to office, and in 1894 the American people recorded their judgment against him, and in 1896 the Democratic people sent their
delegations to Chicago
Page 5
and by an overwhelming majority, repudiated him and his policy.
As much as the loss of power by the Democratic people in Nation and in State may be regretted, the loss will not be without
its compensation should those who are to be appointed to leadership in the party thereby take warning and fully understand that if
they wish to remain leaders and grow in favor they must keep close to the people and learn to know and do their will. The old
theory of government--that which prevailed in the world prior to 1776 and which prevails in much of it still--was that all sovereignty
resides in the monarch, and that the people are only subjects. The American theory, the Jefferson theory, the Democratic theory, is
that all sovereignty resides in the people, and that all office holders, the highest as well as the lowest, are their servants. The
Democratic people have no toleration for the old theory, and they will have no trifling with the new. They have emphasized this fact
in recent years in a manner and by examples that should never be forgotten.
The Democratic people in the exercise of their sovereign power, having chosen for their leaders, in Nation and in States, men
who are in touch with them and who recognize the right of the people to declare their own policy, cordially invite all men who
believe in these policies to unite with them in putting their principles into practice. The tremendous popular vote given in 1896 to
their great national leader, William J. Bryan, encourages the Democratic people to believe that the party and principles of Jefferson
are soon again to command the approval and endorsement of the American people. All men who believe in the equality of the
people, in the equality of opportunity, in the equality of gold and silver, in the equality of burdens of taxation, according to each
man's ability to bear these burdens, should unite with this party to make this truly a government of the people, by the people, and
for the people.
In our State the men who have been chosen by the Democratic people as their leaders, or as their candidates, or who may
hereafter be chosen, are so chosen because they are in touch with the people and are steadfast believers in the principles of
Democracy as taught by Jefferson and promulgated by Bryan. Our party makes leaders and candidates out of lawyers, doctors,
farmers, mechanics, laborers, or men of any other honorable vocations. The Democratic people believe in fitness of head, fitness
of heart and fitness in character for the work their leaders or candidates are expected
Page 6
to do, without regard to their vocations in life; and they cannot be driven from their cordial support of these leaders by the
senseless cry that they are lawyers or men of any other profession. Our people remember with pride that Jefferson and Jackson
and Tilden and Hendricks and Bryan and Bragg and Merrimon and Scales and Fowle and Smith and Vance, and thousands of
others who have ever stood for the rights of the people, for Democratic doctrines, for good government, and who reflected honor
upon their party and shed glory upon their country, were lawyers. We therefore assert and believe that no man who loves his State
and wants to see good government restored to her people will be deterred from uniting with the Democratic Party by the low and
contemptible appeal that the Democratic people have sometimes chosen lawyers and other professional men for their leaders.
Many men who believed in the principles of the Democratic Party and had ever been warm and earnest supporters of its
principles, in 1892, 1893 and 1894 became so dissatisfied with Clevelandism that they withdrew from the party, hoping to obtain
desired reforms and relief through the instrumentality of another organization. The conditions which caused them to separate
themselves from their old party friends have passed away, and there now remains no reason why they should not return and again
unite with their old comrades under the banner of Jefferson, Vance and Bryan in their fight for good government. These old
comrades have invited their separated brethren to return, and they stand ready to receive them with open arms and with a hearty
welcome. Many have returned, we are glad to say, and many others are returning; but there are others who are either slow or timid
in starting back home. We suggest that our Democratic people seek out their estranged brethren and by kind words and earnest
appeal bring them back into the only party that is able to give to the whole people of the State clean, honest, economical, and
good government.
Page 7
Republican Rule in North Carolina.

On the first day of July, 1868, the Republican Party took complete control of North Carolina. It had the Executive, Legislative
and Judicial Departments of the Government, and nearly all the counties and towns were likewise under its control. No party ever
had a better opportunity to serve a people and win their gratitude, but no party ever treated a people worse. It found a people poor
and struggling amid the ruins of a desolating war. They needed good laws, the party gave them bad. They needed peace and rest,
the party gave them violence and disorder. They needed low taxes, the party made them high. They needed a reduction of the
State debt, the party increased it three-fold. They needed encouragement, the party gave them the bitter dregs of disappointment.
They needed protection, the party gave them a reign of lawlessness. They needed economy, the party gave them reckless
extravagance. They needed honesty in government, the party gave them an era of corruption. They needed patriots for legislators,
the party gave them knaves. They needed additional school-houses for their children, the party closed most of those in existence.
They needed teachers for their children, the party misused the school fund. Under the guise of building railroads, the party issued
millions of State bonds and then stole the bonds. Under the guise of suppressing disorder, the party declared war and undertook,
in a time of peace, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and try men by military court-martial. The credit of the State had hitherto
been good; this party destroyed it. The bonds of the State once at par were hawked about in the markets at a few cents on the
dollar. County scrip issued for county purposes were, like the State bonds, almost worthless. The Legislature became a stench in
the nostrils of decent men. Gloom settled over the State and the people, sore and oppressed, turned to the Democratic Party for
deliverance.
On the 28th of March, 1870, the few Democratic members of the Legislature issued an address to the people, and the
campaign for the deliverance of the State began. As a part of the history of the times and because many of the utterances therein
are applicable to present conditions, the address is here published in full. There are many passages in that
Page 8
address that might be written of these times and be addressed to the present generation. That address was published twenty-
eight years ago, and as we read it and look back upon those days it hardly seems possible that the people could ever, under any
circumstances risk the Republican Party again to make or execute laws for them. Yet we find twenty-eight years after that address
was issued, this same party in power under the leadership of one who was then one of its high priests, and we find the record it is
now making but a little less disreputable than it was twenty-eight years ago. We also find the people again turning to the same
Democratic Party for deliverance; and some who planned and fought the campaign of 1870 are spared to take part in this second
deliverance from Republican legislation. The address of 1870 is as follows:
ADDRESS.
To the People of North Carolina--
"We, the undersigned conservative members of the General Assembly upon the eve of our return to you, beg leave to
suggest a few matters for your consideration, believing, as we do, that they bear directly upon the welfare of the State. We have a
great struggle before us in the approaching August election. A struggle with a foe before whose massed columns our banner has
twice gone down. What disasters to the State have followed these defeats, we will not stop to recount here; the story is too familiar
to you. We but desire to advise you to that course which seems best to us, for ridding our State forever from the calamitous rule of
the Radical Party. This Radical Party in the General Assembly have been at last though reluctantly forced, by the potent voice of
public opinion, to grant what the State Constitution rightly construed, already secured to you: A popular election on the first
Thursday of August next. Esteeming the free exercise of the ballot, as they do, one of the most sacred rights of free men, all of our
people, without regard to party, condition, or color, will receive the announcement with pleasure. The right of the people to rigidly
scrutinize the acts of their representatives, and to correct the abuses of power by the peaceful remedy of the ballot-box, is one
which freemen should never indifferently exercise or tamely surrender. The election in August next, although confined to the
choice of the members of Congress,
Page 9
members of the next General Assembly, the various county officers and an Attorney-General, is one of sufficient importance to call
out every voter, and to actively enlist the energies and time of every lover of the State.
"The dominant party are organizing thoroughly for the approaching campaign, and you imperil every important interest of the
State if you flatter yourselves with the hope that they will give up the government without a desperate struggle. We feel confident
that an equally zealous and determined effort on the part of the conservative people of the State will insure them a thrice glorious
victory in August next. But to achieve it they must be united and thoroughly harmonious. In the presence of a determined enemy
we cannot afford to divide among ourselves. The past glories of defeats of old political organizations should be among things of
the past. In the battle we are about to join against Radicalism, reckless extravagance, corruption, swindling, imbecility, and
partisan tyranny, why should we stop to inquire whether our leaders were in the past, Whigs, Democrats, Unionists or
Secessionists, so they but lead us to victory and save us from a defeat, the result of which would be nothing less than absolute
ruin to the State? That man who now attempts to exhume the buried past, to revive the prejudices born of issues long since dead,
and which ought to be forgotten, will intentionally or unintentionally contribute to the strength of our common enemy. Let the
bickerings of the past be hushed; let us rise above the dwarfed idea that would lead us to inquire what a man's politics were in the
past; let us but ask, is he an opponent of Radicalism, is he honest, is he competent? Upon this broad and elevated platform you
can invite the good of all parties and races to join you against that party, which has levied and collected taxes without stint with
one hand, and scattered them with wild extravagance with the other. That has introduced into our Hall of Legislation, corruption,
hitherto unheard of there; that has elevated to positions of trust and profit, men wholly unworthy of confidence; that has altered
and confused our laws until the administration of justice has become costly, and its attainment uncertain; that has sought to
subordinate the civil administration to military power by proclamation of martial law and petitions to Congress for the suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus; that has more than doubled the current expenses of the State government; that has enormously
increased the State debt; that has cast a foul blot upon her hitherto fair escutcheon,
Page 10
and, that for want of statesmanship and for utter disregard of the necessities of the people, is without a parallel in the history of
this or any other State. With such a cause as ours against such a party, the united ranks of conservatism must prevail.
In the last contest in this State the principal issue was upon the question of colored suffrage and the civil rights of the colored
race. That matter has been decided upon a solemn appeal, by the people of the United States. The guarantee of their rights has
now become a part of the Constitution. To that Constitution we have ever been willing to defer, to the laws made in pursuance of it,
we yield, and ever have yielded a ready obedience.
"The reconstruction acts of Congress, with the civil and political rights they confer on the colored race, we regard as a finality,
we accept them in good faith. We are one of the States of the Union. Let us seek to forget the bitterness of the past, to build up the
places made waste by the unfortunate war, and to promote the harmony and prosperity of all sections of our great country.
"The colored man now enjoys the same political and civil rights as the white man. We accept his status as fixed by the
Constitution of this State and the United States in good faith. We regard it as a final settlement of the question. It now becomes
our duty as good citizens to elevate him morally and intellectually.
"The Chief Magistrate of this State, the head and front of Radicalism, has seen fit to declare one of our counties in a state of
insurrection, and to call upon Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus throughout the State. We declare there is no
sufficient cause for this extraordinary action of Governor Holden. There is and has been no armed resistance, no uprising of the
people, no outbreaks to disturb or hinder the administration of the civil law. We assert that there is not a county in the State in
which any sheriff or other peace officer may not go unattended, and with perfect safety, and execute any process upon any citizen
of the State. It is true that murders and other outrages have been committed, but they have not been confined to any particular
locality or to any political party, and when Governor Holden represents to the President that these acts are evidences of disloyalty,
he is guilty of a wilful libel upon the people, whose rights he has sworn to protect. When he seeks to convince the Federal
authorities that these violations of the law receive aid, countenance, or encouragement from the
Page 11
Conservative Party of the State, he knows that his allegations are unfounded, and that he perpetrates a great wickedness purely
in the interest of a political party. He hopes by magnifying these outrages, by giving them the appearance of disloyalty on the part
of the people, to procure the aid of the Federal troops in overawing them in the next election. And he further hopes to wreak
vengeance upon his political opponents through the agency of courts-martial, hedged in by bayonets. Surely there never was so
base a betrayal of a people by their Chief Executive officer. We denounce crime wherever and by whomsoever committed, be the
perpetrators white or black, Loyal Leagers or Ku Klux, if such organizations exist; and we here declare them enemies of society
and wicked ministers to that spirit of lawlessness and contempt of the forms of law from which our unhappy country has suffered
so much, under Radical rule. Secret political organizations are productive only of evil, let them, at once, be disbanded and let men
succeed at elections upon their merits and not by a terroism exercised by their oath-bound confederates. That man who upon his
own impulse or in obedience to the mandates of others, seeks to punish crime without due course of law, himself becomes a
criminal. If crimes are to be punished, if wrongs are to be avenged, the court-house shall be the place and daylight the time. It has
ever been the boast of our people, even in our country's darkest hour, that they appeal for protection only to the guarantees of the
Constitution and to the forms of the civil law. It was reserved for the Radical Party, in violation of the great principles of civil liberty,
to drag men and women from their doors, try, convict, and punish them without the due course of the law. Emulate not their
wickedness. Our hope for the security of our life, liberty, and prosperity is in a strict obedience to the law. The peace, harmony and
good of society require that every man should feel secure in these inalienable rights. Let the power of public opinion, more potent
than an army of bayonets, be brought to bear in unmistakable terms to put down those who would recklessly disturb the peace of
society. When this is done there will remain no pretext for that abandoned wickedness which would make the crimes of a few men
a pretext for depriving the whole people of a whole State of the protection of the writ of habeas corpus.
"In order to make success doubly sure organization is absolutely necessary. * * *
"In the selection of a candidate let eligible men be selected,
Page 12
let self be lost sight of, let the good of the State be your aim and success your battle cry. Let all the elements opposed to
Radicalism be organized into one solid irresistible column. Let the Grand Army that is to overthrow Radicalism unfurl its banner; let
the camp fires be lighted; let every discordant feeling be hushed, and with serried ranks, shoulder to shoulder, let us march with a
triumphant tread to a glorious victory.
"Signed March 26th, 1870.
"Thomas J. Jarvis, of Tyrrell; H. C. Jones, of Mecklenburg; C. T. Murphy, of Sampson; F. N. Strudwick, of Orange; W. H.

Malone, of Caldwell; Plato Durham, of Cleveland; J. A. Moore, of Alamance; R. P. Matheson, of Alexander; John L. Smith, of
Alleghany; J. H. Davis, of Carteret; Philip Hodnett, of Caswell; Joshua Barnes, of Wilson; J. Scott, of Onslow; J. W. Graham, of
Orange; C. Melchor, of Cabarrus; A. M. Robbins, of Rowan; J. M. McLaughlin, of Iredell; L. A. Mason, of Gaston; R. S. Beal, of
Caldwell; W. L. Love, of Jackson; B. P. High, of Columbus; W. T. Ferebee, of Camden; T. C. Humpries, of Currituck; J. A. Kelly, of
Davie; J. C. McMillan, of Duplin; W. E. Armstrong, of Duplin; John Gatling, of Gates; B. C. Williams, of Harnett; W. P. Welch, of
Haywood; Tilman Farrow, of Hyde; T. A. Nicholson, of Iredell; G. F. Dardson, of Iredell; E. M. Painter, of Jackson; J. L. Robinson,
of Macon; R. D. Whitley, of Mecklenburg; W. W. Grier, of Mecklenburg; W. W. Bodie, of Nash; Frank Thompson, of Onslow; T. M.
Argo, of Orange; J. Hawkins, of Rowan; J. M. Shaver, of Rowan; J. C. Williams, of Sampson; J. W. Clayton, of Transylvania; D. E.
Smith, of Wayne; David Proffitt, of Yancey; J. O. Hicks, of Clay."
Page 13
Democratic Rule in North Carolina.
The election in 1870 for members of the General Assembly was hotly contested by the Republican and Democratic parties.
The Republican Party made a supreme effort to retain control of the law-making branch of the government. The Democrats made
the fight against the Republicans, then as now, on their bad, extravagant, disgraceful record, and they carried both houses by
large majorities. It is true there was no Populist Party then to help the Republicans. Many men who are now acting with the
Populist Party were then found in the Democratic ranks manfully struggling to rescue the State from the Republican Party. As the
campaign progresses in this second great battle for the rescue of the law-making branch of the government and these men learn
more of the evils of Republican rule, it is hoped they will again be found doing battle for Good Government and White Supremacy.
So, in 1870, the Democratic Party obtained control of the legislative branch of the government and held it continuously till
1894--a period of twenty-four years. During these twenty-four years the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party alone was
responsible for the legislation of the State. The challenge is made to the most malignant enemy of this party to institute the most
rigid, searching investigation into the record of that party during all these long years, and it is boldly asserted that he will be unable
to find a single scandal, or a single act of dishonesty or extravagance.
When this party came into power in the Legislature it proceeded to repeal bad laws and to enact in their stead good ones; to
reduce taxes and expenditures; to economize in every possible way; to restore law and order; to provide for better schools, and to
do all things within the power of the legislative branch of the government for the protection and betterment of the people.
The executive department of the government, however, remained in the hands of the Republican Party till 1876, when it was
secured to the Democrats under the leadership of the immortal Vance. This department of the government was held by the
Democrats from the first of January, 1877, to the first of January, 1897--a period of twenty years. So the Democrats held both the
legislative and executive departments
Page 14
of the government at the same time for a period of eighteen years, to-wit, from January 1, 1877, to January 1, 1895. We find then
that the law-making and the law-executing power of the government passed into the hands of the Democrats the first of the year
1877. From that time to the first of January, 1895, the Democrats should and must be justly held responsible for what took place in
the State so far as these things were effected by the making or the executing of the laws of the State.
While it is true that the legislative department of the government had, in 1877, been in the hands of the Democrats for six
years, it is also true that under the then existing Constitution, as construed by the Supreme Court, the Executive had the
appointment of the Board of the Penal and Charitable Institutions and the works of Internal Departments, in which the State had
an interest. Thus it happened that while much had been done in the way of repealing bad Republican laws and replacing them
with good ones, of improvement in the school system and in the management of the State institutions, and of reducing taxes and
expenditures, the most splendid achievements of the party were not accomplished until after the executive department had also
passed into the hands of the Democrats. The record shows that these eighteen years of complete Democratic Rule in North
Carolina were eighteen years of law and order, of progress and development, of peace and prosperity, of protection to life, liberty
and property, of economy in public expenditures and fidelity in public life, of educational growth and intellectual developent, of
good will and kind relations between the two races and of higher aspirations among all classes of our people. To that admirable
record the Democrats of the State point with great pride and unbounded satisfaction, and by it they are always willing to be
judged.
Let us notice briefly some of the things done by this party and which enter into this record:
The State Debt.

Before the war several millions of bonds had been issued by the State to aid in the construction of railroads, the State taking
for these bonds either stock in or mortgages upon the property of the corporations thus aided. With the close of the war the people
were too impoverished to pay the interest on these bonds and the securities taken, with two or three exceptions, were valueless.
The aggregate of the State debt, principal and interest, was on the first of July, 1868, when
Page 15
the Republicans took charge of the State, about $15,000,000. Instead of attempting to make some adjustment of this honest debt
the Republicans set about creating a new debt, when the people were too poor to pay the old; and under the guise of building new
roads, the Republican Legislature authorized the issuing of millions upon millions of bonds and provided for the levying and
collecting a tax to pay the interest on them; so that the old and new debt of the State, principal and interest, amounted to about
$42,000,000, when the responsibility of dealing with it was cast upon the Democratic Party. This immense debt hung like a mighty
incubus upon the energies of the State, blocking the way to progress and always threatening the people with increased and
burdensome taxation. The Democratic Party set itself to the work of adjusting this debt. It first separated the honest debt of the
State, for which the State had received some value, from the fraudulent debt, created by the Republican Party, and for which the
State had received no value. This fraudulent Republican debt the Democratic Legislature repudiated, and to make sure that no
subsequent Republican Legislature should ever have it in its power to recognize its fraudulent offspring or attempt to levy a tax for
its payment, the Legislature proposed and the people ratified an amendment to the State Constitution by which all future, General
Assemblies were forbidden to assume or pay or authorize the collection of any tax to pay, either directly or indirectly, expressed or
implied, any debt or bond incurred or issued under authority of the Convention of 1868, or the Legislature of 1868-69-70, unless
the proposition be first submitted to the people.
Having thus disposed of the fraudulent Republican debt, the Democratic Legislature then proposed to the holders of the
evidences of the State's honest debt such terms as seemed just to the creditors and to the people; and in 1879 laws were passed
to carry out this compromise. There were two of these acts--one to compromise, commute and settle the State debt, other than
that part created in aid of the North Carolina Railroad; and the other to compromise and adjust what was known as the
construction bonds, issued in aid of this road. In the settlement of the bonds, included in the terms of the first of these acts, the
State agreed to issue new four per cent bonds at the rates named in the act; and the present State Treasurer, on page 7 of his
report, dated December 20, 1896, tells us, "It would require $255,070 more of four per cent bonds to take up the remainder of the
bonds
Page 16
outstanding, making the whole possible debt $3,615,770, bearing four per cent interest." So when the last of these old bonds are
surrendered, the whole debt for which the people are to be taxed can only be $3,615,770 at four per cent interest.
The Six Per Cent Bonds.

Now as to the other of these acts, to-wit, the one to compromise and adjust the debt created in aid of the construction of the
North Carolina Railroad, known as the Construction Bonds. To fully understand the difficulties that stood in the way of, and the
importance of the work done by the Democrats to save the State's interest in the North Carolina Railroad, it is necessary to know
something of its history. The acts under which these Construction Bonds were issued provided that the earnings of the road should
be pledged for the payment of the interest on these bonds, and the stock of the State itself was pledged for the payment of the
principal of the bonds.
Near the close of the Republican Legislature of 1868-69, after an era of pillage and plunder, a bill was introduced in the
House by a Republican from Person County to provide for the exchange of this stock for any indebtedness of the State. "Any
indebtedness" included the then worthless special tax bonds, so that "there were millions in it"; but owing to the watchfulness of
the few Democrats and honest Republicans in the House, this bill failed to pass, and this effort to gobble up the North Carolina
Railroad came to naught.
The Swasey Suit.

Under the provisions of the acts pledging the dividends of the North Carolina Railroad and the State's stock therein for the
payment of the interest and principal of the State bonds, Swasey, one of the holders of those bonds, had instituted a suit in the
Federal Court to subject the dividends coming to the State to the payment of the interest and to sell the State's stock to pay the
principal of these bonds. This suit was pending in 1877, when the Democrats came into power; and in 1879, when the act was
passed looking to saving this stock, the time was near at hand when its sale was to be pressed in the Swasey suit. The stock at
that time was away below par, so that a sale of it would have been a great sacrifice and would have left a large unpaid debt
against the State. The Democrats, however, had faith in the future
Page 17
value of this stock, and determined to save it to the State if possible. Notwithstanding the difficulties that stood in the way, they
succeeded in adjusting and in renewing this debt upon advantageous terms to the State, and in having the Swasey suit dismissed.
Under this adjustment a sufficiency of the dividends coming to the State on her stock is to be applied to the payment of the interest
on this part of the State debt.
On page 7 of the report of Treasurer Worth, of date December 20, 1896, he says: "The six per cent Construction Bonds, upon
which interest is paid out of the dividends from the 30,000 shares of stock owned by the State in the North Carolina Railroad
Company, amount to $2,720,000." So we have the State under Democratic management receiving seven per cent net dividends
on $3,000,000 of stock and paying six per cent on $2,720,000 of bonds, thus saving to the State annually from that source
$46,800.
The stock of the State in this company is now worth 137 to 140, with a constant upward tendency. Only a few days ago as
high as 152½ was asked for it. This stock is worth $1,500,000 more than it was in 1877, when the Democrats came into power
and took charge of this property. The six per cent State bonds are worth on the markets 130. The four per cent bonds are worth
104.
Practical Difference.
The practical difference then between the Republican and Democratic parties in dealing with the State's indebtedness and
the State's credit may be briefly stated thus:
The Republican Party in two years ran up the debt of the State from less than $15,000,000 to a sum that amounted in 1877 to
over $40,000,000.
The Democratic Party during its administration reduced the debt, and the debt to pay the interest of which the people are
taxed is now less than $3,616,000.
The Republican Party destroyed the credit of the State. The Democratic Party restored it, and by wise management has so
preserved the State's interest in the North Carolina Railroad Company that the State is now receiving $46,000 a year from this
source, over and above paying the interest on her bonds. Is it possible for a contrast to be greater?
RAILROADS AND TRANSPORTATION.

Railroads and lines of transportation are not only a great public convenience, but in this age they are a public necessity.
Page 18
They are great developers of a State's resources, and when properly managed, they are promoters of the progress and growth
and wealth of communities and individuals. The Republicans, under the plea of building railroads for the convenience of the
people, issued, as we have already seen, millions upon millions of dollars of State bonds. But did they build the roads? No. They
printed the bonds, sold them, pocketed the money, divided the plunder and did not build a mile of road anywhere in the State!
When the Democrats came into power in 1877 they found the State but little better provided with railroad and transportation
facilities than it was at the close of the war. The Democratic Party addressed itself to this great need of many sections of the State,
and by open, honest, straightforward work, and by dealing honestly and fairly with investors and capitalists, they started anew
railway building, and railway construction went forward at a rapid rate. In some instances the State, as in the case of the Western
North Carolina Railroad and the Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley Railroad, had a direct hand in the work; while in other instances it
was the work of individual enterprise alone; but it was all attributable to the just laws and good government of the Democratic
Party, without which these new roads would never have been built in North Carolina. Branch lines of railroad and turnpikes were
also constructed at places where they were much needed. Encouragement and protection were held out and given to all engaged
or wishing to engage in this work. And let it be borne in mind, that whatever the State put into any of these works of internal
improvements, after they had passed under the control of the Democratic Party, was in the end returned to the State, with
probably the exception of the costs of the convict labor on a few neighborhood turnpike and branch lines of railroads, amounting in
the aggregate to only a few thousand dollars. So that all this railroad development during the eighteen years of Democratic
government cost the taxpayer practically nothing. What did this railroad construction amount to in the eighteen years, from
January 1, 1877, to January 1, 1895?
On January 1, 1877, there were 1,341 miles of railroad in the State.
On the 1st of January, 1895, there were 3,400 miles of railroad.
There were then constructed in the State during these eighteen years of Democratic administration 2,059 miles of railroad,
about six hundred miles more than was built in the balance of the history of the State.
Page 19
But little railroad property was returned for State taxation on the 1st of January, 1877. The value of all the franchises, as we
get it from the office of the Railroad Commission, was then $859,021, and the tax thereon paid into the State Treasury was only
$1,179.
The value of the railroad property as returned for taxation January 1, 1895, was $24,501,899, and the tax thereon paid into
the State Treasury was $61,254. The State, county and municipal tax on this railroad property amounted in 1895 to about
$240,000. Observe the large increase!
In January, 1877, when the Democrats came into power, there were forty-two counties in the State without railroad facilities.
In January, 1895, when the Democrats went out of power, there were but thirteen counties without these facilities. These facts
need no comment. They tell their own tale and speak in thunder tones of the glorious era of Democratic rule.
General Development.
Simultaneous with this great railroad development there was also an era of general material developmet without its parallel in
the history of the State. Factories and mills and shops sprung up and multiplied as never before. Capital by the hundreds,
thousands and millions came into the State seeking employment and ready to enter into and contribute its part to this general
growth and development. But one may ask, what had the Democratic Party to do with all this? We answer, much. It was the
guarantee of good government which the Democratic Party was furnishing that induced this development and investment of
capital. Money will not go and capital will not seek a permanent home where good government does not exist. When the candid,
impartial historian comes to write the history of this State, he will be obliged to say that no State ever had a better government
than did North Carolina during these eighteen years of Democratic rule, and that no long settled section of this Union ever made
greater progress and growth and development in the same length of time.
The Establishment of the Department of Agriculture.
The Constitution, as amended by the Convention of 1875, commanded "The General Assembly to establish a Department of
Agriculture, Immigration and Statistics." The Democratic Legislature of 1877 proceeded to establish and organize such a
department. Men of scientific attainments
Page 20
and practical wisdom were called to lay out its work and administer its affairs. The farmers needed just the kind of information and
help that this department was able to give. It soon became one of the important factors in the development of the resources of the
State. Besides its special work to promote agriculture and protect the farmers, it collected and published information about the
State that created a feeling of surprise and pride among our own people, and attracted the attention of the outside world. The
collections and exhibits made by it at Atlanta, Boston and elsewhere were revelations to people at home and abroad. It found the
Geologist and the State Museum in the cock loft of a store on Fayetteville street. It purchased for the State a valuable piece of
property adjacent to the Capitol Square and erected thereon the finest museum, and placed therein the finest collection to be
found anywhere in the South. It led to the establishment of the Agricultural and Mechanical College. It has given our own people a
better knowledge, a higher idea of their own State, and has given them a greater faith in her future greatness. It has done much to
make our people understand and realize the superior advantages of our own State, and to make others acquainted with our
resources and to bringing desirable people into the State. Its utility and value cannot be estimated if properly administered. And
yet what has Republican-Populist fusion done with it? To what base uses have they put this Farmer's Department? They have put
John R. Smith in charge of it, and have made of it a sort of manure heap for the hungry, cast-off pie hunters. John R. Smith, a
Commissioner of Agriculture, and in charge of a Department of Agriculture. What a travesty! After he had tried his hand at running
the Penitentiary and had gotten its affairs in a tangle and had demonstrated his unfitness to be in charge of the convicts of the
State, he is taken by this trading office arrangement of Rep.-Pop. fusion and put to running a department for the farmers. What an
outrage upon the farmers! But he is one of the pets of his Excellency and he helped manipulate the Republican Convention and fix
up fusion, and so he must be taken care of, no matter how much the public service suffers. Others of like faith and order had to be
provided for, and when places were short new ones had to be created. Thus this most useful department has been made the
dumping ground of the pie-hunting brigade.
Page 21
The Asylums for the Unfortunate.

Christianity and civilization demand that the unfortunate men, women and children shall be provided for at the expense of the
State or the communities in which they live. North Carolina was one of the first of the States to respond to this appeal in the
erection of an asylum for her insane and a school for the education of her deaf, dumb and blind children. The wrecked fortunes
and desolated homes caused by the war multiplied the number of white insane persons, who were obliged to rely upon State
institutions for treatment. The insane, deaf, dumb and blind of the colored race had hitherto been provided for by their owners.
After the freedom of the slaves these also became a charge upon the State. The asylums for the treatment and care of the insane,
the deaf, the dumb and the blind were therefore wholly inadequate for the demands upon them. During the two years of
Republican rule that party had splendid opportunity to do something for these unfortunate people. The rate of taxation was high,
bonds were issued by the millions, the unfortunates were incarcerated in jails or confined at home. The afflicted appealed for help,
but no help came. The insane were left to their fate, and the deaf, dumb and blind children, white and black, were left to get on in
the world as best they could. The Republican Party cannot excuse itself for the want to money, as the reports for those two years
show that the receipts and expenditures ran up into the millions.
When the Democratic Party came into power it addressed itself to this work of humanity, and by rigid economy in all public
matters it provided asylums for the insane of both races, and schools for the deaf, dumb and blind of both races, without
increasing taxation. Go to Raleigh; see the large and improved insane asylum for the whites; go to Goldsboro and see the insane
asylum for the blacks; go to Morganton and see that splendid asylum there for the whites; and at Morganton and Raleigh, see the
asylums provided for the deaf, dumb and blind of both races, and learn something of Democratic humanity and Democratic
management. These fine institutions stand as monuments to Democratic wisdom, humanity and integrity; and the Auditor's reports
show that the expenses of the State government under Democratic rule during the years these great improvements were being
made, and these grand buildings were being erected, were much less than they are now under Republican rule when there is
nothing of the kind going on.
Page 22
The Democratic Party not only provided asylums for these unfortunate people, but secured for them the best possible
treatment and care within its power. It persistently refused to carry politics into these institutions. It refused to make the unfortunate
inmates of these institutions feel the shifting fortunes of politics. It required competent, faithful service, but did not inquire into the
politics of the person who rendered it. It found a Republican in charge of the Insane Asylum at Raleigh, but a Democratic
Legislature and a Democratic Governor refused to remove him. When the new institutions were opened, the best medical skill was
sought after to take charge of these institutions, and years of experience have shown that no mistake was made in the men
selected. Yet when a Republican Governor and a Fusion Legislature came into power they determined to remove these faithful,
competent men, and made strenuous efforts to do it. Nothing but the stupidity of the men who drew the act and the manhood of
the Supreme Court saved the unfortunate inmates of these institutions from the curse of being the victims of an incompetent
administration, carried away by the lust for spoils. One would have supposed that the helpless condition of these unfortunate
people would have appealed to the Governor and to the Legislature to be let alone and left to the care of the faithful and
experienced men in charge of them; but not so. Pie and position were the only bonds of union between gold-bug Republican and
silver Populist, and pie they must have, even if those upon whom the hand of affliction had been laid did suffer. If the
administration of a Republican Governor and Fusion Legislature had done no other wrong to the people of the State, this attempt
to invade these institutions should forever damn them.
The Schools.
The University of North Carolina was one of the honored and renowned institutions of learning in this great country of ours. At
it Presidents and Cabinet officers, foreign ministers, statesmen, judges, generals, preachers, lawyers, doctors, merchants,
mechanics, farmers and business men of every vocation had been educated. The Republicans, during their two years of power
years ago, closed this time-honored institution and converted the halls of learning into homes for bats and owls, and the campus,
upon which the youth of the State had been wont to gather, into pastures for cattle. The Democratic Party re-opened and re-
established this institution
Page 23
and again started it on its high mission of fitting and preparing our young men for their duties in life.
The Common Schools.

As wicked and injurious as it was to close up the University, it was not to be compared to the wrong done the poor children of
the State in closing up the public schools; for the parents of the young men could send their sons elsewhere, but the only hope of
the poor children was in the common schools; and when these were closed, the children were left to grow up in ignorance. The
record of the Republican Party, during its ten years of power in North Carolina, was the most shameful ever made by any party in
any civilized country. Here is its record in reference to education: During the fiscal year ending September 30, 1869, there was
spent out of the educational fund $167,158. Not a dollar of this was spent in teaching the poor children of the State, white or black.
What then was done with it? The Republican Legislature took $158,000 of this amount and divided it up among themselves to pay
their per diem at seven dollars per day. Three thousand dollars was used to pay the "University professors," so called, who had no
boys to teach and who did nothing but draw their salary. The balance of the $167,000 was charged up to expense account.
For the fiscal year ending September 30, 1870, this is the record:
Amount invested in special tax bonds $150,000.00
Expense account 2,014.00
Poll tax returned 415.15
Paid to teachers of schools 38,981.86
Loaned to University 10,000.00
Loaned to Deaf and Dumb Asylum 2,000.00
Total used during year ending Sept. 30, 1870 $203,411.01
Add to this amount used year ending September 30, 1869 167,158.18
And we have total amount of school fund used during the two years of Republican rule, $370,559.19
Of this amount, $370,559.19, only the sum of $38,981.86 was used for school purposes, the balance was misapplied,
wasted, purloined, lost! Shameful record!
Now let us turn to the record of the Democratic Party, the only party that ever has given or indeed can give the people of the
State good schools and good government.
Page 24
The Democratic Party believes in education. Jefferson, its great founder, taught that for a people to be strong and powerful
and truly sovereign, they must be intelligent; and to be intelligent, they must have schools. Hence he set himself to work to
establish universities, colleges, high schools and common schools. No service he ever rendered his country has been worth more
to the generations that have come after him than the example he set his countrymen in the cause of education.
The Democratic Party, upon its advent to power in this State, addressed itself to the great work of providing schools for the
training, preparation and education of the children. It re-opened, re-established, and supported the University. The career of the
institution under Democratic rule has been useful, progressive and noble. It has been brought in touch with the people and its field
of usefulness enlarged. It is in full accord and sympathy with all other educational institutions, and is a co-worker in an enlarged
life and usefulness of the common schools. Instead of being, as it was under Radical regime, "a closed incident," it is now the
pride of our State.
Appreciating the importance of having trained teachers for the common schools, the Democratic Party established normal
schools at various points in the State for the training of these teachers. It began, as we now remember, with the Normal School at
the University for the white teachers, and the State Normal School at Fayetteville for the colored teachers. These were followed by
others at different points in the State for each race, and these, in turn, were followed by Teachers' Institutes in most or all the
counties of the State. These efforts at training men and women to teach and to work resulted in establishing the State Normal and
Industrial School for young ladies at Greensboro, the Agricultural and Mechanical College for young men, and the Colored Normal
and Industrial School at Greensboro for the colored race.
The fund for the support of the common schools was increased as rapidly as the condition of the people and their ability to
pay taxes would allow, and every dollar collected for schools was expended for schools. Steadily the system of common schools
was improved, better teachers provided for them, longer terms taught, and attendance of children increased. In most of the larger
cities and towns graded schools were established as part of the common school system.
In brief, an impetus was given to the cause of education
Page 25
under Democratic rule, that made itself felt in every section, in every section, in every school, and among all classes in the State,
and every college in the State has felt the good effects of our efforts to promote the cause of education. As a result, the liberality of
generous friends has been stirred by the zealous activity of our efforts to advance education, and increasing numbers of students
are attracted to the colleges to profit by the splendid endowments that have aided in making these colleges so useful to the people
of the State.
The record of the party in reference to education, like its record in other things, is a noble one, and stands out in bold contrast
to that made by the Republican Party, and should satisfy all reasonable men that the vital interest of the people is safest in
Democratic hands.
We do not assert that the Republican Party, since its return to power, has not done better for the schools than it did when in
power before, but we do assert that in the administration of the school law of 1897, it has struck a serious blow at the popularity
and efficiency of the common schools in many counties by placing negroes on the committees to supervise and run the white
schools.
The Democratic Party in its last Convention has declared that, if returned to power, it will by appropriate legislation make it
impossible for a negro to be put upon a white school committee. Now let it be well understood that the party does not mean to take
any back steps in the cause of education; but it does propose to obey the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution. When the
people ratified that instrument, in 1876, they decreed that the white and colored schools should forever be kept separate, and that
is just what the Democratic Party proposes to do. It will, if restored to power, do just as it did before, seek to improve the common
schools, to give them longer terms, and to make them more useful and more efficient; but it provided schools for the whites and
schools for the blacks, totally separate and distinct from each other. It will give to each race, and to the schools of each race all
that properly belongs to them, without any unjust discrimination, but it will put white men in charge of white schools and colored
men in charge of colored schools.
The Governor's Mansion and Supreme Court Building.

During this Democratic period a convenient and commodious residence for the Governor was built and the Supreme Court
and State Libraries were taken out of the cramped-up
Page 26
rooms in the Capitol and placed in the new Supreme Court building on the same square with the Agricultural building, where the
Court is now held and the libraries are open to the public in a splendid building that is a credit to the State.
The Penitentiary.
When the Republicans undertook the location of the Penitentiary they set agoing a public scandal that forced a change of the
location from Lockville to Raleigh. Those familiar with those times will recall the scandals attending the attempted purchase of a
site at Lockville, and how the contracts were repudiated. Those scandals were still fresh in the public mind when the Democrats
gained control of the Legislature and became responsible for the legislation affecting the management of the Penitentiary. It was
during the Democratic administration of the Penitentiary that the great buildings of that institution were constructed, and finally
completed, and it was also under this Democratic administration that the expenditures for the support of the Penitentiary gradually
grew less and less every year till the institution finally became self-supporting in 1896, the last year in which it was under the
control of Democratic officials.
The Railroad Commission.

Government has its burdens as well as its blessings. Its burdens are the necessary taxes for its support. Its blessings are
good laws, properly administered; peace, good order and protection. The Democratic Party ever seeks to make the burdens of
government as light and its blessings as great as possible, and to call upon all species of property and upon all classes of people
to share in both without discrimination as to any. When in power it imposed the same burdens upon all according to their ability to
bear them, and required a strict compliance with the law on the part of all. Hence, when it appeared that there were certain
railroad properties in the State which bore no part of these burdens and that some corporations were in some instances not
obeying the law, and were misusing the powers given them by the State, the Democratic Legislature established a Railroad
Commission, to take charge of these matters, to place all railroad property on the tax list, and to compel all corporations to do
justice to their patrons and the public generally. Some of the roads resisted the efforts of the Board to put their property on the tax
list for taxation like other property, claiming they were exempt by their original charters; but the Democratic
Page 27
Board, in pursuance of the policy that all property should be taxed alike, pressed these corporations in Court and out of it till they
succeeded in placing all property on the tax list, thus adding millions of dollars to the taxable property of the State. The Board also
fixed a passenger and freight rate, which was considered at the time fair and equitable to both the corporations and the people.
Complaints were speedily adjusted; and so long as the Board remained under the exclusive control of the Democratic Party, it was
absolutely free from scandal or suspicion.
The Republican-Populist Fusion Legislature of 1895 took Thomas W. Mason off the Board and put S. O. Wilson on it in his
place. The Legislature of 1897, which was also a Republican-Populist Fusion Legislature, took E. C. Beddingfield off and put on
Dr. D. H. Abbott. Both got on the Board by a trade between Republicans and Populists. When great and important offices like that
of Railroad Commissioners, are filled by trades and dickers between two political parties, having nothing in common except a
desire for office, it is hardly to be expected that fitness will cut any figure in the trade--the fellow who has the most to trade with will
get the place--and there need be no wonder when scandals, betrayals of public trusts, incompetency, mark the career of men
chosen by such methods.
When the Commission was created, the men selected were not only honorable, able, fit men, but they were selected in the
usual way and were responsible to the party that selected them and to the people of the State.
The recent Democratic State Convention spoke out on this question with no uncertain sound. It said: "We favor the extension
of the powers of the Railroad Commission and a closer scrutiny into their affairs, in order to ascertain, establish and maintain such
rates as shall be fair and just to the people and to the transportation and transmission corporations." This is the pledge of the
party, and it will be faithfully kept. The Democratic Party stands pledged to do justice to all classes of people and to all classes of
property. It will take no part in oppressing either. So, if the party shall be restored to power, property and people of every kind and
class may expect laws that shall be equal and just to all and that will require a like obedience from all.
Pensions to Confederate Soldiers.

It was during these years of Democratic administration that the Soldiers' Home was established and provisions
Page 28
made for the poor and needy Confederate soldiers. The State also made liberal appropriations to the Oxford Orphan Asylum for
the white children and likewise to the one for the colored children.
The Cost of all this Work.

No one can deny that all these things which we have enumerated, as well as other excellent things we have omitted to
mention, were done during the Democratic administration. Every candid man must admit it was a great work, and that it was in
addition to the ordinary administration of the State government. As such work usually costs considerable, the question naturally
arises, what did it cost the people? Was their government during those years of activity and improvement costly? Let us turn to the
record for the information. State Auditor Ayer, in his report for 1897, prints a statement showing the receipts and disbursements of
the government, each year, from 1868 to 1897, both inclusive. That statement is as follows:
Page 29
STATEMENT I.--Showing the amount of receipts and disbursements of the State

for each fiscal year from 1868 to 1897, inclusive.
PUBLIC FUND. IIEDUCATIONAL FUND.

DI
Year.
D I
Receipts. I I
Disbursements. Receipts. Disbursements.
I I
1868 $1,925,564.89 $2,019,989.41 $21,564.64 $35,866.01
ITotal Receipts. Total Disbursements.
I
I
$1,947,129.62 $2,055,755.42
I
I I I
*1869 8,550,877.62 8,687,428.97
I
169,870.42 167,158.18 I
8,720,848.04 8,854,587.15
I1870 II3,557,867.48 II3,454,214.10 333,973.76 203,411.01 3,891,741.24 3,657,625.11

I1871 I558,147.38 II645,579.79 229,990.79 177,494.94 788,138.17 823,077.91
D1872 I654,476.21 I628,532.70 46,000.81 173,275.92 700,777.02 801,808.62
I1873 I481,224.91 I524,168.47 41,705.01 83,007.18 522,999.92 607,175.65
D1874 I667,114.49 I448,839.68 44,383.21 56,260.94 711,498.70 504,869,62
I1875 I508,317.67 I551,816.78 43,677.08 37,959.97 551,994.75 589,776.75
I1876 I524,039.17 I528,065.22 42,235.59 54,702.93 566,274.76 582,758.15
D1877 I533,635.55 I613,264.59 33,783.57 24,433.10 567,419.12 637,697.69
I1878 I534,322.04 I534,187.07 12,592.39 4,915.03 545,914.43 539,102.10
D1879 I553,339.96 I577,658.41 5,269.65 4,074.90 558,609.60 581,733.31
I1880 I546,796.04 II492,720.39 6,233.47 4,000.00 553,029.51 496,720.33
D1881 I645,743.05 I625,616.59 114,501.31 50,651.25 760,244.36 676,067.84
I1882 I755,881.44 I629,112.37 12,712.05 66,125.00 768,593.49 695,337.37
D1883 I965,107.08 I944,343.76 29,879.30 135.00 994,986.38 944,478.76
I1884 I1,436,775.66 I785,641.78 35,200.33 76,228.65 1,471,975.99 861,870.43
D1885 I378,957.62 I795,486.26 7,176.54 5,195.24 386,134.16 800,681.40
I1886 I835,421.03 I1,112,652.31 7,626.25 7,365.85 843,047.28 1,180,017.16
I1887 I847,864.36 I886,334.02 6.920.48 5,525.21 854,784.84 891,858.23
D1888 I710,384.39 I820,025.39 11,403.01 5,582.86 721,787.40 825,608.25
I1889 I976,887.77 II1,012,938.43 12,265.56 34,183.43 989,153.33 1,047,121.86
D1890 I1,180,369.64 I1,056,572.54 23,757,92 5,945.58 1,204,127.56 1,062,518.00
I1891 I1,182,093.95 I1,147,604.12 21,589.63 32,190.66 1,203,683.58 1,179,794.78
D1892 I1,209,662.86 I1,054,798.61 15,500.24 3,134.99 1,225,163.10 1,057,933.60
I1893 I1,212,161.53 I1,293,214.99 31,087.19 26,433.11 1,243,248.72 1,319,648.10
D1894 I1,214,285.08 I1,148,873.34 19,076.00 46,746.91 1,233,361.08 1,195,620.25
I1895 I1,125,518.58 I1,337,752.32 41,659.65 11,583.33 1,167,178.23 1,349,335.65
D1896 I1,259,458.40 I1,244,917.57 1,555.35 1,648.70 1,261,013.75 1,246,566.27
I1897 I1,292,547.67 I1,303,904.11 23,043.89 60,144.18 1,315,591.56 1,364,048.29
* Much the larger proportion of the receipts and disbursements for 1869 are on account of subscriptions to railroad
companies, etc., where no money actually passed.
Page 30
An examination of this official statement will show that the years in which this great development, growth and improvement
was going on were among the years that made the smallest drafts upon the State Treasury. This fact will still further appear by the
following statement, showing the rate of taxation each year on each one hundred dollars worth of property from 1874 to 1894:
Statement Showing Rate of Taxation from 1884 to 1894.
• For 1874, 31⅔ cents on every $100 worth of property.

• For 1879, 24 cents on every $100 worth of property.

No matter whether we look to the statement of the expenses of the State government year by year, or to rate of tax levied
and collected, the fact appears beyond all controversy that by rigid economy at every point the Democrats were able to make all
the improvements and do all the things hereinbefore enumerated without adding a dollar to the burdens of the people.
A stranger might well ask the question, why was it that the Republican Party, with its millions at its command, did not build a
single mile of railroad or do anything else in the way of improvement, while the Democrats with a low rate of taxation and small
expenditures could do so much? The facts are herein given. The reader may make his own answer.
Page 31
Democratic Administration in County, City

and Town.
It is a well-known fact that the taxes levied on the people for the support of the county, city and town governments far exceed
those levied for the support of the State government. It is also a fact that the administration of these governments come in close
touch with the people. Hence it is just as much the duty of the party in power to provide-good government for the people in county,
city and town as it is in the State; and any party which by positive enactments or by neglect subjects the people of a county, city or
town to misrule, to plunder and humiliation, is unworthy of the confidence and support of honest men.
When the Democratic Party came into power it found that in many of the counties and towns of the East heavy taxes had
been levied and collected, and the money had been stolen or squandered. The Republican Party then, as now, was weighed down
by the negro, and to appease him, counties and towns, then as now, were turned over to him to pillage and plunder. In many
counties and towns in the East the county scrip was hawked about, and was really worth but little more than the worthless
Republican State bonds. The credit of the counties and towns, like the credit of the State, was destroyed. Negro magistrates and
negro officials then, as now, went through the farce of administering the law. We have no purpose to go into the details of some of
the harrowing scenes of those bitter days, and we only refer to the condition of the counties and towns of the East under
Republican rule for the purpose of comparing it with Democratic rule and to appeal to the good white men all over the State to
restore Democratic government to those counties and towns before their inhabitants shall again be subjected to similar conditions.
The Democratic Party addressed itself to the work of bringing order out of chaos in those communities. Ignorant, vicious,
worthless officials were replaced by competent white men; the levying and collecting of the taxes were closely scrutinized; rigid
economy was practiced; honesty prevailed in every department; expenses were decreased, and all laws were faithfully and
impartially administered. They found many counties and towns heavily involved in debt and without
Page 32
any credit, notwithstanding the rate of taxation was very high. The Democratic Boards of Commissioners commenced paying off
this indebtedness and at the same time reducing taxation, and long before the change of parties, in 1895, the indebtedness had
been paid off and taxation reduced to the lowest possible limit. As great and marked as was the change in public affairs in the
State administration, it was not so marked and visible as was the change in the counties and towns of the East. In place of the
dangers to life and the oppression to property which prevailed under Republican rule, people and property of all classes were
absolutely secure under Democratic rule. The reasons for this were very plain and simple. Under Republican rule many of these
counties and towns were under the dominion of ignorant negroes and vicious white men, who were dependent upon the negroes
for the places they held. Under-Democratic rule these same counties and towns were under the control of honest, capable white
men. The lawless element among the negroes and the whites also knew that honest, faithful, capable men were in charge of the
local offices and there was a marked difference in their behavior. With this honest, faithful execution of the law came a feeling of
security to life and to property, which did not and cannot exist under Republican rule. The blacks, as well as the whites, were
vastly better off, and it is a crime against the negro as well as an outrage upon the white men to again turn those counties and
towns over to Republican rule, for Republican rule in the East means negro rule; and negro rule is a curse to both races.
Page 33
The Vast Importance of Good Government.

In several places in this book we have spoken of the importance of good government. It is one of those things that it is difficult
to describe in words or to measure by any other standard. Its presence blesses, protects, fosters, encourages, helps everything
that is good and noble and beneficial in a community, while its absence breeds disorder, oppression, fear, depression, degeneracy
and like evils. The world is full of instances which illustrate every phase of this vastly important, many-sided question. The people
of many a county and town in Eastern North Carolina can tell in plain and pathetic story of the curse of bad government and of the
blessings of good government. There is hardly a country in the world with a history where the reader in search of the truth would
not be startled and surprised to find how good or bad government, as the case may be, touched and influenced the energies and
industries of the people and the destiny of the country. We need refer to but one example. That of itself will tell a story and carry a
conviction beyond anything we can say. It is
Bad Government in Cuba.
Why is it that war is now going on between the United States and Spain? Why is it that our young men are called away from
their homes and are sent to Cuba to encounter the dangers of battle and of camp? Why is it that our country is spending millions
upon millions to make war on Spain? Why is that our people are called upon to pay increased taxes to carry on this war? Put the
answers to these questions in language any one may please, clothe them in the most beautiful verbiage or in the finest diction,
make them short or long, they will come back in the last analysis to the plain, simple answer, "Bad government in Cuba." Indeed,
the House, the Senate, the Congress, the President, the Government, all declared at the very outset that the United States was
going to war with Spain to establish and maintain good government in Cuba. Had there been good government in Cuba, the
mother, the sister of Bagley, the widow of Shipp, the relatives and friends of these heroes, would not have been called upon to
give up their best beloved.
Page 34
Had there been good government in Cuba, there had been no mourning in the thousands of darkened homes all over this land.
Had there been no bad government in Cuba there had been no occasion to send the Maine to Havana, and that magnificent ship
had not been blown up and her gallant crew had not been murdered. Had there been no bad government in Cuba there had been
no war and no war taxes to be paid. Who shall ever hereafter talk flippantly about good government, or fail to anathematize and
curse bad government and its promoters? Let him who does be anathema maran-atha.
We refer to these things to emphasize the importance of good government, and to arouse the people of North Carolina to
activity and zeal in securing and maintaining its blessings for all sections of their State, while it may be done by the peaceful
means of the ballot-box. We appeal to the fathers and mothers who have sent their boys to Cuba to fight and to die for good
government for the Cubans, not to forget their white brethren and sisters who are living under bad government in certain cities and
towns and counties of our own beloved North Carolina. A simple ballot cast on the day of election for Democracy will lift from them
the curse that now rests upon them and will again bring sunshine and peace and security to their homes.
But some of our Populist and Republican friends may say it is their desire to vote for good government. If so, we reply, their
vote should be with the Democratic Party, for that is the only party that has given or can give good government in this State.
The Populist Party cannot do it, because it has not the votes. In 1892 their candidate received about 47,000 votes, and in
1896 he received about 32,000.
The Republican Party has the negro on its hands, and it has to pay some respect to his wishes. The negro makes up about
four-fifths of the Republican Party in this State, and he must be consulted and appeased. A party thus constituted cannot give
good government to the people. To hold the negro solid the party must give him the local offices in the counties and towns where
he is numerous. If the party gives him these local offices, then bad government must follow.
The Democratic Party, then, is the only party that can bestow this blessed boon of good government on the people in State,
county and town. That it can do it and has done it have been abundantly shown elsewhere in this book.
Page 35
The Composition of the Republican Party.

In discussing this subject we frankly admit that there are many honest, good men in the Republican Party who would, if they
could, make it useful to the State and all her interests, both general and local. If they could fix its policies, determine its actions,
and name its candidates, the party would be free from the scandals and bad record which have marked its existence in North
Carolina. But, unfortunately for the State, these good men have but little influence in the councils of that party. It is a high estimate
to say that the Republican Party is 150,000 strong in this State. A fair division of this number of the two races which compose this
party will be, whites 30,000, blacks 120,000. So the blacks outnumber the whites in this party by four to one. The black man then
is by far the dominating race in this party. It therefore follows that the black man's wishes must be consulted, and the white man
who pleases him best will be in the lead. This is true not only in theory, but in practice. Go to a Republican convention in the
counties where a majority of the Republicans are black, and you will see the worst element of the white Republicans mixing with
the blacks and controlling these conventions. The more decent white Republicans hold themselves aloof and look on with disgust.
The men who can best control and manipulate the negroes are most in evidence at these conventions, while the better class of
Republicans are conspicuous by their absence. One of the results of this condition of things is that it often happens that bad or
incompetent white men are chosen by the negroes to fill the local offices in county and town. This is another phase of negro rule
that afflicts the people of the east.
Another result of these conditions in the Republican Party is that it also often happens that unscrupulous negro and white
politicians go to and control the State conventions of that party. This was the case in 1896, if O. H. Dockery and his friends are to
be believed, for it was openly charged by him that he was cheated and swindled out of the nomination by Russell and the Grants
and Smiths and Jim Young, who, it is alleged, did Russell's dirty work.
The great political questions which divide men into parties, cut a small figure in the make up of the vote of this party.
Page 36
The 120,000 negro votes can be cast about as well on one side as on the other side of any of these questions by those who
manipulate this vote. The gold standard, high taxes and monopoly make no impression upon this vote. Call anything "Republican"
and it is all right with the ordinary colored voter, no matter how injuriously it may affect him or his community.
White men who took an active part in manipulating and controlling this vote have been known to admit they were in it for the
bread they got out of it, and not a few of its leaders are men who were disappointed in their search for bread and place in the
Democratic Party. No matter how bitter a man may have been toward the Republicans, or how much abuse he may have heaped
upon the negro and his white ally, he is made a hero of by these people as soon as he calls himself a Republican, and he is at
once given a high seat in their synagogue. No matter how often he may have been rejected by the Democratic Party as unfit for
the position to which he aspired, the high places are open to him in the Republican Party.
It is simply impossible that a party thus constituted can give to the State, the county and the town the security and blessings
of good government. This is not only true in theory, but it has been demonstrated to be true in practice. This party has twice tried
its hand at government in North Carolina. Elsewhere in this book we have given an account of the crimes, scandals and
corruptions which characterized its first effort, and of the scandals and incompetency which mark its second effort, and we refer
the reader to those articles.
In the beginning of this article we frankly admitted that there were good men in the Republican Party, but that they were
powerless to control its administration of public affairs. This appeal for good government is to them. It is useless to appeal to the
negro or to those who manipulate or control his vote. The good men in that party must see that they are powerless in that party to
restore to the people good government, and we appeal to them to cast their votes this year with the Democratic Party, it having
been abundantly demonstrated that the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party alone, can give to the people good
government in State, city, county and town.
Page 37
The Democratic Party and the Negro.

The population of North Carolina is divided into two races--the white and black. About two-thirds of the entire population are
white, and about one-third is black. The most of the negro population reside in a few counties in the middle part of the State and
chiefly in the eastern counties. In some of these counties the negro race largely exceeds the white race. Of all the votes polled in
any general election in the State, fully one-third is cast by the negroes, and in some of the eastern counties the negroes have a
majority. It is possible, upon a full vote, to poll 360,000 votes. It is certain, therefore, that there is at least 120,000 negro voters in
the State; and it is rare that one of them fails to vote. It is, therefore, manifest that the negro must enter as a factor into any plan,
scheme or purpose for the administration of the public affairs of the State. It is likewise equally manifest that it is a matter of public
interest to inquire into the attitude of the Democratic Party towards the negro. Is it one of hostility, or one of genuine interest in his
real welfare?
The first public utterance of the Democratic Party in reference to the negro, after the State was admitted into the Union under
the Reconstruction Acts, is to be found in the Address of the Democratic Members of the Legislature, dated March 26, 1870, and
published elsewhere in this book. From it we make a single extract, as follows: "The colored man now enjoys the same political
and civil rights as the white man. We accept his status as fixed by the Constitution of this State and the United States in good faith.
We regard it as a final settlement of the question. It now becomes our duty, as good citizens, to elevate him morally and
intellectually." This duty the party has honestly and faithfully performed. No well-informed, truthful man, black or white, can deny
that the negro owes about all he has, in the way of public school facilities, to the Democratic Party; and no one knows better than
the negro himself to whom and to what class of people he goes for help in his church work and in his various enterprises for the
intellectual and moral elevation of his race. Without going into details it may be truthfully said the Democratic Party has burdened
its own people with taxes for the benefit of the negro race. So it
Page 38
may be positively asserted that the attitude of the Democratic Party is not one of hostility to the negro. It may also be asserted with
equal positiveness that the party has done all in its power, with the means at its command, to make the negro a good citizen and
to protect him in all his rights. Under the benign rule of the Democratic Party during the long period it held unbroken power in
North Carolina, the negro race enjoyed peace and quiet, and had the full protection of the laws, and the conditions were such that
the negro made rapid improvement and realized to the utmost the blessings of good government. But there is one thing the
Democratic Party never has done and never will do--and that is to set the negro up
To Rule Over White Men,

It is no fault of the negro that he is here, and he is not to be punished for being here; but this is a white man's country and
white men must control and govern it. They must govern it not only because they are white men, but because they can do it better
than the negro. The negro has, whenever tried, demonstrated his unfitness and inability to rule. It is better for the negro, as well as
for the white man, that the white man should make and administer the laws. It is a mercy to the negro himself to save him from his
own ruin. It has been in the past, and is to-day, the special mission of the Democratic Party to rescue the white people of the east
from the curse of negro domination.
But say the white Republican and Populist leaders who have profited by the negro vote, "there is no danger of negro
domination in North Carolina." At present, we admit, there is no danger of negro domination throughout the entire State, for
notwithstanding that in a State election the negro casts about 120,000 votes and the white Republicans about 30,000 votes, the
Republican Party does not dare to put a negro on their State ticket, because they know the white Republicans of the west would
not vote the ticket. The Republican leaders rely upon the white Republicans of the west to vote to put the negro over the white
men and women of the east, but not over themselves. Four out of every five of the votes cast for a Republican State ticket are cast
by the negro, and yet the leaders do not dare to put a negro on the State ticket for the white men of the west to vote for. Senator
Pritchard appoints, or consents to the appointment of NEGRO POSTMASTERS in the east, but he does not dare to do it in the
west. It is not because
Page 39
there are no negroes there, for there are some there and they are just as capable as the negroes of the east. He does not appoint
them in the west, because he well knows there would be a rebellion among his Republican followers.
We do these western white men the justice to say that we do not believe they would vote for the negro domination in the east
if they really knew what they are doing. They came to the rescue of their white brethren of the east in 1876, and we believe they
will do it again when they learn the facts. They have heard their Republican and Populist leaders say there is no danger of negro
domination, and they have believed them and hence have continued to follow them. But white men of the west, before you follow
them longer, come to the east and see for yourselves.
It is useless for your leaders to tell the people of Greenville that there is no danger of negro domination, for it is there already.
You had just as well tell the American soldier who has been pierced through and through by Spanish bullets that there is no
danger in war, as to tell the people of Greenville that there is no danger of negro domination. They had just as well tell the fever
stricken patient who lies parched with thirst and dying with the black vomit that there is no danger of yellow fever. They see it,
know it, and feel it every day of their lives, and have done so since May, 1897.
It is useless to tell the people of Wilmington that there is no danger of negro domination, when they see the negro policemen
every day parading the streets in uniform and swinging the "billy," ready to let it fall upon the head of white and black alike.
It is useless to tell the people of Newbern and the people of Craven County that there is no danger of negro rule, when they
have seen a negro magistrate issue his warrant for the arrest of a white woman, put it in the hands of a negro constable, have her
arrested and brought before him, and then when her attorneys asked to have her case sent for trial before some other Justice of
the Peace, sent it before another negro magistrate, with a negro lawyer there to prosecute her. All this they have seen, and may
see again any day.
It is useless to tell the white people of Wilson and of Goldsboro that there is no danger of negro rule, when they remember
how they had to send delegation after delegation to Raleigh to the Legislature of 1897 to beg and plead with Republican and
Populist members of the Legislature not to
Page 40
put these well-governed towns under negro domination. They know they barely escaped then, and it is useless to tell them there is
no danger in the future.
The truth is, there is always danger when the Republican Party is in power. This party turned the counties and towns of the
east over to the negroes when it was in power before, and it is doing it again. Not daring to put a negro on the State ticket, it must
give him the local offices of the east as his reward and his part of the spoils of political victory.
Nor is this the only danger that now threatens us. It is a well-known fact that South Carolina and other Southern States, in
defense of good government in those States, have made negro rule in those States impossible. In the States to the north of us it
cannot be, for the negro is too few in number. It may now be stated as a fact that North Carolina, under Republican rule, is the
only State in the Union where negro domination is possible. Who can say, if Republican rule is to go on in this State, that we are
not to have an influx of negroes from other States, drawn here by that condition, and that communities that are now exempt from
the dangers of negro rule may not soon be subjected to it? The remedy for the danger is a restoration of the Democratic Party to
power; for while it will do absolute justice to the negro, it will not make a ruler out of him.
There is another fact which can be verified by the common observation and experience of any ordinary man in the east where
the negro predominates, and that is that he is a very different man when the Democrats are in power in the State than when the
Republicans are in power. When the Democrats are in power he well understands that the administration of the law is in the hands
of a party that did not come into power by his help and that the law will be executed faithfully and impartially, and he knows and
keeps his proper place. But when the Republican Party is in power he well understands that he placed it there, and he feels that
he can do about as he pleases. This difference is manifest to any one who lives in the sections where the negroes are numerous,
and it is strikingly so in the towns and villages of the east.
In view of these facts, may we not appeal to the rank and file of the Populist and Republican parties to come to the rescue of
their white brethren in the east and to ward off the danger which now threatens the peace of society and the sanctity of home life?
Page 41
We know it is useless to appeal to the white men who hold office by the grace and favor of the negro, but may we not appeal
to the manhood, the Anglo-Saxon blood, of the white men all over the State who have not trafficked and traded for office with the
negro, to unite with the white man's party to uphold white supremacy and to preserve Anglo-Saxon civilization throughout North
Carolina? Let there be no black spot within our borders that is a disgrace to the manhood of white men.
Page 42
Difference of Republican and Democratic

Treatment of the Negro.
The Republican party uses the negro for all he is worth for election purposes, and in pursuance of this general purpose it sets
him up to rule over white men. The fact that he is unfit for the position to which he aspires makes no difference. He must have
enough of the local pie to appease his hunger, or else those who manipulate his vote may have trouble. But some western
Republican may say, is it really true that the negro is unfit for government? Hear what D. L. Russell, though made Governor by
them, says about them. In a letter written in 1888 to J. C. L. Harris, declining to be a candidate for Supreme Court Judge, he tells
Mr. Harris that he is going up North to make some speeches, and he tells him something that he will be compelled to say to the
people way up there. We make just a single extract from this remarkable letter. Hear it; says Mr. Russell:
"Fourth, while I shall say much on the line above indicated, I would also be compelled to tell the truth on our own party in the
South. For instance, I would rise to remark that while as a rule the South does not treat the colored people with the liberality and
justice which they receive in the North, there is yet defense for the deep and dire determination of the Southern white men to
never submit to negro rule. The negroes of the South are largely savages. We, with Northern aid and sanction, kidnapped them,
enslaved them, and by most monstrous wrong degraded them so that they are no more fit to govern than are their brethren in
African swamps, or so many Mongolians dumped down from Asia."
Notwithstanding Mr. Russell says the negroes are savages, and no more fit to govern than are their brethren in the jungles of
Africa, as Governor he appoints them to office and aids in various ways to place them in positions to rule over white men. In the
counties and towns of the east there are hundreds of these people in office ruling over white men. They are found in the post-
offices, in the town offices, in the magistrate's office, in the constable's office, in the school committeeman's office, and sundry
other positions
Page 43
where they rule over white men. They were placed in these positions by the Republican Party.
We do not agree with Mr. Russell when he calls these people savages. They are not savages. They are civilized beings,
made so in the providence of God by being brought into contact with the Anglo-Saxon race. They are vastly superior to their
brethren in African swamps, and we trust that many of them may be made instruments in reclaiming their brethren. But we do
agree with Mr. Russell when he says they are unfit to govern. The difference between him and us is that he says they are unfit to
govern but he puts them at it, while we say they are unfit for it and we do not put them at it.
Instead of making rulers of them, as the Republicans do, the Democratic Party seeks to make better citizens of them. We
build school-houses for them, train and employ teachers for them, encourage them to acquire homes, and teach them by precept
and example to become better citizens.
Page 44
The Eastern Towns Given up to Negroes.
The fusion between the Populists and the Republicans was very unnatural. There were no principles in common. There were
really no common objects of interest to the people in view. And, as might have been expected, this unnatural alliance has been
productive of much evil. Elsewhere we have dwelt upon the injury it has done by lowering the standard of political morality, in
prostituting suffrage, and leading free-silver Populists to vote for gold-bug Republicans. There was another consequence. The
negroes constituted the large mass of the Republican Party, and the black cohorts were faithful to the fusion. Common decency
required that these faithful allies of the Populists who had co-operated with them in obtaining control of the Legislature, should
receive their share of the spoils. The alliance had not been made in order to subserve any public interest, but only to secure
spoils; and the negroes were entitled to their share. They could not be given offices that brought them in contact with the white
voters of the west. That was out of the question, for the western whites would not stand that; and so their share of the spoils was
laid aside for them in eastern localities. The eastern towns were to be given up to them to be subject to their misrule, to be objects
of their prey, and to be looted by them. The city and town charters were "reformed" by the "reformers" of the reform Legislature, so
as to put the negroes on top. Who did this thing? Why the Populists in the Legislature. The Republicans were not able to do it
alone--but the Populists helped them and the charters were accordingly "reformed" so that the negroes might be in the saddle and
have their hands in the town treasuries.
Jim Young prepared the Raleigh charter, but he counted wrong, and the whites outvoted him, and that city was saved from
his clutches.
The Town of Greenville.

The bill concerning the town of Greenville was passed by the first Fusion Legislature. It is worthy of more than passing
mention. The town of Greenville contains a majority of white voters, and naturally was under Democratic administration,
Page 45
and had been without any scandals. The assessed value of property is about three-quarters of a million dollars.
In order to favor the ngroes, the Fusion Legislature of 1895 threw overboard the white government of that town and divided
the town into four new wards. By a careful gerrymander, two of these wards having a very odd shape were made to contain negro
majorities; while the whites are greatly in the majority in the other two wards. So far, that was a simple gerrymander in the interest
of the negroes and against the whites. But the Fusion Legislature did not stop there. It went further, and conferred on the negro
wards the right to elect two aldermen for each of them, while the white wards were allowed to elect only one alderman apiece. So
in order to give the negroes, who were in the minority, control of Greenville, the Populists and Republicans in the Fusion
Legislature of 1895, gave to a small negro ward two aldermen, while it gave to each of the larger white wards but one alderman. In
that case a negro voter was computed as being twice as good as the white voter!! A negro voter was given twice the political
power, twice the power in government, that the white voter has. What decent white man will defend that action of the Fusion
Legislature?
Under this Fusion charter, at the town election, May, 1897, the two negro wards elected four negro aldermen, and the white
people elected two white aldermen. To be sure the four negroes on the Board outvoted the two whites; and they elected as officers
of Greenville a white Radical Mayor; a white Radical Chief of Police; a negro Clerk, a negro day policeman and a negro night
policeman. The entire law-making power is necessarily invested in these four negro councilmen. The nine governing officers of the
town, to wit, these four concilmen, Mayor, Chief of Police, two policemen, and Clerk, who make the laws and enforce them in the
town, lay the taxes and spend them, pay no taxes to speak of. As a matter of curiosity, we give the figures for the year from May,
1897, to May, 1898:
One negro councilman paid taxes on property, 63 cents.
Another negro councilman paid taxes, 84 cents.
The two others paid nothing.
Altogether the law-making power that levies the taxes and spends them pays $1.47.
The Radical Mayor paid on property, 43 cents.
The Chief of Police paid 30 cents.
One negro policeman paid nothing.
Page 46
The negro Clerk paid nothing.
These eight officers, therefore, paid an aggregate of $2.20 in taxes on property.
The other negro policeman paid $5.75.
Leaving out the two Democratic councilmen, the officers of the town pay $7.95 into the town treasury. They collected
revenues in 1897, $5,500, and they paid themselves out of that $2,800.
Now it is not always the case that men who pay no taxes are improper characters; but in September, 1897, the Mayor and
Chief of Police of Greenville, being indicted for gambling, came into Court and admitted their guilt; and thereafter, in May, 1898,
they were re-elected to their respective offices.
When the next Fusion Legislature of 1897 met, some of the Fusionists, not content with the injury and humiliation inflicted
upon the town by its Fusion predecessor, sought to still further injure and humiliate it. A bill was introduced in the House of
Representatives taking from the people of Greenville the right to elect councilmen at all, and substituting a Police Board of three
members, named in the bill, who were to govern the people of the town. Of the three persons named, one was an aged, infirm
Democrat; another was a Radical named Cheek, who was a bar-keeper and a man of unsavory reputation; and the third was a
negro who has often had long drunken spells. This bill also gave this Board power to appoint all officers and employees for the
town, and to fill all vacancies in its own body.
It was proposed to turn over the town to this Board, giving them the right to appoint all officers, to make all town laws, to levy
all taxes and spend them, and to contract debts and to issue bonds. This abominable bill actually passed the House; but Senator
Moye prevented its passing the Senate.
It must always be remembered that a majority of the people living in the town of Greenville are white people, and the white
population is one of the very best in the State; and under its former white government there never were any scandals in its
administration, and no race troubles. Everything was properly done in the town until the Populists and Republicans made a negro
there twice as good as a white man; but since that time the condition of affairs has grown constantly worse, the laws not being
properly administered, until now disorderly people being unrestrained, the liquor shops sell right along on Sundays and general
lawlessness and disorder prevail.
Page 47
Indeed, white men and white women, in a spirit of forbearance and with the resolute purpose of avoiding any race collision,
frequently leave the sidewalks and walk in the middle of the street to avoid the disorderly negroes, who carry things with a high
hand in that unfortunate town.
Such is the result of giving the negroes in their wards the right to elect two councilmen, while a larger number of whites is
allowed only one councilman in their wards. This state of local government is one of the effects of Fusion.
Wilmington and Newbern.

No town was too important to be turned over to the negroes by the Fusionists. The charters of Wilmington and of Newbern
were amended, and the people were allowed to elect only one alderman for each ward, while the Governor was given the power
to appoint another alderman for each ward. The effect was to turn those people over to the tender mercies of Dan. Russell. And
now when you go to Wilmington and Newbern you see negro policemen and negro officers as thick as blackbirds.
In order to accomplish these purposes, attention is called to the fact that the Governor of the State is given the power to
appoint an alderman for each and every ward in these two cities. This is a direct blow at the theory of self-government. And it was
done by Populists and Republicans in the Fusion Legislature in the interest of the negro, while loudly proclaiming themselves in
favor of government by the people; and boasting of their purpose to maintain self-government in North Carolina. Why are not the
people of Wilmington and Newbern competent to elect their aldermen? and why should Dan. Russell be made Ruler over the
people of those cities? If he can appoint aldermen, why not all the officers? Is this consistent with our form of government?
Goldsboro and Wilson, Etc., Etc.

In like manner, Goldsboro and Wilson and Fayetteville and other towns were threatened to be put under the dominion of the
negroes. The evil was so much dreaded that the white people in these towns had delegations in Raleigh, watching and waiting at
great expense and with great anxiety to ward off the blow that would have been so fraught with evil and injury to these
communities. Fortunately, these particular places escaped for that time. But the danger hangs as a menace over them. Another
Fusion
Page 48
Legislature, another alliance between the Republicans and Populists, and these towns will probably be given up to the negroes
like Greenville, and Wilmington, and Newbern, and other towns have been.
The Radicals cannot accomplish this wicked purpose by themselves. They must have the help of the Populists to do it. But
the Populists have aided them in such matters before, and the Radicals count on their aid in the future.
Gradually, step by step, the negroes have been given dominion over many of our towns, and unless the white people unite to
stop it, they will obtain control over every town in the State. And there are some who have aided in these things under the banner
of reform! What a terrible mistake they have made! Let the people at the polls pass on the question whether they endorse the
course of the Fusion Legislature in regard to Greenville, Wilmington and Newbern.
Page 49
The Debauchery Fusion has Wrought.

For some years prior to 1892 there had been unrest among the farmers of North Carolina. Low prices of agricultural products
made their labor unremunerative, and a feeling of discontent pervaded the State. Speakers then went among the people and
persuaded them that the cause of their troubles was bad government. They led many to believe that the State Legislature was
extravagant, and that public money was being spent recklessly without regard for the interest of the people. Eventually, in 1892, a
new political party was started which claimed that both the old parties were rotten. Many of the principles, objects and purposes
advocated by this new party were the same as those advocated by the Democratic Party, while none of the reforms it proposed
were advocated by the Republican Party. Indeed, we might say the new party sought the same objects that the Democratic Party
did, but proposed new and novel measures and plans to reach those objects. The greatest anxiety was felt to give the agricultural
people financial relief, and the new party declared that relief could be obtained only by the SUB-TREASURY BILL. At first they
made the sub treasury bill the chief test of correct principles; but after a while they dropped that, so that the difference between
them and the Democrats became still less. In the meantime they became stronger advocates of silver and more pronounced
against the Republican gold standard, and so their difference from the Republican Party became still more positive and
pronounced.
The leaders of the new party, however, were looking out for spoils and office, and when the election of 1894 was coming on,
they thought they could make profit for themselves by making a deal with the Republicans. And notwithstanding these two parties
had no political principles in common, the desire for spoils and the hope for personal advantage brought the leaders of these
parties together and they succeeded in persuading the voters of their parties to elect a Fusion Legislature. It was a very unnatural
combination. Gold-bug Republicans and free-silver Populists were fused into a very odd mixture. High-tariff Republicans and low-
tariff Populists worked together in the same
Page 50
harness. The trusts and combines that flourish at the expense of the masses were on top, and the Populist leaders were silent.
Certainly it was a very singular spectacle here in honest old North Carolina. There was only one bond of union, and that was to get
offices for certain persons.
As a matter of fact, ever since the Democrats had come into power in 1870, the Legislature had been very economical, and
the expenses of carrying on the State government had been kept on a reasonable basis. The Legislature had been liberal in
providing for the insane and the deaf, dumb and blind; and had made large provision for the public schools; but it had tried to
make the Penitentiary self-supporting, and had cut down salaries and fees and had kept them down to a reasonable basis.
The Populist and Republican candidates, however, denounced the Democrats for alleged extravagance and promised the
people to reduce expenses, and the people were expecting some reforms at their hands.
Now let us see how these expectations were realized.
The Legislature offered to let the public printing to the lowest bidder. Edwards & Broughton made a bid. Stewart Bros., of
Winston, also made a bid. A committee of printers composed of J. C. Birdsong, who was Examiner of State Printing on the part of
the State; J. H. Alford, who was foreman of the Biblical Recorder; and John Nichols, the former Republican Member of Congress,
after a careful examination, reported that the bid of Edwards & Broughton was $581.88 lower than that made by the Stewarts; and
yet the contract was given to the Stewarts.
To be sure there was a job in that against the interests of the people, and the job, as usual, ended in a scandal. The Stewarts
had much of the State work done at Richmond, out of the State, thus depriving our printers of their work. And more than that,
when the contract for two years work had expired, the State Treasurer claimed that the Stewart Bros. had drawn out $10,000 more
than they were entitled to, and the State has brought suit to recover $10,000 from them as having been improperly paid to the
public printers. The case has not yet been finally closed. The Stewarts claim that under their contract they were entitled to all they
got. Now, either the contract was a very bad and extravagant contract, or the State Treasury has been relieved of funds unlawfully.
Any way you take it, the people have suffered.
Page 51
As showing the same reckless expenditure of public money to aid persons, favored by the leaders, the figures of the State
Auditor's books show that $14,032 more was paid out for the two Fusion Legislatures of 1895 and 1897 than for the two
Democratic Legislatures immediately preceding. Just think how that money was scattered around, without any necessity whatever.
And then recall the promises of these people "to stop all Democratic extravagance."
The Democrats for twenty odd years had been liberal in dealing with the charitable institutions. The Populist speakers and
Republican speakers during the campaign made a great noise against the Democrats for their alleged reckless indifference to the
people in the expenditure of public money, and promised great reforms. Now what did these Fusionists do themselves? They
increased the appropriations for the insane asylums $29,529.41. They increased the appropriations for the deaf and dumb and
blind and orphans $34,850, and for educational institutions $10,500, and for the penitentiary, $49,158.71.
Now, anybody can draw their own conclusions from these facts. Either the Democrats had been too economical in providing
for these institutions, or the Fusionists were themselves extravagant. If the Democrats had been too economical, then campaign
charges of Democratic extravagance were unfounded, and the Fusionists' orators deceived and misled the people by
misrepresentations.
On the other hand, if the Democrats had been extravagant, why it stands to reason that these people were still more
extravagant and broke their promises to the people to reform abuses. In our opinion the Democrats were not extravagant, but
were wise and prudent, making ample provisions for these objects, but not providing so much money as to lead the officers into
unnecessary expenditures and extravagance.
When we recollect that this Fusion Legislature was elected to "reform" things in the State, and to reduce salaries to a level
with gold standard prices, we will be surprised to learn:
• 1. That it did not decrease any salary.

• 2. That it did not decrease any fees.
• 3. That it did not pass a law against trusts.
• 4. That it did not decrease appropriations.
• 5. That it did nothing in the way of relief.
The two oxen yoked together to pull the people out of the
Page 52
mire were unnatural associates. When they came to elect officers for the people, silver Populists voted for gold-bug Republicans;
low-tariff Populists voted for high-tariff Republicans, and Anglo-Saxon Populists voted for negro Republicans right straight along,
just as if that was the right thing for them to do.
Now, there is something to admire in consistency; and something to despise in political degradation. And everybody knows
that the reason why the anti-trust, free-silver Populists voted for the gold-bug Republicans who sustain the trusts and combines
was the bargain, in which the consideration was offices for certain men. Money and pay for certain men were at the bottom of the
whole business. The interests of the people were not considered. So it turned out that Pritchard was elected Senator and Butler
was elected Senator. Their principles were exactly opposite. When Butler votes to carry into effect the principles and purposes of
the Populist Party, Pritchard votes against him and kills his vote. Now, is it the manly thing for men, simply to get money and office
for themselves, to elect persons to office who vote against the principles of those who elect them? After all it was a money
consideration that led these Populists to elect Republicans to office. Many honorable men would have put aside the temptation,
and would not have tarnished the fair fame of the North Carolina Legislature by such a bargain and sale of their votes.
That assembly met with a flourish of trumpets to reform abuses in North Carolina; and it ended in bringing this discredit and
odium on the good name of our State.
There is something to admire in an honorable, upright walk in life; there is something to reprobate in public conduct that saps
political virtue and prostitutes public office and brings men into disrepute and disgraces the State.
All these fruits of Fusion have had a tremendous influence on the moral tone of the people of the State. We see men devoid
of character in high public places. We see men trading public offices like they would trade any merchantable commodities. Offices
are getting to be considered as the subject of barter and sale. Political consistency is at a discount. Political leaders talk all the
time about "fusing" and "co-operating" without caring whether the objects and purposes and principles of their party are
strengthened, advanced and promoted. Their political integrity is lost sight of. The virtue of the people is not borne in mind by
these self-seeking
Page 53
aspirants for place who have floated on top during all this agitation. Public thought is directed into other channels. We believe the
time has come to uncover this political wickedness, and to appeal to the people to rebuke those who act as if the people have no
fixed political faith, no political integrity, no honor. Let honest old North Carolina return to her honorable traditions, and free herself
from this disgrace.
Election of Pritchard,
The year 1896 was a presidential year, and State officers also were to be chosen.
The Populists having abandoned the sub-treasury bill were now strong advocates of silver, and when their National
Convention met, it endorsed William J. Bryan, the Democratic nominee for President. After this splendid manifestation of a
purpose by the National Populist Convention to strain every nerve to gain relief for the people by securing the triumph of free
silver, it was hoped that the Populists of North Carolina would act in harmony with that spirit and have no political affiliations
whatever with the enemies of free silver. But that hope proved delusive. The Populists arranged with the Democrats to give the
electoral vote of the State to their common nominee for the Presidency; but after that they made an unnatural combination with the
Republicans, by which gold-bugs instead of silver candidates were elected to half the State offices, to the Legislature and to
Congress.
The Legislature did just as the first Fusion Legislature had done: it divided the places between the free silver men and the
gold-bug men, just as if there was no difference between them.
But when the election of United States Senator came on, Senator Butler flew the track. Since his election as Senator he had
had Pritchard killing his vote in the Senate, and for one reason or another, he determined to oppose Pritchard's re-election. He
tried to organize his party friends in the Legislature to vote for only a free silver man; but he did not succeed. On former occasions
he had led them to vote for gold-bugs right straight along, and now when he tried to keep them from voting for this particular gold-
bug, about one-half of them laughed at him, and said in substance that he had trained them in the way of voting for gold-bugs and
they would now keep on the same road, and we suspect they found it easier to do this, as Pritchard promised them offices under
the Republican administration if they voted for him.
Page 54
Here are the names of the Populist members who voted for Pritchard against Dr. Cy. Thompson, the Populist nominee for
United States Senator:
Barker, Senator from Lincoln; Cannon, Senator from Brunswick; Early, Senator from Burke; Newsome, Senator from Hertford;
Odom, Senator from Anson; Parker, Senator from Randolph; Wakefield, Senator from Caldwell; Abernathy, member from Lincoln;
Babbitt, member from Pamlico; Brown, member from Jones; Bryan, member from Chatham; Harris, member from Hyde; Hodges,
member from Beaufort; Parker, member from Perquimans; Rountree, member from Gates; White, member from Randolph;
Scarborough, member from Caswell.
And by their votes, Dr. Cy. Thompson, a free silver, anti-trust Populist, was defeated and a gold-bug Republican was chosen
to represent the good people of North Carolina in the United States Senate for six years! Everybody knows that the voice of our
people is not on that line.
Leave out the 125,000 negroes, who have no sufficient information or intellectual capacity to comprehend the vital issue in
the people's struggle against trusts and combines, and there remains only a handful of men who are content to have the people
oppressed by a combine of associated wealth; and there are still fewer white men who believe that the gold-standard, with its
accompaniment of low wages and low prices for the products of industry, is not hurtful to the masses; indeed, it is chiefly those
who have fixed salaries and whose bonds bring in every year a fixed amount, who find it to their individual interest to reduce
wages and prices, as their coupons in that case go further, and they can lay up more out of their income after paying their living
expenses. It is these few that Pritchard represents in the Senate, regardless of the voice and wishes and judgment of the
multitude of his white fellow-citizens, who have the intellectual capacity to understand the question. But for years to come Senator
Pritchard will stand in the Senate and vote diametrically opposite to the judgment of the great majority of the white men of North
Carolina. And he was put there and given the opportunity of doing that thing by these seventeen Populist members of the
Legislature. It is but just to these men, whose action has been such a stab at the vitals of our people, to bear in mind that they had
been trained in that practice by Senator Butler on former occasions. He and other Populist leaders had previously urged them, and
had taught them to vote for gold-bugs; and when this supreme
Page 55
and important occasion came, they only pursued their old course. It had gotten to be a sort of habit with them.
It is true that on this occasion Senator Butler sought to persuade them not to vote for a gold-bug, but they would not listen to
him. He had the Populist caucus to meet, and it nominated Dr. Thompson, but the seventeen bolted and clove to the gold-bug to
represent the people in the Senate instead of electing Dr. Cy. Thompson.
How momentous a thing this was, to bolt the caucus, needs some explanation. Firm caucus rule had been the stern and
inflexible practice of these leaders for some years. Even before the formation of the Populist Party, when these men were
Democrats, and when that wing of the Democratic Party dominated the Legislature, as it did for some six years before the Third
Party was formed, they were accustomed to have a legislative committee that dictated their course, and they plumbed the track
without hesitation or question. And since the formation of the Populist Party, king caucus had indeed been their truly and only king.
The caucus governed their every action. They responded to the dictates of the caucus like clockwork. When the pendulum swung,
the clock ticked right along.
But when the Populist caucus of the last Legislature met, a new element was present. It was understood that Pritchard had
offered places to enough Populists to secure his election if they voted for him. And these leaders wanted these places, and were
going to earn them. When the Populist caucus met, Senator Utley, of Wake, offered the following resolution:
"Resolved, by the People's Party members of the General Assembly in caucus assembled, That we abide by the decision of
the majority in all our deliberations."
Ordinarily no objection would have been heard to that resolution; but on this occasion such action would have prevented any
Populists from voting for Pritchard, so forthwith there was a split, and seventeen Populists walked out and took up their stand with
the gold-bugs.
These men, who had been so used to submit to caucus rule, bolted! Bolted a free silver caucus that nominated one of their
highest and brainiest Populist leaders, and went over to the gold-bug camp! No wonder Butler fumed! No wonder he sweated, and
grew hot under the collar. But he had taught these men to vote for gold-bugs, and they were now doing what he had persuaded
them to do on former occasions, and perhaps his realization of the utter political wickedness
Page 56
and stupidity of that former practice caused him still greater irritation.
He prepared some resolutions, that were adopted by the Populist caucus, from which the following extracts are made:
"The election of Mr. Pritchard, the candidate of Hanna, Sherman and Wall Street to represent the silver sentiment of North
Carolina in the United States Senate discovers a startling crisis in the history of the People's Party. He could not have been
elected by Republican votes. He was elected by those who call themselves Populists, and at a time when they could as easily
have elected a Populist." These resolutions then go on to say that "Before 9 o'clock this morning their agents, including pie-
counter Republicans and bolting Populists were approaching members of the People's Party caucus and every visiting Populist in
Raleigh who favored the election of the People's Party nominee for United States Senator by seductive pleas of persuasion and
subtle sophistry and by direct propositions and overtures, coupled with considerations."
"As the livery of heaven is stolen to serve the Devil in, so every crime committed against the integrity of the People's Party
and its essential principles will be attempted in the name of 'co-operation.' Already the Populist supporters of Hanna's man begin
to call themselves 'co-operative Populists.' when in truth they are nothing but Republicans, while attempting to better serve the
purposes of the Republican Party by masquerading as Populists."
But Butler's wrath was in vain. The consciences of these men, their moral integrity had already been sapped by their previous
votes for gold-bugs, and it is hard to see that they had any political consistency or political integrity to hold them to a strict
adherence to the principles they advocated. They had already been debauched; their political manhood was gone. And so it will
ever be under similar conditions. The Populist leaders have done a world of moral harm here in North Carolina in debauching the
moral rectitude of the Populist people by inducing them to vote for and with gold-bugs, whose principles they abhor.
The people cannot be debauched politically without being defiled morally. It is absolute rectitude in thought and in action that
makes the honorable man. A dishonored conscience in one action never purifies itself. The stain remains; one cannot touch pitch
without being defiled.
And so these leaders who have induced the Populist people by one persuasive argument or another to vote for men
Page 57
who do not represent their principles, have lowered the standard of moral and political purity among the people, and have done
injury to them. One of the results has already been witnessed in the election of Pritchard, the gold-bug, as United States Senator,
thus giving a vote from North Carolina against the relief which the people desire; other such results are sure to follow, while still
another is to be beheld in the abominable State administration which has disgraced the State and brought odium on our good
name.
Indeed, it is to be observed that notwithstanding the traitorous conduct of these Populists, notwithstanding their betrayal of
the Populist Party, notwithstanding their defection from Populist principles and their election of a gold-bug Republican to kill
Butler's vote in the Senate for six years, and notwithstanding the denunciation which the Populist caucus used in regard to them,
yet, when the Populist conference met to determine when to call their State Convention, these men were on hand, and a
resolution was adopted to the effect that any one who hereafter made any question about the caucus bolters should be viewed
with suspicion. And when the Populist State Convention met in Raleigh on the 17th of May, these men all put in their appearance
as if nothing had happened. Each and every one of them had been given an office by McKinley, just as if they were faithful
Republicans of the gold-bug stripe, but they found time to leave their official duties and lay aside their Republican honors and
come once more to a Populist Convention, where they were embraced with open arms. But watch them! When the election comes
off, they will be found again voting with gold-bugs and electing gold-bugs--and all in the name of free silver! What hypocrites! What
traitors to the silver cause!
Page 58
Scandalous Conduct.
For twenty years and more the best and truest men in the State told the people that if the Republicans were reinstated in
power it would mean a return of the old days of 1868-69, when the knavish "carpet-baggers," venal "scalawags," and ignorant
negroes stole everything they could put their hands on, and mortgaged the future of the State in the sum of about thirty million.
dollars. And not only so, but they also made the atmosphere redolent with their putrid scandals, and were a stench in the nostrils
of decent men.
But a generation grew up that did not heed the lessons of the past. The Republican leaders and their allies said, "It may be
true that bad men in our party stole, in 1868-69, but that was in an era of corruption that always follows in the wake of war. We are
not responsible for those scandals committed mainly by men who are now dead or fugitives from justice. New men have come to
the front. Entrust us with power and we will give clean and good government, and redeem our party from the stigma of the past."
These fair promises were accepted by enough voters to give the Republican Party control of the legislative, judicial and
executive departments of government in North Carolina.
What has been the result? The inauguration of Republican rule was the beginning of an era of scandals. Not a month has
passed when the people have not been nauseated with some horrible and disgraceful scandal with which some public official has
been connected. Some of these scandals have been printed in the public press. Some of them are so vile that they have not been
printed in any newspaper and cannot be even alluded to here. But the people have felt the contamination and learned sufficient of
the details to make them for the first time since 1870, hang their heads in shame for the good name of their commonwealth. It is
not proposed to touch upon the scandals of the poorhouse management which, in more than one county, has converted homes for
the unfortunate poor into a Tewksbury almshouse; to tell of the ill-treatment of prisoners in the jurisdiction of public officials; to
relate the progress toward full social equality, which has been accelerated by the conduct of men elected to office; to furnish the
details of petty and scandal-breeding
Page 59
crimes that are known in most counties where the white man's party has been displaced by the new rule of Fusionists; or to collect
the alarming numbers of outrages and crimes that have made the women of the Stae afraid to travel the public roads alone. To do
so would be to enter upon a catalogue of crimes that are without number. The limits of this volume and the inclinations of its
compilers alike forbid an exhaustive review of the scandals which have characterized the State, county and municipal
administrations. It would, however, be wrong to the voters of te State to omit to call attention to a few of the more flagrant
scandals, which ought to convince the most skeptic that in the South government by the Republican Party and its allies is
inseparable from scandal. "You cannot gather grapes from thorns nor figs from thistles." Three grave, disgusting and revolting
scandals stand out like high summits in a range of mountains of revolting and low crimes that are typical of Southern
Republicanism. These three scandals are selected from others because in each instance the officials charged with crime were
removed from office by their Republican superiors who had put them in positions of trust. Those many cases which have been
concealed, condoned or smothered, or which have not been followed by official action, are passed over here.
The Hancock Scandal.

Shortly after the adjournment of the Legislature in 1897, Governor Russell caused Robert Hancock to be made President of
the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad. Hancock had carried Craven County for Russell in the Republican State Convention after
a contest in which the supporters of Dockery declared that Craven was stolen from them when the great majority of Republicans in
the county were opposed to Russell. During the Legislature, Hancock was a faithful agent of the Governor, and carried through a
bill which enabled the Governor to make him President of the Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad. As a reward for his devotion,
Governor Russell made Hancock President of that road. He soon removed most of the Democratic officials, filling their places with
new appointees, and at least one of the new appointees was removed for shortage in his account before Christmas. On January
11th the papers published that the mother of Miss Annie May Abbott had brought suit against Hancock for $10,000 for the
seduction of her daughter, who is a neice of Hancock's wife. On the next day it
Page 60
was published that the suit had been withdrawn by the mother of Miss Abbott, at the urgent solicitation of members of the family in
order to avoid the scandals that would follow a public trial. No withdrawal of the original charge was made. On the 15th of January
the papers printed that the church to which Hancock belonged had expelled him from membership because of the charges
preferred by Miss Annie May Abbott. The withdrawal of the suit by her mother did not affect Miss Abbott, who in an interview on
February 3d, reiterated her charges against Hancock, stating the particulars of the forcible means employed by Hancock to
accomplish her ruin. Her mother learned of the relations between Hancock and her daughter from a threatening letter written by
Hancock. In it Hancock threatened that unless Miss Abbott returned to his house, he would have Mrs. Abbott's nephew discharged
from the railroad shops and her daughter, Miss Gertrude, dismissed as a teacher from the public schools. Miss Abbott refused to
return to Hancock's house, and the nephew was discharged from the railroad shops and Miss Gertrude was dismissed from the
school.
On the same date Miss Gertrude Abbott, in an interview, stated that in the fall of 1897 Hancock took her to Washington to see
her father, who is an inmate of St. Elizabeth's Home for the Insane. She says that he made improper proposals to her, with his
pistol near at hand, and that she saved her honor only by scratching his face, grabbing the pistol and threatening to kill him.
On the 17th day of February the Governor addressed the following letter to Mr. Hancock:
"Raleigh, N. C., February 17.
"Mr. Robert Hancock, Newbern, N. C.
"Dear Sir: You are hereby notified that at a meeting of the Board of Internal Improvements, consisting of the Governor, Hon.
C. A. Cook, of Warren, and the Hon. J. C. L. Harris, of Wake, this day held, you were removed as a member of the Board of
Directors on the part of the State in and for the Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad Company--this order to take effect on and after
the 22d day of February, 1898.
"DANIEL L. RUSSELL, President.
"J. E. ALEXANDER,
"Secretary Board of Internal Improvements."
Page 61
On the same day the Governor addressed a letter to the Board of Directors of the Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad, advising
them of this action and suggesting that the Directors pass an order "dismissing him as President by virtue of powers granted your
Board by section 4 of the 2d article of the by-laws of your company." In compliance with the suggestion of the Governor, the Board
of Directors of the road at their meeting in Newbern, held on the 22d day of February, passed a resolution ousting Hancock, he
protesting all the while that ther action was illegal.
It must be borne in mind that with all these matters no Democrat had any connection. The Governor and all the members of
the Board of Internal Improvements, D. L. Russell, J. C. L. Harris and Charles A. Cook, are partisan Republicans, and all the
Directors on the part of the State (two-thirds majority of the whole), of the Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad are either
Republicans straight or Republican-Populists. The Abbott family is a Republican family. There has been no suggestion from any
quarter that Hancock was removed for any charges except those preferred by Mrs. Abbott and her two daughters. It is a
Republican scandal, begun by Republicans, aired by Republicans, and terminated by Republicans. Hancock was on trial upon
charges brought by relatives of his wife, belonging to a strong Republican family; he was tried by Directors and Boards composed
of a two-thirds majority of Republicans and their allies, and by them convicted and dismissed in public disgrace. But, as in the
case of John R. Smith, this removal from one office under charges of grave immorality, did not cause Hancock to lose caste with
his party or disqualify him from leadership in his party. Turned out, dishonored by the State Republican administration, the
Republican Federal administration took him up and virtually gave him two offices in place of the one from which he was dismissed.
In deference to public sentiment and because it was feared the Governor's action might prevent Hancock's confirmation, the
President appointed Hancock's young son Postmaster at Newbern, and Hancock himself was installed as money-order clerk.
It is Republican logic that because John R. Smith was unfit to run the Penitentiary and was "totally irresponsible," to quote
Governor Russell, he ought to be promoted to the position of Commissioner of Agriculture. It is Republican logic that because
Hancock was kicked out in disgrace by the Republican State administration, he is thereby fitted,
Page 62
qualified and prepared to hold a position of trust under the Republican Federal administration. To such depths have we fallen!
After removing Hancock, a controversy arose about his successor. The Governor promised the Dukes to appoint one Hewitt,
who had been for years the keeper of their swell club, known as Carteret Lodge. When the utter unfitness of Hewitt was
demonstrated, so that the Governor could not with even a show of decency appoint him, Hewitt was appointed, though utterly
inexperienced in the work, which involves the safety of every passenger who travels on the road, Road Master of the Atlantic &
North Carolina Railroad; and to satisfy Hewitt and his sponsor, the salary of that position was raised from seventy to one hundred
dollars per month.
The Kirby Smith Scandal.

At the last session of the Legislature an act was passed transferring the criminal insane of the State from the Insane Asylum
to the Penitentiary. Soon thereafter apartments were fitted up in the Penitentiary building at Raleigh, and Dr. Kirby H. Smith, son of
John R. Smith, Superintendent of the Penitentiary, was given charge of that department. Nothing was heard from it until
September 17, 1897, when Dr. Kirby Smith suddenly left Raleigh for New York City. There were rumors that he had been forced to
resign on account of intimacy with female patients in the criminal insane department. Investigation established the truth of this
charge, not only upon the evidence of the women and a woman convict acting as attendant, but also upon the testimony of Mr.
Benton Williams, the trusted and capable attendant in charge, whose character is as good as any man's in North Carolina. The
details of the shocking crime, as published in the papers, created a profound sensation throughout the State. The people are
ready to make allowances for the ordinary mistakes of public officials, but there is one crime in a physician in a public institution for
which there is no forgiveness, and that crime was committed by the son of the Republican Superintendent of the Penitentiary. On
the 22d of September, five days after the publication of this debauchery of demented women, the Directors of the Penitentiary held
a session. Instead of taking prompt action, Chairman Dockery said, on the night of September 21: "If Dr. Smith's resignation is in
this morning, it will be accepted and there will be no investigation of the charges made
Page 63
against him. If it is not in, the charges will be publicly investigated. I have been assured that it will be before the Board to-day." It is
thus seen that it was the purpose of the Board to let the matter pass in the hope that the public would not fully know of the
disgrace. But "whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." On the very day when Chairman Dockery was getting ready to
accept the resignation and thus smother the whole affair, John R. Smith abused Mr. Williams for making truthful statements and
threatened to have him dismissed before night. This compelled a change in the programme, for when the Board met it was
confronted by a letter from Mr. Williams, resigning his position and requesting a full investigation. The Board was baffled in its
desire to avoid an investigation, and it was ordered to be made at the regular October meeting. At that meeting, after an
examination, the Board of Directors declared that Dr. Smith had been guilty of indiscretion and gross immorality in his relations
with the insane female patients placed under his care.
No Democrat had anything to do with the conviction of Dr. Smith. The Republicans and their allies are the men who found Dr.
Kirby Smith guilty. It is true that they tried to avoid an investigation, but when public opinion demanded it, they had to give a verdict
of "guilty" against one of their own employees.
The Dr. Babb Scandal.

Shortly after the adjournment of the Legislature, Rev. Thomas W. Babb was selected by Superintendent Smith as chaplain of
the Penitentiary at a salary of sixty dollars per month, and he went to the Halifax farms to begin his duty as spiritual guide of the
convicts. The appointment was not given out to the public and it would not probably have been known that the appointment had
been made but for the following protest to the appointment entered by Mr. E. T. Clark, a Director of the Penitentiary, and the
Populist State Senator from Halifax County:
"I respectfully protest against the appointment of Rev. T. W. Babb as chaplain to the State farms in Halifax and Northampton.
If a chaplain is needed at all, one ought to be chosen who is above reproach. I append as a part of this protest the following article
from the Biblical Recorder of 26th of February, 1886":
Page 64
"The article is as follows:
WHAT IS TRUE OF BABB.

"The ministers of the Chowan Association met at the earnest solicitation of Rev. T. W. Babb, in Edenton, N. C., February 18,
to investigate the many charges against him detrimental to his Christian character. After a full, free and fair investigation of the
charges, it was decided by the entire convention to lean to the side of mercy. They endeavored to use the mildest words possible
to express the truth brought out in the trial. The following is what was found to be true in the investigation:
I.--DRINKING.
"(1) Rev. T. W. Babb drinks habitually, and sometimes with public drinkers. (Sustained unanimously.)
"(2) On one occasion, at least, he drank a cup of Communion wine at the close of the service.
"(3) He has occasionally ordered drinks from bars, and drank with others who ordered them, and frequently had his bottle
filled at bars. (Sustained unanimously.)
"(4) He had sometimes drinks at public bars. (Sustained unanimously.)
"(5) He has been perceptibly under the influence of liquor. (Sustained unanimously.)
II.--FINANCES.
"The charge that his financial record is unjustifiable. The following under this charge was found to be true:
"(1) Culpable indifference to his financial obligations. (Sustained unanimously.)
"(2) Persistent refusal to pay his debts. (Sustained unanimously.)
"(3) He collected money to build a belfry for Plymouth church, and refused to pay it over to the church. He also collected
money for Sunday School supplies for Trawick Church Sunday School, for which he has never accounted. (Sustained
unanimously.)
III.--FALSEHOOD.
"Repeated falsehoods. (Sustained unanimously.)
IV.--WOMEN.
"The charge of suspicious relations with women. The following was found to be true:
"(1) Sensual conversation. (Insufficiently attested.)
Page 65
"(2) Questionable attention to a young lady, which tended to injure her reputation. (Sustained unanimously.)
"(3) Actual adultery.
"Resolved, That the council decline to vote on this charge, on the ground that the accusers withhold their names from the
accused.
V.--GENERAL.
"Rev. T. W. Babb's general influence. The following was unanimously adopted:
"While Rev. T. W. Babb has many warm admirers, we find that his general reputation for piety is not good.
"Resolved, That in view of the facts sustained in this investigation, we unanimously request Rev. T. W. Babb to retire from the
ministry.
"(Signed) REV. R. R. OVERBY, D.D.,
J. F. TUTTLE,
C. A. G. THOMAS,
R. T. VANN,
B. COLLIER,
W. P. JORDAN,
C. P. BOGART,
P. S. C. DAVIS,
JOSIAH ELLIOTT
, W. B. WAFF,
J. D. BOND,
A. W. BURFOOT.
"After the council had taken action, Rev. B. B. Williams, who was present during the trial, was asked: 'What do you think of
our action?' He replied, 'You could not do less with the facts before you.' He said: 'There was more leaning to the side of mercy
than anything I have ever seen. Say this for me.'
"The Secretary was instructed to forward a statement of the proceedings of the council to the Recorder and ask for its
publication.
"A. W. BURFOOT, Secretary.
"Hertford, February 20, 1890."
The force of this protest, based upon the finding of honorable Baptist divines, respected and loved throughout the whole
State, was such that the Penitentiary Directors did not dare continue Dr. Babb as chaplain. Was he dismissed in disgrace? Was he
told that no man of his character could hold a place of public trust in North Carolina? Not much.
Page 66
He was treated as John R. Smith and Robert Hancock-- swapped into a place where, while the salary was less, the perquisites
were more. He was transferred to the position of steward of the Halifax farm.
And now we will let Dr. Babb tell all about it himself. The following is clipped from the News & Observer of January 16, 1898.
Dr. Babb was then in Raleigh. No denial ever was made by him or any other man of the correctness of the interview. The facts
stated are without doubt entirely true. It will be borne in mind that the facts detailed, as in the other cases hereinbefore given,
reach the public entirely through official sources.
[FROM NEWS AND OBSERVER JANUARY 16, 1898.]
Scandal Number 7.--Rev. Dr. Babb Tells Some State Farm Secrets.
"Several days ago came news of the dismissal of Capt. Hughes, supervisor of the Halifax State farm. At the same fell swoop
the heads of the Rev. Dr. Babb, steward, and Dr. Coster, physician, went off. They were notified that their services were no longer
needed by a letter from Superintendent Mewborne. As soon as the Directors meet--next Wednesday--E. R. Harden, the overseer,
will also walk the plank.
"Incompetence is charged against the whole gang. Then, besides, it is said they couldn't get along well together; and now
each one is making charges against the other.
"Dr. Babb has been here ever since his discharge, and I had a long talk with him yesterday, and he told me some things that
are not calculated to add much balm to Capt. Hughes' wounds or increase Harden's chances before the Board next Wednesday.
"The Doctor came here to see the Governor about his discharge and find out, if possible, the reasons therefor. He will remain
until he gets a whack also at the Directors.
" 'Then, besides,' he added, 'I wanted to sorter get civilized. I've been in that stockade on the farm ever since December 1--a
month and twelve days. I've been as closely confined as a prisoner, and not a paper could I see. Peter Hughes wouldn't allow a
News & Observer on the place. It made me a barbarian, all for twenty-five dollars a month, and I came here to get civilized. I felt
on that farm as if I was forty miles from anywhere, and the same distance from anywhere else.'
" 'Why were you discharged, Doctor?'
Page 67
" 'The Governor told me he turned me off because I did not agree with him on the railroad question.'
" 'What was the matter with old man Peter Hughes--was he a railroad lease man, too?'
" 'Well, I don't think he knew or cared anything about the railroad, one way or the other. The trouble was incompetence, lack
of discipline and fondness for the women.'
" 'What women?'
" 'The negro female convicts--he had several on the farm. These wenches were very familiar with the old man and worse with
Harden. I've seen them slap Hughes on the shoulder, and one on each side walk with him to the field. You know he has only one
arm; the negro woman on that side would hold to that arm and the one on the other side to his coat sleeve. Then there were many
other indiscretions of all sorts, talking, smiling, joking and the like. Then the old man took his favorite woman, Alix Morgan, out of
the stockade and had a room in his own house fitted up for her.
" 'Report said that there was something wrong going on between them, I don't know whether this was true or not. Probably
not, for Hughes is at heart a good man, though totally incompetent. He had no discipline, whatever.
"Why, when I got there I found that he not only had this woman sleeping outside of the stockade, but another convict, A. L.
Ripey, from Alamance, Hughes' county, was living in a house outside and keeping a double-barrel gun to protect himself.
"The Cherokee Indian, a ten-year man, was going about the woods wherever he liked, with a gun, hunting squirrels and
coons.
"The manager at the cotton-gin had been discharged, to save expenses, and a negro convict put in his place. This man
weighed cotton and managed the gin and enjoyed all sorts of liberties. There was nothing to prevent his getting all the whiskey or
anything else he wanted for himself and his fellow-convicts.
"There was absolutely no discipline on the farm.
"Then Capt. Hughes had some little irregularities in his financial affairs. I don't believe there was any dishonesty about it, but
simply incompetence.
"One morning he ordered me to let out eighteen convicts --I've got their names here in my pocket--at five o'clock in the
morning, in charge of his little thirteen-year-old son. I refused to do it. That was the first serious conflict of authority between us. I
told him he would wake up some
Page 68
morning and find about forty-nine of his fifty-nine men gone and the other ten going. He replied that he wouldn't be afraid to take
the whole gang and go a-'possum hunting with them, and he wouldn't lose a man."
"Did Hughes drink?"
"I think not, though he acted at all times like a drunken man. But I have seen Harden drunk."
"Was Harden pretty familiar with the women, too?"
"Oh, yes, worse than Hughes. I had to call him down several times for talking to them. One morning a convict reported seeing
him climb down from the room of Alix Morgan in Hughes' house. For this Harden whipped the man most unmercifully. I saw it. As
the man was putting his clothes back on he told Harden that he had whipped him, but that didn't change facts; that he did see him
(Harden) climb down from that window and he (Harden) knew it.
"One night Harden bought a steak--of course that is an extra dish. He took half of it and gave the balance to the waiter, telling
him to take it to Nancy Carter, a negro convict. I refused to allow it, and Harden got very mad."
"What is Harden's position?"
"He is overseer. He was steward until I went there."
"How about Dr. Costen?"
"He's a fine fellow, a gentleman. He's from Gates County. He was turned off at the same time I was."
"It is learned from another source that the Morgan woman is the same one Dr. John B. Person (he was physician at the
Caledonia farm under this administration) got into trouble about for intimacy with negro female convicts. Further, it is said that
Hughes spent much of his time cockfighting. It is well known that he frequently engaged in this sport while a resident of Alamance,
and it seems that he has kept it up.
"A former employee on the farm also says that Hughes told him and another man that he (Hughes) was once indicted for
passing counterfeit money and it cost him four hundred and seventy-five dollars to get out of it, by compromise."
Page 69
The Penitentiary.
In the first years after the Penitentiary system was established, the number of convicts was relatively small; but as time
passed the criminals confined within the stockade of the State's Prison at Raleigh increased, and the cost of maintaining them
became correspondingly heavy. From the beginning these convicts had been employed in erecting the Penitentiary building, and
as soon as the buildings were sufficiently completed the Democratic administration began to try and make the Penitentiary self-
supporting and to utilize the labor of the convicts for the benefit of the State. The great work of completing the Western North
Carolina Railroad across the mountains was largely performed by convict labor. We see to-day the benefits reaped by the State
from that herculean work. Asheville has developed from a cross-roads village into a splendid city. Asheville lists in taxable property
over four millions of dollars! Buncombe County now lists for taxation $9,381,000, and pays into the State Treasury for general
purposes $24,217.90, which is quite as much as all the counties west of the mountains paid for general purposes before that
railroad was built. The wisdom of this Democratic employment of the convict force is indeed illustrated by the rapid and wonderful
improvement and development of that beautiful and fertile and healthful section of the State. It has given life and prosperity to
many counties that were formally cut off from the markets of the world, and has started their inhabitants on the highroad of
improvement and progress.
We append a table showing that the taxable property of these western counties, as the direct result of this railroad, has
increased since it was built about three times.
Value, 1881. Value, 1895.

Buncombe, $1,856,949 $9,381,767
Haywood, 967,407 1,788,318
Cherokee, 612,101 1,460,236
Swain, 281,036 994,947
Henderson, 987,242 2,103,311
Madison, 746,377 1,748,800
I II II I
Transylvania, 534,584 876,854

Jackson, 469,611 1,213,676
Macon, 723,003 1,179,658
Clay, 259,681 482,103
Graham, 176,022 622,500
7,614,013 21,852,170
Page 70
Here is fourteen million of dollars added to the taxable property of the State by this development.
The convicts were likewise employed in the construction of other roads with equally beneficial local effects, while their
earnings in some measure relieved the taxpayers of their maintenance. When these great works of internal improvements were
completed and no longer afforded employment for the convicts, efforts were made in other directions to make the Penitentiary self-
supporting. It was difficult to find suitable work for the negro prisoners inside the walls, as they had no skill and were mere
laborers. And, besides, there was an objection to bringing their labor into competition with the products of free labor. Finally, it was
deemed best to rent farms and put them to raising their own provisions and raising enough of some money crops to pay for their
clothing, the expense of guarding and conducting their operations. When this policy was begun, the expense of putting the farms
in good order was heavy, and although the burden of maintaining the convict force was greatly lightened, yet some appropriations
had to be made to meet the deficit.
But steadily, year by year, under the wise and excellent management of those entrusted with the direction of the Penitentiary,
the burden on the public treasury was diminished, until during the year 1896, the last year of Democratic administration, the
Penitentiary became self-sustaining.
State Treasurer W. H. Worth, in his report for that year, said: "In 1895 the State paid out for the Penitentiary $30,000
appropriation and $14,158.71 of its indebtedness. In 1896 only $5,000 has been used of the State's funds, over and above the
earnings of the convicts, and had it not been for the heavy loss by the overflow in 1896 there would have been very little
assistance needed from the State for 1897 and 1898. I now suppose it will not take more than $20,000 annually to meet
expenses. I think the management has been very good."
His testimony of the efficiency of the management is gratifying, for he belongs to another political party and his words are not
the mere and formal commendation of a party friend.
Now, Mr. Worth, making his report on December 20, 1896, for the law requires him as State Treasurer to close his books on
December 1st, and to report for the twelve months running from November 30 to November 30, reported that up
Page 71
to that time the Penitentiary had drawn out of the Public Treasury $5,000.
But the Penitentiary books under the law close one month later, their year running from January 1 to January 1. And on
December 31, 1896, there was in the hands of Mr. Worth, as Treasurer of the Penitentiary, $5,831, the net earnings of that year, all
debts and accounts having been fully paid off. And so, during the year 1896, the Penitentiary made eight hundred and thirty-one
dollars more than its expenditures amounted to.
That is a good showing of Democratic management. We would like to see the present administration do as well. But we do
not expect any such result. The Democratic administration was free from scandals. Its operations were always open to the public.
Its books could always be inspected. Its reports were duly made and the facts verified by the books. There were no concealments.
The same cannot be said of the present administration. Before the new administration had been in control nine months, there
were rumors of peculations and thefts and scandalous proceedings. These rumors eventually took substantial form. John R.
Smith, the Superintendent, was transferred to the Agricultural Department, and it was noised abroad the Governor, Hon. Daniel L.
Russell, gave as the reason for making the transfer that there was so much peculation and thieving at the Penitentiary that he
wanted to get Smith away and into a place where he could not make way with any more of the public property. It was publicly
stated that this was Governor Russell's reason for making the swap between Mewborne and Smith.
Some days ago, when this book was about to be prepared, it was designed to refer to these matters, but the Democratic
State Committee wanted to have the facts before saying anything on the subject. Chairman Simmons therefore asked for
information.
Under the act for the government of the Penitentiary, passed March 3, 1897, the provisions in many respects being similar to
the law in force before then, it is made the duty of the Board of Directors to hold regular meetings on the third Wednesday "in
January, March, July, September and November, and at their regular meetings they shall receive the bi-monthly report of the
Superintendent showing, under oath, an itemized account of his receipts from all sources, and his disbursements of every kind
during the two months preceding and after examining said account by items
Page 72
and compare the disbursements with the original voucher of payment filed in the office of State Treasurer, they shall, if it appears
correct in all particulars, approve the same."
Under section 6 the Board is directed to appoint a clerk to keep the books and to prepare all the statistical tables and
documents required.
Under section 5, it is also made the duty of the Superintendent to state and render to the Board of Directors at the end of
each fiscal year a general account between the State and the institution for such year, etc., etc.
Section 9 reads: "That the fiscal year of the institution shall end on the 31st day of December of each and every year,
whereupon the Superintendent shall take and file, under oath, an inventory of all property of every kind on hand and credit in his
general annual account between the State and the institution for such year, and the Board of Directors shall make an annual
report to the Governor, showing the financial condition of the institution by the inventory and accounts of the Superintendent, and
also the condition and residence of the convicts. The annual report shall also contain the prices paid for the principal supplies and
received for the principal products each month, and a classification of the persons on the pay-roll, with the rate of wages paid to
each. From the whole number printed for distribution, two hundred copies of such annual report shall be preserved for use of the
General Assembly."
From this it appears that the Superintendent was to make a sworn report of his accounts every two months; that he was to
make an annual report and account to the Board; that he was to file a sworn inventory at the end of the year; and the Board is to
examine his accounts item by item and at the end of the year make a report to the Governor, which is to be printed.
Not wishing to do anyone an injustice, and desiring to have every statement founded on indisputable evidence, application
was made to the Superintendent of the Penitentiary, and Mr. Claudius Dockery, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the
Penitentiary, for information for the year 1897, and for a part of 1898, that under the law is required to be contained in the official
reports. It turned out that no such report was published for the year 1897; that no annual report had been made by the Board to
the Governor for 1897, and no annual inventory had been taken and filed for the year 1897. Still, it would have been easy for the
Superintendent to furnish the information desired, but instead
Page 73
of complying with a reasonable request, the request was denied. The correspondence has been published.
This denial of information, coupled with the removal of Superintendent Smith and with the reasons given by Governor Russell
for his transfer to the Agricultural Department and with the fact that the reports, accounts and sworn inventory required by the law
were not filed at the regular time, constrain us to believe that there is something rotten in Denmark. Honest men who have dealt
honestly with public affairs not only do not object to showing their hands, but when there is any question made about their conduct,
they are glad to prove to the public the honesty of their dealings by giving all the information they can. And when the air is full of
rumors of maladministration and rascality, and public officials close their books and deny information, the inference is irresistible
that they are trying to conceal their misdeeds and cloak up their rascality. The information about public matters is not withheld from
the public without some great reason and pressing necessity. While we are unable to prove the details of the thefts and of the
misappropriation of the State's property because we are denied the full information, enough appears to justify the public in
believing that there has been not mere maladministration, but a decided absence of honesty. To what extent the Penitentiary has
been pillaged we cannot know until the details are laid bare; and until we can get a look at the books, we can only feel that another
miserable disgrace has befallen the State, and that the Radical crowd of 1898 are about the same as the Radical crowd of 1868,
and only need an opportunity to show that the leopard has not changed its spots.
The people have a right to know all about the management of the Penitentiary; but they cannot find it out until they put their
public affairs into the hands of men who will fearlessly unearth the frauds and throw light on the hidden secrets of Penitentiary
management. To that end a great effort should be made by all honest men. They should come together to protect themselves from
those who are despoiling the public treasury; and they should elect to office only those who will do their full duty to the public in
this matter.
Page 74
Incompetent Fusion Legislature.
INABILITY TO LEGISLATE, AS SHOWN BY A NUMBER OF CASES

IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAD TO AMEND
OR TO ANNUL THEIR ACTS.
In McNeill v. McDuffie, 119--336, it was held that Monday was not Monday when it was inconvenient.
Chapter 86, Acts 1895, provides for a Superior Court to be held in Cumberland County "on the sixth Monday after the first
Monday in March, to continue for two weeks." Chapter 281, passed at the same session, provides that a term of the Superior
Court shall be held in Richmond County "on the sixth Monday after the first Monday in March." Both counties are in the same
Judicial District, and it would seem that the conflict was such that one court could not be held; but not so, for the Supreme Court
comes to the relief of the incompetent Fusionists and holds that the judge can hold one court awhile and then hold the other
awhile; making the judge an oscillating one rather than a rotating one.
By Acts 1895, Chapter 201, the Legislature attempted to authorize the county of Craven to levy a tax in excess of the
Constitutional limit, for the special purpose of maintaining the public ferries, etc., etc., of said county, and for meeting other current
expenses of the county. In Williams v. Commissioners, 119--520, the Court held that the latter clause invalidated the whole Act,
and thus defeated the purpose of the Republicans to steal the funds of the county under that flexible clause. The plaintiff in the
action was the member of the House from Craven at that session, and had the Act passed. His purpose was defeated, and
Williams went away sorrowful.
In State v. Brown, 119--789, the fraudulent "Assignment Act", put through the session of 1895, again bobs up. Brown was
indicted for fraudulently permitting, as Enrolling Clerk, the enrollment of that bill, which, by the admission of all, never passed the
Legislature at all. He was "pulled out of the hole" by the Supreme Court, after having been convicted by a jury of Wake County
Fusionists. Clothed with his honorable (?) discharge, he is now hungrily asserting his fitness for another Fusion job! He has shown
himself worthy and qualified.
Page 75
Russell v. Ayer, 120--180, the Governor against the Auditor, furnishes a notable example of Fusion incompetency. The plain
mandate of the Constitution is that the equation of taxation shall be preserved--i. e., that the tax on $300 worth of property shall
always be the same as the poll tax. No clause in the Constitution is better known. It was inserted as a protection to property. But
the Fusion Legislature of 1897 either did not know it, or undertook to overrule the Constitution, or they could not multiply correctly.
Under the Revenue Act of 1897 the poll tax was fixed at $1.29, and the property tax at 46 cents on the $100; or three cents more
than it should have been. The Supreme Court held the levy unconstitutional, and had to fall back on a former law.
Wood v. Bellamy, Lusk v. Sawyer, Person v. Southerland, 120--265, are the Insane Asylum cases. The Legislature of 1897
attempted, by circumlocution, to turn out the experienced officers of all the asylums, and put in their places new and untried men
to look after the poor unfortunates who walk in the shadow of a vacant or disordered mind. In these cases, as in others, they
"didn't know how to do it." Seemingly, their minds were disordered by an Allwise Providence to prevent this detestable crime.
The Supreme Court held all the Acts unconstitutional, and thus saved these poor creatures from the miserable fate the
Fusion Legislature had prepared for them.
Carr v. Coke, 116--223--the fraudulent "Assignment Act." Governor Carr brought an action to prevent this Act, found among
the ratified Acts (Acts 1895) from being incorporated in the printed laws of the State. It was admitted that it never passed the
Legislature, but was fraudulently enrolled and was signed by the presiding officers of both houses. The Court held that the
"judiciary was exhausted;" that there was no remedy, and that a paper writing which it was conceded had never been passed by
the Legislature, was the law of the land! This is equivalent to holding that all that is necessary to enact laws for the government of
the people are two presiding officers; and a later decision (Range Co. v. Carver, 118 N. C., 328) would seem to hold that even this
is not essential.
Wyatt v. Manufacturing Co., 116 N. C., 223, on the same question is another monument to the rascality of the Legislature of
1895.
But the Court pulled this Legislature out of the hole it had put itself in, by declaring in Farthing v. Carrington,
Page 76
116--315, that the Act did not apply to mortgages made to secure indebtedness created at the time it was made, and this "saved a
part of the Legislative bacon." Read the Act carefully; and "mighty interestin' readin' " will also be found in those opinions above
cited, especially the dissenting ones of Avery and Clark, Judges, at page 242.
Ewart v. Jones, 116--570, and Cooke (incipient Brigadier-General) v. Meares, 116--582, furnish first-rate evidence of the utter
incompetency of the Fusionists to accomplish what it evidently desired. In both these cases an attempt was made by legerdemain
to deprive Judges Jones and Meares of their offices, and to substitute Fusionists. In both cases the Judges, Ewart and Cooke,
were elected before the offices were created. In the case of the former the point was not presented to the Court, and Ewart got his
reward. In the case of the latter, Judge Meares retained his seat, and Cooke was left to ruminate on the incapacity of his co-
fusionists and seek other "pie."
Stanford v. Ellington, 117--158 (State Librarian case), is another instance of a good (?) Fusionist losing a job because his
"friends" didn't know how to elect him; a quorum was not present when he was voted on, and he was left high and dry by the
Court.
The Penitentiary case being "on all fours" with Stanford's case, was not carried to the Supreme Court. The Superior Court of
Wake County decided under the ruling in the above case against the Fusionists, and numbers of large slices of pie were lost to the
hungry.
Bank v. Worth, 117--146, and Purnell v. Worth, 117--157, arose out of the "Arrington Investigating Committee." The
Legislature of 1895 appointed a committee consisting of "Little Bill"y Bryan, of Chatham, so named because of his effort to slip
through what he called a "little bill" to take away the appropriation of the University, "Phillips of Pitt," of whom his mother is
reported to have said, when asked as to his reputation, "When he is not drunk he is preaching," and "Hoola Boom" Campbell, the
lightning-chain young statesman from Hanging Dog--to investigate the Supreme Court and ascertain whether justice had been
denied by it to Mrs. Pattie D. B. Arrington. This Committee met and organized with Judge Purnell as attorney, and a clerk, and
proceeded to investigate, when a quorum, medium sober, could be secured. When pay for the members was demanded,
Treasurer Worth declined to pay; and then suits were brought to compel payment. But, alas! "in the
Page 77
midst of its youth and beauty," the Committee was knocked out by the Court--no pay, no investigate. The Committee "busted," and
"further proceedings interested it no more."
The Court having decided that the Revenue Act of 1897 was a nullity, in Range Co. v. Carver, 118--328, it passed on the
question whether the Revenue Act of 1895, Chapter 116, was a valid law.
It was shown that this most important bill had never been signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses of the General
Assembly, or by either of them; but the Court held that signing was not necessary to the validity of the Act, saying in substance
that "an Act of the Legislature is valid in this State if regularly passed in other respects, although its ratification is not attested by
the signatures of the presiding officers." Thus, as to the Revenue Act of 1895 the Court had to help out the Legislature, and when
that of 1897 was held unconstitutional, the Fusionists had to fall back on the unratified Act of 1895!
Since it is not necessary now for an Act to pass the two Houses of the Legislature (Carr v. Coke), nor to be signed by the
presiding officers, why not let the Secretary of State publish every two years a volume of laws handed in to him by such persons
as have a mind to?
State v. Satterfield, 121--559, is another issue of the "Assignment Act" fraud. Satterfield was indicated and convicted in Wake
County by a jury of Fusionists for negligently permitting, as principal Clerk of the House, said bill to be enrolled (see the evidence
in the case and Montgomery's dissenting opinion). The Supreme Court turned him loose, and the last act in that famous comedy
was played.
State v. Bryant, 121--569, and State v. Jones, 121--616, are indictments under the Revenue and Machinery Acts of 1897 for
failing to pay taxes. The Legislature and Fusionists proposed to make it a crime not to pay taxes by a certain day. The people,
however, were relieved of the dire consequences of such legislation by the Supreme Court, which held that the Legislature did not
mean what it said. So much for Fusion incompetency. Montgomery, J., in his opinion took occasion to allude to the incapacity of
the Fusionists by saying, on p. 618, "One thing is certain, among many other things uncertain, in the Machinery Act," etc.
Waller v. Sykes, 120--231, and Lyon v. Commissioners, 120--238, arose under the "County Government Act." This act
provided that in certain cases two additional commissioners
Page 78
of a different political party from those elected, should be appointed by the Judge of the Superior Court. This provision was some
protection to the negro-ridden eastern counties; but in these cases the law was nullified by the Court. The Legislature of 1897
promptly repealed the provision.
In State ex rel Holt v. Bristol, 122 N. C., arose the question as to whether the Governor could appoint directors of the School
for the Deaf and Dumb when the Legislature had failed to elect. The law provides that the directors shall be elected by the
Legislature to serve six years and until their successors shall be elected by the Legislature. The Legislature of 1897 failed to elect
the successors of Holt and others whose terms expired, and Governor Russell, with his "graball" energy, attempted to appoint their
successors. The Supreme Court held that he had no power, and that Holt and his associates held until their successors were duly
elected by the Legislature.
The Legislature of 1897 attempted, in clear violation of the Constitution, to enlarge the jurisdiction of Judge Ewart, of the
Western Criminal Circuit, by conferring upon him the powers of a Superior Court Judge.
In Rhyne v. Lipscomb, 122 N. C., the Supreme Court held that such legislation was unconstitutional, and all his acts and
judgments were void, as coram non judice. It is difficult to estimate the cost, delay and trouble to litigants caused by this base
legislation.
State v. Addington, 121--538 and 541, where the defendant escaped punishment because of a badly drawn Act; in re Reed,
119--641; Harkins v. Cathay, 119--649, and McDonald v. Morrow, 119--666, "Election Law Cases," may be read with profit.
In closing this chapter it may not be improper to call attention to the "Self Act," as showing the imbecility that characterized
some of the Acts of 1895. It is Chapter 68, page 75, Acts of 1895, and is entitled: "An Act for the improvement of stock in the
county of Chatham."
If anyone wishes to see in the statute book of the State a conglomeration of ridiculous nonsense he will find it in this Act of
our Fusion Legislature. How any committee could have passed favorably on such a bill; how the Senate and the House could
have voted for such a bill, is very extraordinary. But then it was a Fusion Legislature. And that accounts for it. The members were
engaged in swapping and trading for offices and pie, and had no time to read over bills and see that the English language was not
murdered by the member from Chatham.
Page 79
The Influence of Public Pie in Working out

Republican-Populist Fusion.
In a former article we suggested and urged that all men who believe in old time Democratic doctrine and in the teachings of
the Democratic fathers, should act and work together to put these teachings into active practical operation. We now propose to
speak briefly of men and parties who hold totally different views being brought by the influence of public pie to work together in
harmony with each other.
It needs no reference to platforms to establish the fact that the Republican Party was and is hostile to every distinctive feature
of the Populist Party. It is a fact equally well known that when the Populist Party was organized its leaders and promoters declared
that its mission in life was to correct the evils that had come upon the country through bad Republican legislation. And yet, in '94
and '96, we see these two parties working together in North Carolina when the only thing in common between them was a
common desire among their leaders to share in the public plunder. The Populist Party declared for free silver and then aided in the
election of gold standard men to the lower House of Congress and in the election of gold standard men to the Legislature, with a
full knowledge that they would vote for a gold standard Republican to the United States Senate. The Republicans denounced the
Republican National platforms and then aided in the election of men to office committed to the teachings of that platform.
Principles for profession and pie for distribution seemed to be their motto. For four years most of the offices in the State have been
filled by trades between these two parties. The people have had very little to do with the selection of their servants. A committee of
a half a dozen men from each party have made the distribution among the two parties, and at times the trading and trafficking in
offices have been sharp and brisk. Sometimes accounts have been taken and the aggregate of salaries in dollars and cents has
been added up to see which party to the arrangement was getting the most plunder or the largest piece of pie. If complaint arose
from either side after this accounting, another piece of pie was awarded to the complaining party to even up things. And thus it has
Page 80
gone on from 1894 to 1898. No position was too great, too small or too sacred to be the subject of this trading and trafficking. The
United States Senatorship, important State offices, positions in the State institutions, and in fact everything from a Senatorship
down to a menial place was open to a trade. With some of the more hungry pie hunters the Home of the Insane was not too
sacred for their cupidity nor was the cell of the convict too base for their lusts.
It was but natural that men who came into office by such means should feel but little responsibility to the people for the
efficient and faithful discharge of the duties of the positions for which they had traded. They got their places by a trade through a
committee and not by the will of the people of their party in conventions assembled; and having gotten their places through a trade
they regarded them as their property.
In making these trades competency and fitness did not enter into the arrangement, but the fellow who had the biggest pull
with his crowd generally got the biggest piece of pie without any regard to his qualifications. Hence we see Otho Wilson traded
into the high and important position of Railroad Commissioner--a place he was about as little qualified to fill as John R. Smith was
to be Superintendent of the Penitentiary.
Trading in office became so contagious that even the Governor of the State caught the disease, and when John R. Smith had
fully demonstrated his utter unfitness for the position of Superintendent of the Penitentiary, Governor Russell traded him off with
Mewborne for the position of Commissioner of Agriculture--a place he is as utterly unfit to fill as Otho Wilson was to be a Railroad
Commissioner.
Not only have offices and places of high and low degree been traded and trafficked for but whole communities have been
sacrificed and turned over to the negroes in order to consummate some deal or to complete some trade. The peace and good
order of society, the best interest of a community, the protection to property, entered not into the consideration of the traders and
traffickers in office. The hungry maw of some pie hunters had to be filled and everything else had to be sacrificed, if needs be, to
accomplish that end.
Under such a practice as this in filling offices and in selecting men for positions, it is no wonder that incompetent men have
been selected, that the tone and standard of the public service has been lowered and a condition of things brought about in the
State the like of which has never before been
Page 81
seen. It is charged daily and with truth that under this trading system between Republicans and Populists incompetent, unfit men
have been entrusted with responsible public duties, that in many instances the public institutions have been grossly mismanaged,
that scandals which shame the State have occurred, that communities have been subjected to a feeling of humiliation and
insecurity, and that there has been a general letting down of the aspirations of the people.
The remedy for all this can be found in the Jeffersonian theory of government, to-wit, that the people are the masters, and
that the office holders are the servants, and in the Democratic practice of selecting these servants, to-wit, for the Democratic
people to meet in their primary meetings, county and State Convention and select their candidates, to be voted for at the polls by
the people.
Page 82
Pure Elections.
The Fusionists on the hustings made a great cry in favor of pure elections. But by their fruit, ye shall know them.
But few men in North Carolina stand as high as Needham B. Broughton. As a good citizen, a kind man, an honor to his race
and people, he has hosts of friends all over the State. Against his inclinations, his friends and neighbors in Wake persuaded him to
stand for the Legislature. He yielded to their solicitations. When the result of the election was announced, it was said that his
competitor, Jim Young, a negro, had eighteen majority, but it was positively known that some mistakes had been made in the hurry
of election night and that Broughton's vote was more than the election returns footed up. The ballots under the law had been
carefully sealed up as they were counted and had been turned over to Dan H. Young, the Republican County Clerk, for safe
keeping.
On Broughton's demand, in the presence of representatives of both sides, Clerk Dan H. Young opened the boxes and
counted the ballots over again leisurely and correctly. Dan Young counted 4,719 votes for Broughton; there were besides two
votes for Broughton at Franklin precinct that were not counted because those ballots contained also the names of the justices.
And there were two other votes for Broughton at Apex precinct not counted because these ballots contained the names of the
constable. There was a vote cast at Mark's Creek for N. B. Brot. That also ought to have been counted for him; and there was a
vote cast at Holly Springs and three at Wakefield for him that were not counted. Adding these, and not counting any other votes
claimed by him, he had 4,728 votes.
The Clerk found that James Young had 4,721 votes; but Broughton showed by evidence that five convicts had voted for
Young, and that their votes ought not to be counted. That left Jim Young with only 4,716 votes. And yet the Fusionists, to a man,
voted to seat Jim Young and not to let N. B. Broughton, who had the majority of the people on his side, have the seat as the
representative of the people!
It was a clear case of stealing a seat in the Legislature for a negro man to represent a county in which the negro race is in the
minority. But the negro, Jim Young, was a Fusionist,
Page 83
and the Populists in the House voted to give him Broughton's seat just as they voted for gold-bugs on other occasions.
What a hollow pretense and mockery is the claim of the Fusionists that they propose to have pure elections! The idea that
North Carolina is to look to the negroes and their white allies for pure elections is so absurd, that were it not so contemptible and
disgusting, one might laugh at it; but it is too disgusting for that. Let the white men of North Carolina rebuke such a claim.
Page 84
The Election Law.

The election laws in force in North Carolina prior to the Legislature of 1895, although they have been much denounced in
recent years, were essentially fair and impartial. They provided for representation at the polling places of both political parties then
in existence. No one who was entitled to vote was denied by them the right to register and vote; but while they provided for the
registration of honest voters of both races they also provided against fraudulent and dishonest registration. The condition of affairs
in North Carolina made the latter provision particularly necessary. Shortly after the colored man was enfranchised he showed
himself the willing tool of the heelers and manipulators of the Republican Party. They had not those qualities of easy identification
which the white man possesses. They were of a roving disposition, moved from place to place, and could readily conceal their
identity. For the same reason it was easy to import them from other communities and to register ex-convicts and boys under
twenty-one years of age. These facts, which made it easy for them, with little danger of detection, to register and vote at several
different places, were taken advantage of by the unscrupulous Republican white bosses; and repeating and fraudulent registration
were so common, that it became necessary, in order to protect the white voters of the State against having their honest votes off-
set by illegally and fraudulently registered negro votes, to provide rigid safeguards against this class of frauds. If, therefore, the
Democratic registration laws required particularity in these respects, they were made so to suppress fraud and protect white
suffrage. It is boldly asserted, despite Republican clamor to the contrary, that the white vote of North Carolina was entitled to this
protection; and the fact that under the present election laws, framed without these necessary safeguards, not less than ten
thousand negroes were fraudulently registered and voted in the general election of 1896, shows that these provisions of the
Democratic laws were not only wise but necessary precautions, unless the honest vote of a white man in North Carolina is to be
off-set by the vote of some negro, having under the laws and Constitution of the State no right to vote at all.
Page 85
Elections ascertain the will of the people, and the will of the people is an end of the matter. But it must be an election by the
lawful voters for it to be an election at all. An election carried by people not entitled to vote is a blow at the rights of the citizens
who are entitled to vote, and is illegal and subversive of the Constitution. The Democrats made proper provision in the laws of the
State to prevent those from voting who had no right to vote.
The Fusion Legislature of 1895 revised these Democratic laws and repealed every part of them which interposed the slightest
obstacle to the registration of any one who desired to register, whether entitled to do so or not. It literally threw down the bars and
allowed any one and every one who took the oath to register. Under this law no questions were permitted to be asked and no
objection allowed to be made to the free registration of every one whose conscience would permit him to take the oath. If the
Fusion Legislature had stopped here it would have been bad enough, but it did not stop here. Having removed every effective
impediment to double, fraudulent and illegal registration, it adopted new and unheard of measures to deter and defeat all attempts
to purge the registration books of illegal names.
The right to challenge was not, indeed, denied in terms, but a name once on the books was so safely guarded that the right to
challenge was practically made of no effect. Let us see how this law proceeded to defeat the right to challenge.
Before that, in North Carolina when a man's right to vote was challenged, he was required to prove his right to vote, and
failing in this his name was stricken from the registration books. This rule had always, before 1895, prevailed in North Carolina.
The reason of it was that it was easier for the voter to prove his qualification than it was for the party challenging his vote to prove
his disqualification. This rule is based upon a principle of evidence which is recognized in every Court, in every civilized country in
the world. The Act of '95 reverses this well-established rule of evidence and requires the challenger to prove a negative, to-wit: the
facts of the voter's disqualification. This was the first obstacle which the Legislature provided against purging the books of illegal
registration. No one will say that fraudulent registration ought to be permitted, and no one will deny that it is the duty of every
honest citizen to object to such registration, and that in so doing he is performing a high public duty and is entitled to the aid of the
State in his effort to thus protect the integrity of the ballot. The Legislature of
Page 86
'95 seems to have taken a different view of the matter, however. It threw obstacles in the way of challenging. It required notice to
be served upon the party challenged, without making any provision for paying the expenses of the service, thus making it
necessary that the party making the challenge should do so at his own expense. It required the challenger to prove affirmatively
the disqualification, but made no provision for the payment of witnesses that might be summoned for that purpose, thereby
requiring the challenger to secure the witnesses in the best way he could, at his own expense. It will readily be seen that under
these conditions a fraudulent voter was in very little danger from a challenge. This was the second obstacle which the Legislature
of '95 interposed against purging the registration books of illegally registered names. The third obstacle that was interposed was
even more formidable than the other two. It was the character and composition of the tribunal, which was provided to try and
determine the questions raised by the challenge. True, each of the three political parties were given representation upon that
tribunal, but two of these parties were in close compact political affliliation. For all practical purposes they were but one party. All
questions before this tribunal of three were determined by a majority vote. It was therefore apparent that the decision was left to a
tribunal composed of two members on one side and one on the other--a strictly partisan tribunal to decide a purely political
question. The result of this law, framed as we have seen in the interest of fraudulent registration and to protect that registration
against every attempt to purge and correct it, as applied to the general election of '96, was just what might have been and was
expected. Notwithstanding the obstacles interposed by these provisions for the protection of illegal registration, many challenges
were made in that election, but everybody knows that, as a rule, especially in the eastern counties, without any reference to the
testimony, these challenges were decided against the challenger and in favor of letting the name remain on the books. No amount
of testimony showing disqualification was as a rule sufficient to satisfy these partisan Boards. There are instances, which have
developed since the election, in many of the negro counties, where negro election officers have been shown to have persuaded
negroes to register, knowing them to have been ex-convicts or under age, assuring them that their right to vote would be sustained
by this Board, if questioned. The honest voters of North Carolina will say that
Page 87
the law of '95, framed to secure and protect fraudulent registration and voting as above shown, was bad enough; but the
amendments which were passed by the Legislature of '97 are even worse. Under these amendments, while anybody may register,
as before, who is willing to take the oath, one wishing to challenge his right to register is required to state, upon oath, the specific
cause or causes of challenge. He is required to cause to be served upon the party challenged a notice by an officer of the law and
to pay that officer the sum of twenty-five cents for serving the notice. If the challenge is successful, the money thus paid for serving
the notice is refunded, otherwise the challenger must lose it. Like the law of '95, it casts upon him the burden of showing the facts
of disqualification, but makes no provision for paying him for the expense and trouble of securing the attendance of witnesses to
prove these facts.
Here is the amendment. It is such a remarkable provision that the honest voters of North Carolina ought to see it. It's manifest
purpose is to prevent and defeat challenges and thereby make it easy for bad and corrupt men to pad the books with fraudulent
registration:
"Sec. 12. That any elector of the precinct may, on that day, object to the name of any person appearing in said book by
stating upon affidavit the specific cause or causes of challenge. In case of such objection the register shall file the affidavit and
enter upon the book opposite to the name of the person so objected to, the word 'challenged' and the reason of such challenge;
and shall appoint the next Saturday at ten (10) o'clock at the polling places of said precinct where they, together with the said
judges of election, shall hear and decide said objection, after having given due written notice to the voter so challenged, which
notice shall state the cause of challenge and the time and place of trial; the notice to be served personally or left at place of
residence: Provided, that before this shall be construed a legal challenge the challenger shall pay to the officer who is to serve the
challenge the sum of twenty-five cents, the full fee now and hereby declared by law for the service of notice of challenge: Provided
further, That for each challenge sustained the Board of County Commissioners shall refund to the challenger the amount so paid
by him to the officer serving the notice; and if any person challenged or objected to shall be found not duly qualified, as provided in
this chapter, the Precinct Board of Election shall erase his name from the book: Provided, That the entry of the name, age,
residence
Page 88
and date of registration of any person by the registrar, upon the registration book of a precinct, shall be presumptive evidence of
the regularity of such registration, the truth of the facts stated, and the right of such person to register and to vote at such precinct.
Any person shall have the right to cross-examine the challenged voter when the subject-matter is challenged."
Under the election law of 1895 the Democrats did have some voice in the selection of election officers and some
representation upon the several election Boards, though it was always a minority representation; but the Legislature of 1897, by a
combination between the Republicans and minority Populists, passed a law which deprived them of all representation on these
Boards in the negro counties of the east. It placed the entire election machinery in the hands of the Clerk, Register of Deeds and
Chairman of the Board of Commissioners. It was well known to the combination which passed this amendment to the law of 1895,
that as a result of the election of 1896, all these offices in most of the negro counties were held either by Republicans or Populists,
and that by co-operation between these parties the Democrats would have absolutely no voice in the selection of the election
officers in such counties. The object of this combination in making this change in the law of 1895 is apparent. They wanted
absolute control of the election Boards in the counties in which they expected large fraudulent negro registration. For the sake of
securing the control of these Boards where they could be of most value to them, they were willing to risk giving the Democrats a
control which they had not heretofore had in a few white counties in which the Democrats are in power. Under the election law of
1895, as we have said before, negro boys under twenty-one years of age, negroes imported from beyond the borders of the State,
negro ex-convicts and negro repeaters were registered and voted galore. The doors of fraud were thrown wide open to these
irresponsible and ignorant voters and no protection whatever was afforded to the honest voters of the State. The amendment of
1897 throws these doors still wider open and leaves to the white voters of North Carolina no protection against this fraudulent
registration save what their courage and Anglo-Saxon manhood may give them. It must be manifest to every one that these laws
of 1895 and 1897, passed in the name of fair and honest elections, were intended to give, what they did in '96 most effectually
give --the negro an advantage over the white man, and to increase
Page 89
and multiply his vote. But that is not all that the election laws of 1895 and 1897 were intended to do and have done in North
Carolina. The Republicans, not satisfied with a law which enabled them to practice these frauds upon the honest suffrage of the
State, passed another law, the manifest purpose of which is to vote the negro solidly for the official ticket of the Republican Party
and to prevent the illiterate voter generally from expressing by his ballot his individual choice for candidates. Here is the
amendment. It ought forever to damn the Republican Party and the minority Populists who passed it, with the illiterate voters of
North Carolina:
"Sec. 18. In line eleven (11) strike out the words 'in each township a constable,' and in line thirteen (13), between the words
'ballot and all,' insert 'and in such township a constable and justice of the peace for said township shall be voted for on one other
separate ballot, and be deposited in a separate box provided for and conducted in like manner with the boxes heretofore named.'
Amended by adding at the end thereof: 'That upon the Chairman of the State Executive Committee of either political party
adopting a device to be used the tickets for State officers, members of Congress, judges, solicitors or Presidential electors, and
filing the same with the Secretary of State, together with a list of the names of the persons to be voted for on the ticket on which
the device is to be used, or upon the Chairman of any County Executive Committee of either political party adopting a device to be
used on the county ticket, and in like manner filing with the Clerk of the Superior Court of his county the same, together with a list
of the names of the persons to be voted for on the ticket on which the device is to be used, it shall be unlawful for any person to
print or have in his possession, with the device or the imitation of such device thereon, with the name or names other than those
so filed printed thereon: Provided, nothing herein contained shall prevent the elector from erasing name and writing other names
thereon. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be
fined and imprisoned, at the discretion of the Court."
It will be seen that this amendment provides for what may be called an official ballot. Each party may file a list of the
candidates of that party for the State officers with the Secretary of State, and a list of the candidates of that party for county offices
with the Clerk of the Court, and designate
Page 90
a device, to be printed upon the ticket with these names on it. This, then, becomes the official ballot of that party. This law makes it
a misdemeanor for any one, not only to vote but to have in his possession, with this device upon it, a ticket with the name of any
person printed upon it whose name has not been filed with the Clerk of the Court or Secretary of State, as the case may be, as a
candidate of the party adopting that device.
It has been a right immemorially enjoyed by the free people of North Carolina to vote for whom they pleased, without regard
to whether the party they voted for had been nominated by a partisan convention or committee.
The free men of North Carolina have heretofore not been required to take their ticket from anybody or from any party heeler.
They could have their own ticket printed with the name of anybody on it for whom they chose to vote. They could vote all or a part
of the ticket of any party, as their conscience and judgment dictated. If their party nominated a corrupt or incompetent man, they
could erase his name and paste either in writing or printing, the name of whomsoever they saw fit. Now it is a crime to paste a
printed slip with the name of a good man over the name of a corrupt man on the ticket issued as the official ticket of a partisan
organization. The voter may, indeed, erase the name of a corrupt man and write the name of another, but he may not use, without
committing a crime and losing his vote, a printed slip. What is the object of this provision of the present election law? Is it not to
take from the voter his right to vote for whom he pleases, without regard to party or committee nominations? When the right to use
a paster is denied and the right to write any name in place of one erased is given, is it not clear that it was the object of the
Republican Party and their minority Populist allies to force the negro, who is an ignorant and unlettered voter and generally unable
to write, to vote the Republican ticket without erasure or substitution? If that was not its object, what was? What is to be said of a
party that in the name of fair elections put a provision in the election law for the purpose of forcing a vast ignorant vote, upon
which it relies, to vote solidly whatever ticket it may see fit to present for their support? It is a clear and palpable attempt on the
part of these conspirators to interfere with the free choice of the illiterate voters of the State, by making it difficult, and almost
practically impossible, for them to exercise their wonted freedom in selecting the men for whom they wish to vote.
Page 91
And the men who conceived and made this law are the very men who have for years been charging the whole Democratic
Party with conducting and upholding fraudulent elections. This false charge has been reiterated by these men who made it for the
purpose of using it as a cover to hide them from the sight of the people while they traded and trafficked in office, till it is about time
their hypocrisy should be laid bare and this vile slander of a brave people be corrected. We boldly assert that elections in North
Carolina in all her history have, as a rule, been as fair as in any other State in this Union; and for the verity of this statement we
appeal to the honest white men of the State from seashore to mountains. We do not say that at some times and in some places
irregularities and even frauds may not have been committed. In fact, we know that in some counties, under Republican methods,
gross frauds and glaring irregularities were committed. It may likewise be true that in some sections, overrun by negroes, improper
methods may here and there have been resorted to, under Democratic administrations, to secure the services of honest, capable
white men instead of ignorant negroes or bad white men. But who created the conditions that have subjected the white men of
these communities to this terrible ordeal of engaging in these methods to protect themselves, their wives and their children from
the control and domination of the negroes? It was the Republican Party.
As much as any violation of law may be lamented and deplored, there are some things to which men of Anglo-Saxon
manhood will not submit. The press and the pulpit may thunder against lynch law, and yet men will protect the sanctity of their
homes and avenge outraged virtue. No law has ever been written and no law ever can be written, drastic enough to compel an
Anglo-Saxon to consent to place his wife and children under the rule of the black man from Africa. If the Republican Party thinks it
can break the Anglo-Saxon spirit of the white men of the east and make them bow their necks to the yoke of negro rule, they have
mistaken the spirit of that race, which has ruled every country it ever occupied and has never been driven from any.
It is time that this abominable slander of the white people of North Carolina should cease. It originated in a vile purpose to
array prejudice for political effect. It has been harped on and harped on until many persons, not knowing themselves of any
election irregularities, believe that elsewhere in the State the elections have been carried by outrageous
Page 92
frauds. These allegations are without foundation in fact. Our elections have been generally free from any taint. We appeal to the
people of the several counties, and the several townships in the State, to say how it has been with them. As it has been with them,
at their precincts, so has it been elsewhere throughout the length and breadth of North Carolina.
The Democrats of North Carolina, the white men of the State, do not practice carrying elections by fraud. Let our people
rebuke this libel on our State.
The Democratic election laws have been framed to prevent fraudulent voting by men not entitled to vote. The Rep. Pop.
Fusion Legislature have opened the doors wide to fraudulent registration. The Democratic Party, in its platform, pledges itself to
pass a fair election law--fair to the legally qualified voters of the State. On that issue we ask the honest citizens of North Carolina
to decide between us and the slanderers of our people.
Page 93
What They Said About One Another.

We make room for some extracts from The Caucasian and The Progressive Farmer, showing how those Populists papers
regarded some of the actions of the Fusion Legislature.
What we have said in this Hand Book is not so rough as what these Populist papers have said. We, however, do not mean to
disparage their judgment in these particular matters:
[PROGRESSIVE FARMER JANUARY 19, 1897.
Pritchard Not a Silver Man.
"It is a fact that the Rothschilds-Morgan-Hanna syndicate heartily favor the re-election of Mr. Pritchard. Then he isn't a silver
man.
"It is a fact that Senator Sherman, the king of the gold-bugs, favors the re-election of Mr. Pritchard. He can't possibly be a
silver man.
"It is a fact that the Tribune, which says it is a gold-bug paper, favors the re-election of Mr. Pritchard. No silver about the man
it favors.
"It is a fact that every gold-bug Republican in North Carolina favors Pritchard. It is also a fact that every gold-bug Democrat in
the State prefers Pritchard, and some of them are secretly doing all they can to aid him. His silver professions are absurd, to say
the least.
"Take the case, gentlemen of the jury."
Quoting the above, The Caucasian, January 21, 1897, says:
"To this may be added the following: Mr. Pritchard declared for gold all through the campaign and became a sudden convert
to silver when he thought such a conversion would win him votes for the Senatorship.
"President-elect McKinley has written here urging the re-election of Mr. Pritchard, and especially requesting Representative
Brower, an Independent Republican, to vote for him. Can McKinley be in favor of a silver man?
"Federal patronage is being offered to certain Populists to induce them to believe that Pritchard is a silver man. Cannot an
honest man believe a fact without being 'hired' to believe it? And what sort of a spectacle does any one present who has to pay
men to believe him?
Page 94
[PROGRESSIVE FARMER, JANUARY 26, 1897.]
The Senatorial Election.
"The election of Senator came up in the Legislature on the 19th. Pritchard lacked one vote of getting a majority of the Senate,
though he had a majority of the members, hence a joint vote was taken on the 20th, in compliance with the rules. Eighty-eight
Republicans voted for Pritchard; forty-two Populists and one Democrat voted for Dr. Cyrus Thompson, and thirty-three Democrats
voted for Mr. Doughton, late Lieutenant-Governor.
"Thus the gold-bugs won their victory, and their methods were the most infamous ever known in the political history of the
State. They could not win with their own forces, but went into the camp of a party which has been co-operating with them,
believing it to be the best thing to do for the welfare of the State; and by schemes, which we hope will soon be fully exposed (if the
investigating committee, already appointed, does its duty). Until that committee has a chance, we will not even publish any of the
evidence.
"After the bolt from the caucus the regular Populists invited such of the bolting members as had pledged their vote to
Pritchard back again. But they all refused, and on last Monday night the Populist caucus met and declared that none of them
should ever be allowed in the caucus again, but proposed at the same time to carry out in good faith any previous agreements
made with the Republicans according to the terms of co-operation, provided the Republicans deal with the Populists and not with
the bolters and traitors."
"The investigating committee, referred to above, took testimony, but it was sometime after the election, and on March 2d
Chairman Shulken made his report. To be sure there were evasions on the part of those who were involved in the arrangement to
vote for Pritchard in consideration of getting certain offices for themselves. But Senator Utley swore as follows: "On Saturday night
after the bolt in the Populist caucus, while the minority Populists were holding a meeting in the Branson House, one of its
members said, 'There are two hundred good positions we can fill by voting for Jeter Pritchard, and we will vote for Jeter Pritchard
and fill these positions.' At this time the minority Populists were discussing the advantages of voting for Pritchard for United States
Senator and their opportunity in getting positions. One of the minority Populists said, just before breaking up
Page 95
this meeting, 'If what we have done to-night is ever found out, we are ruined.' "--Editors Hand Book.)
[THE CAUCASIAN, JANUARY 28.]

" 'Be sure your sins will find you out' is an axiom which is as true and as certain as the law of cause and effect. When men
violate a trust reposed in them, they are mean and disreputable. When they do it for personal gain they are low and contemptible,
and retribution awaits them as certainly in the eternal future, and the day of reckoning is marked for them in the temporal future,
just as sure as they and time last long enough to meet it.
"Such a crime has been committed here in Raleigh during the past few days. We believe there are some men who have not
acted in good faith with their people. We believe that a strong clique of the Republican Party has resorted to methods of corruption
to carry the election of United States Senator. We believe there are some men who have not heretofore been known as
Republicans who have permitted themselves to be corrupted. Both the corruptors and the corrupted are equally corrupt, and just
as sure as the sun shall continue to shine and the rain shall continue to fall on the just and the unjust, just so sure will a day of
reckoning come."
Because of suggestions made to The Caucasian that "all the recent past ought to wiped out and forgotten," that paper said,
Jan. 28: "No suggestion can come from any source that will persuade the Caucasian to keep silent, to hush, to let matters smooth
over under such conditions as these. When Pritchard was elected U. S. Senator the wishes and trust of the people were betrayed.
The people had repudiated McKinley in toto, and Pritchard stands for nothing but McKinleyism."
(And yet, when the Populist Conference was held and the Populist Convention met, the Bolting Populist supporters of
Pritchard were received back with open arms.--Ed. Hand Book.)
On the Absorption of the Poupulists by the Republican

Party.
The Asheville Reporter, Pritchard's mouthpiece, having said, "The time is drawing near for the final amalgamation."
"The next election is an off year. Co-operation, if we be
Page 96
discreet now, will be natural and easy, and we can absorb all the Populists who are worth the having by 1900."
The Caucasian quotes this, and in its issue of Jan. 28 says: "Huh. 'Time is drawing near for the final amalgamation.' 'Can
absorb all the Populists in 1900,' etc. Did you notice these two phrases in the above extract? In fact, have you read the extract
carefully? Has somebody sold out? We are going to be swallowed whether we will be or not! Umph! Who is promising to grease
our heads and heels so we can be swallowed easily?
"Just listen. Populists may use Republicans for the purpose of furthering the people's interests, as was done in the last
campaign. And Republican bosses will lend themselves even for a good purpose when they are treated with a little pie, if they can
get it no other way. Yes, Populists will use Republicans for that purpose, but by all the gods of the people's hopes, that is all the
use a Populist has for Republicans. And as for the amalgamation business, we have to say in the language of the famous sage
and poet, 'We will be -- if Populists and niggers can ever amalgamate in this State and country.' Do you hear?"
[PROGRESSIVE FARMER, MARCH 2.]
The Amendment to the Election Law; the People will not

Submit to it.
"The proposed amendments to the election law are not right. The plan to place the appointment of poll holders in the hands
of their 'Supervisors,' who, in all probability, will be a Populist bolter, a gold-bug Republican and a gold-bug Democrat--three of a
kind--taking the whole machinery out of the hands of the three parties, is an outrageous proceeding. The Payne election law, and
the construction of it by the Democrat election tyrants was bad enough, but as compared to this new machine about to be thrust
upon us, was a mild affair. By this new method the will of the people at the ballot-box would simply be the wishes of the three
'Supervisors.' The people of North Carolina are not ready for a yoke of that kind. The party, the combination of parties, that
attempts to lasso the people of North Carolina in such a manner will find that it has undertaken too much.
"The scheme to take the government of towns and cities out of the hands of the citizens of said municipalities are second
only to 'Supervisor' plans. The Governor of North Carolina should not have the power to dictate the municipal officers of any town
or city. That power should be invested
Page 97
in the citizens of said towns and cities. Neither should the Clerk of the Superior Court, or any other State or county affairs, have
such power. It is contrary to the principles of a Republican form of government."
(The amendments to the election law and the amendments to the city charters denounced by the Progressive Farmer, were
nevertheless adopted by the Fusion Legislature and are now the law of the land. And it is to be remembered that the Republicans
have put in their platform that that outrageous election law is to be made a part of the Constitution of the State.--Editors Hand
Book.)
[PROGRESSIVE FARMER, FEBRUARY 23.]
Economy Thou Art a Jewel.

"The prosperity wave is still blowing out of the Enrolling Clerk's office. When last heard from, that office was turning out
prosperity at the rate of $50 per day. It was in cold cash, too; no confidence about that business. In short, the concern was costing
the taxpayers of the State just $50 per day. Since the last writing Messrs. Reynolds and Mewborne were put in charge, increasing
the cost from $50 to $55 per day.
"On Wednesday last the two negroes that Swanson refused were put on, increasing the cost to $65 per day. Then Speaker
Hileman went into the Populist caucus and asked that two Populists be recommended, to offset the two Republican additions. The
caucus promptly declined to do so, telling him that the office already had too many men in it.
"But this had no effect on the Republicans and ex-Populist Hileman, and Thursday Senator Smathers secured the
appointment of James Blythe, a Cherokee Indian from Jackson County, to a clerical position. This runs the expenses up to $70 per
day, and the end is not in sight. Thus the people's money is being divided out to pay political rewards. There is no help for it now.
But the taxpayers of North Carolina will speak in thunder tones at the polls when there is another election. No party, no man, has
ever been able to run rough-shod over the people of this State but a short while. 'There is retribution in history.' "
Page 98
Chairman Simmons' Request for Information

from Public Officials.
His Comments on Their Refusal to Furnish Information.

The following letter, written by Hon. F. M. Simmons, Chairman of the Democratic State Executive Committee, is in reply to an
"open letter" signed by J. M. Mewborne, Superintendent of the Penitentiary, and published on the morning of July 27:
Raleigh, N. C., July 27, 1898.
J. M. Mewboorne, Supt. of Penitentiary, Raleigh, N. C.
Sir:--On the 14th day of July I addressed you a letter, hereto attached marked "A". On the 16th day of July I addressed you a
letter, hereto attached marked "B." On the 20th day of July I addressed you a letter, hereto attached marked "C." On the 21st of
July I addressed to Claudius Dockery, Esq., Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Penitentiary, a letter, hereto attached
marked "D." On the 14th of July I addressed to John R. Smith, Esq., Commissioner of Agriculture, a letter, hereto attached marked
"E." To the communications addressed to you I have received no answer, but there is published in to-day's Raleigh Post an open
letter, dated July 25, addressed to me and signed by you. The public knows the contents of this letter, and it is not necessary I
should reproduce it here.
A little after noon to-day, I received through the mails a letter signed by Mr. Dockery, dated July 25, and hereto attached
marked "F." I have received no answer whatever to the letter addressed to Mr. Smith.
It is well known in North Carolina that we have just entered upon a campaign in which the management of our State affairs by
the present administration will be largely discussed, and that the question will be presented to the people to be decided at the
election in November, whether they will continue the control of the present Fusion government in North Carolina. Under these
circumstances I deemed it due to the voters of the State to whose interest, judgment and patriotism the party of which I am
chairman proposes to appeal, that they should be put in possession of the full facts concerning the management of their affairs by
Page 99
the present State government, to the end that they may wisely and fairly decide whether the interest and honor of the State
required that their public affairs hereafter be conducted by a different political party.
In order that this work in which the people are so much interested should be thoroughly and fairly executed, I secured the
services of Hon. T. J. Jarvis, former Governor and United States Senator, and of Captain S. A. Ashe, long a leading journalist of
this State and a man of high character, to prepare a hand book giving an accurate statement of all the facts concerning these
matters.
Early after Governor Russell was inducted into office he appointed John R. Smith Superintendent of the Penitentiary, and you
Commissioner of Agriculture. Soon thereafter rumors of mismanagement and misappropriation of the property of the Penitentiary
under Mr. Smith's management became rife throughout the State.
It was stated in the public press and from mouth to mouth that the Governor had determined to remove Mr. Smith from the
office of Superintendent because of incompetency, mismanagement and corruption.
Sometime last winter the public was startled by the information that for the reasons above stated the Governor, acting
through the Board of Directors, had removed Mr. Smith as Superintendent and caused him to be put in charge of the Agricultural
Department, thus transferring a man found unfit by reason of moral and mental delinquencies to manage the convicts, to the
control of that institution which most closely touches the interests of the predominant element of the poplation, the farmer. It was
also stated in the newspapers, and not denied, that the Governor had stated to a member of the Board of Directors of Agriculture,
in a personal inteview with him, as a reason of the removal of Smith from the position of Superintendent of the Penitentiary, that
under him the Penitentiary management was not only squandering but actually stealing the property of the State. It was likewise
charged that this director stated in a meeting of the Board of Agriculture that the Governor had stated to him as his reason for
transferring Mr. Smith from the Penitentiary to the Agricultural Department that under his management of the Penitentiary the
property of the State was being squandered and stolen.
The law requires the Superintendent of the Penitentiary, annually on the 31st of December of each year, to file under oath an
inventory of the assets of that institution, and requires the Board of Directors to make an annual report of the affairs of the
Penitentiary to the Governor.
Page 100
It was ascertained, upon inquiry, that no report or inventory for the year 1897, such as the law requires should be made, was
accessible to the public. In view of these facts, and the summary removal of Mr. Smith under the imputations aforesaid, I thought,
and still think, that the public would be interested in knowing, and had the right to know, the facts concerning the management of
this institution during that year, of which no report could be obtained.
Therefore, as it was intended that the hand book which Governor Jarvis and Captain Ashe were preparing should discuss
these matters, as well as the facts connected with the management of the Penitentiary by yourself, in the interest of fairness in
giving the people information upon these subjects, these distinguished and honorable gentlemen did not wish to act upon rumors
and newspaper statements, and requested me to address the communications hereto attached, asking for the information and
facts therein requested, as a basis of their discussion of these subjects.
I did not think for a minute that the information asked would not be promptly given, and in a way that gentlemen usually
conduct their correspondence.
It was not thought by them, or myself, that if the information was given it would show a state of affairs to the advantage of the
present administration; but no State officer had ever before concealed from the public the reports and records of his office,
because they might militate against the party to which he belonged, and it was therefore believed you would, as a matter of duty
and decency, supply the information.
It has generally been supposed that every taxpayer of the State has a right to see the records of all public offices, and to ask
and receive, without being insulted, information concerning the management by the officer of his office.
As a representative of a great party which polled in the last election 145,000 votes, constituting two-thirds of the taxpayers of
the State, I did not think it would be impudence or effrontery to ask you in their name, and as their representative, for this
information.
It has been an old-time tradition in North Carolina that public officers are public servants. I did not know that since the advent
of you and Governor Russell the time-honored rule had been reversed, and the people had become the servants of the office-
holders.
I was old-fogyish enough to suppose that in your official capacity you were the servant of the people, and that both
Page 101
law and custom forbade you from hiding and concealing from the public your official acts, and those of your immediate
predecessor.
Shortly after my several letters were sent and delivered, the Board of Directors of the Penitentiary met in Raleigh, and I am
informed that at their several sessions hotly debated whether I should be given the information asked. A member who insisted
that, as a citizen and taxpayer, I was entitled to the information, was, so I am told, fiercely reproached by you. Having failed to
reach any agreement on this all-important question in open meeting, your Board did what was never before done in North
Carolina, to-wit: Convened in what you were pleased to call executive session, for the purpose of further considering this subject.
When the Board rose from this secret meeting, I am informed that newspaper reporters and inquirers were told that the meeting
was an executive session, and its proceedings, therefore, secret. I do not know, and the people do not know what transpired in
this secret meeting; but I am reliably informed that after the meeting Mr. Dockery, the Chairman, said the Board would have
preferred I had not asked for the informtion, but I would get an answer which would make me sorry that I had requested it.
I presume that the Board decided in this secret meeting that your party could not afford to let the people know the real facts
concerning the management of the Penitentiary by the present administration, and it was determined to try and befog the issue,
and that as a result you refused the information requested, and instead of the courteous reply which I reasonably expected, you
decided upon the infamous and slanderous personal attack upon me, which this morning was published in the Raleigh Post.
Your party shall not, by this low and dirty device, befog the issue or escape exposure.
I shall continue to use every avenue open to me to lay bare before the people of North Carolina the facts concerning the
disreputable management of the Penitentiary, and all other departments of the State government, by the present discredited and
disgraceful administration.
It will be observed, by reference to the section of the law quoted in my letter to Mr. Dockery, that two things are required. One,
an inventory to be made by the Superintendent, under oath, and the other a report by the Board itself. It will appear from my letter
to Mr. Dockery that I asked for both a copy of the report and a copy of the inventory. I especially requested a copy of the report,
because it is much more comprehensive.
Page 102
Mr. Dockery, in his letter to me, only promises a copy of the inventory, which he speaks of as the report of the
Superintendent.
It is apparent from Mr. Dockery's letter that he is himself doubtful whether I will ever get this report or inventory, for he only
says he believes it will be in the hands of the Governor in a short while. He does not say that he knows it will be in the hands of
the Governor at all.
It will be remembered that the law requires that this sworn inventory must be filed on December 31st.
It is said, and generally accepted, that the Governor wrote or dictated your cowardly assault upon me and the Democratic
Party. Certain it is, it was sent out directly from the Executive office, and is in the coarse and vulgar style that characterizes all that
emanates from him. Every line in it shows that it came from a vicious mind. There is not a statement in it, personal to myself, or
about my course in politics, which in any way reflects upon my personal integrity or the integrity of any political methods with which
I have heretofore been connected, that is not a wilful and premeditated lie, without any foundation in fact, and made by you and
your abettors for the purpose of raising a fog behind which you hope to retreat from the position in which you have placed yourself
before the public, by declining to come to an account with the people for the manner in which the affairs of the Penitentiary have
been mismanaged since the 1st of January, 1897; and they are indisputable evidence of your irritation at me for preferring the
simple request. I denounce the statements made in your letter, personal to myself, as emanations of a vile heart, devoid of any
restraint of conscience, and as the impotent vaporings of a miserable liar.
There has grown up in North Carolina during the last few years a horde of which you are one, who seek, by detraction and
defamation of their betters, to deceive and mislead the people, and gain for themselves positions which they are notoriously unfit
to hold.
The time has come when these miserable slanderers and hypocrites will not only be exposed, but fittingly denounced and
pilloried before an outraged public.
F. M. SIIMMONS.
("A.")
Hon. J. M. Mewboorne, Superintendent of the Penitentiary, Raleigh, N. C.
Dear Sir:--I have the honor to request that you cause to
Page 103
be furnished me at the earliest practicable day the following information concerning the administration of the affairs of the
Penitentiary:
1. A list of all the officers and employees of the Penitentiary, giving the name of each, the date of his election or appointment,
the designation and place of his appointment, the date of the creation of such office or place, the character and nature of his
services, and his monthly compensation.
2. An itemized statement of the receipts and disbursements of the year beginning June 30th, 1897, and ending June 30th,
1898, showing the sources of the receipts and the purposes of the disbursements.
Thanking you in advance for a prompt reply, giving the desired information,
I am, very truly yours,
F. M. SIMMONS, Chairman.
("B.")
Hon. J. M. Mewboorne, Superintendent Penitentiary, Raleigh, N. C.
Dear Sir:--In addition to the information requested a few days ago, I beg that you will cause to be furnished me, at the earliest
practicable day, this additional information:
A statement showing the number of farms, plantations, lots or plots of land now under lease or contract of any kind to or with
the Penitentiary, no matter whether such contract or lease is in the name of the State or of the Board of Directors of the
Penitentiary. I wish such statement to give approximately the number of acres of each farm, plantation, lot or plot of land, where
located, the use to which it is being put, the date of such lease or contract, and the amount paid for each in fee or by the year, as
the case may be, under lease or contract. I have the honor to be,
Yours very truly,
("C.")
Hon. J. M. Mewboorne, Superintendent Penitentiary.
Dear Sir:--It has been charged that a part of the cotton crop of 1897, belonging to the Penitentiary, was sold for prices below
the market value, and not wishing to do any one injustice, I beg that you will furnish me with the following information:
Page 104
A statement showing to whom, in what quantities, at what time and at what price, the cotton, corn and wheat crops of 1897
were sold.
It being rumored that there is a large number of outstanding unpaid accounts or claims against the Penitentiary, I beg that you
will also give me a statement showing the outstanding unpaid claims up to June 30, 1898, showing when and for what contracted,
to whom due, and reason why they are unpaid.
This information is in addition to that heretofore requested.
Yours truly,
("B.")
Hon. Claudius Dockery, Chairman Board of Directors of the Penitentiary.
Dear Sir:--Section 9, of the Act of 1897, entitled "An Act for the government of the Penitentiary," and being Chapter 299 of the
Laws of 1897, reads as follows:
"Section 9. That the fiscal year of the institution shall end on the thirty-first day of December of each and every year,
whereupon the Superintendent shall take and file, under oath, an inventory of all property of every kind on hand and credited to his
general annual account between the State and the Penitentiary for such year, and the Board of Directors shall make an annual
report to the Govrnor, showing the financial condition of the institution by the inventory and accounts of the Superintendent, and
also the condition and residence of the convicts. The annual report shall also contain the prices paid for the principal supplies and
received for the principal products each month, and also classification of persons on the pay roll, with the rate of wages paid to
each. From the whole number printed for distribution, two hundred copies of such annual report shall be preserved for use of the
General Assembly."
Assuming, as a matter of course, that your Board has complied with such a plain provision of law, and that the report required
by this section has long since been made and printed, I beg that you will do me the favor to send me a copy by the bearer of this
note.
I also beg that you will, at the earliest practicable moment, cause a copy of the inventory required by the first part of the
section to be made and forwarded to me.
I have the honor to be,
Very truly yours,
Page 105
("E.")
Hon. John R. Smith, Commissioner of Agriculture, Raleigh, N. C.
Dear Sir:--I beg that you will cause to be furnished to me at the earliest practicable day the following information concerning
the administration of the Department of Agriculture:
A list of all the officers and employees of the Department, giving the name of each, the date of his election or appointment,
the designation and place of his employment, the date of the creation of such office or place, the character and nature of his
services, and his monthly compensation.
Also the amount of the gross receipts of the Department for the year beginning June 30, 1897, and ending June 30, 1898,
together with a detailed statement showing the disbursements for the same period of time, and the purposes for which the
expenditures were made.
Thanking you in advance for a prompt reply, giving the desired information, I am,
Very truly yours,
("F.")
Rockingham, N. C., July 26, 1898.
Dear Sir:--Your favor was handed me in Raleigh, in which you ask for a copy of the report of the Superintendent of the State's
prison for the year 1897. This report has been made to the Board, and I believe will be in the hands of the Governor in a very short
while. I would respectfully suggest that, when this is the case, you can secure a copy at the Executive Office. If a copy is sent me
here, I will gladly forward it to you. If not, I will be glad to serve you when I return to Raleigh again.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) CLAUDIUS DOCKERY.
Page 106
The Closed Books Must Be Opened.

Elsewhere in this volume we have published the letters of the Chairman of this Committee to the Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Penitentiary, the Superintendent of that institution, and to the Commissioner of Agriculture, asking, in a respectful
manner, for certain information about the management of the Penitentiary and the Agricultural Department. We were innocent
enough to suppose that these were public institutions, supported by the tax-payers of the State, and that the persons in charge of
them had no secrets to keep from the public. We were, therefore, shocked at the course pursued by the persons to whom these
courteous, respectful notes were addressed. No answer has been received to any but one of these notes, and that one is from the
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Penitentiary. His reply has the merit of being courteous, but it gives no information
whatever concerning the matters inquired about. The other notes remain unanswered up to this date.
There has been published in the press of the State, over the name of the Superintendent of the Penitentiary, what purports to
be an open letter to the Chairman of this Committee, in which the Superintendent declines in the coarsest and most offensive
manner to give the required information. So the books are closed to the public, so far as we are informed; and have been since
they passed into the hands of the present administration, for they have utterly failed and neglected to give to the public the
information which they are commanded by the law to do. The appeal from the refusal of these people to open the books is to the
public whose servants they are. It is to be regretted that the Governor of the State, who appointed these men to office, has not
seen fit to intefere and compel them to open their books and let the public know what has been going on. But could we reasonably
expect him to pursue this honorable, proper course after the manner in which he dealt with one of his appointees? Upon the
authority of the statement the Governor made to Mr. Bailey, we say he caught John R. Smith, the man he made Superintendent of
the Penitentiary, in petty peculation and dark and devious ways in his management of that institution. What was the Governor's
plain
Page 107
duty? Manifestly to have Smith's conduct investigated, and if found guilty to have him either sent to private life or to punishment,
as the facts in the case might require. Did he do anything of the kind? No! On the contrary, he promoted him to an equally
responsible and still more honorable position. He took him from the work of superintending the work of the convicts and put him in
a place requiring special qualifications in administering the affairs of a department specially designed to aid the farmer in his high
and noble vocation. Had he designed to show his utter contempt for the farmers and for their calling, it seems to us that he could
not have selected a more striking way of doing it. But be that as it may, he has done nothing to unearth and lay bare before the
public the peculations which he declared were going on. On the contrary, it is alleged (and we believe truthfully) that he aided his
present Superintendent of the Penitentiary in the preparation of his coarse, low, dirty, open letter to the Chairman of this State
Committee, refusing to give the required information which might lead to the discovery and publication of the facts concerning the
management of the Penitentiary under his administration. Thus we have the Governor of the State, its chief executive officer,
standing in front of these closed books, aiding and protecting his appointees in their refusal to give to the public pertinent
information concerning their management of the institution in which the taxpayers of the State are vitally interested. Search the
records of the State from Governor Caswell to Governor Carr, both inclusive, and no instance can be found where the Governor
has ever before been guilty of encouraging his appointee in returning a coarse, brutal answer to a courteous, respectful request
for information. It was reserved for the evil days of Republican-Populist fusion, when there has been a terrible letting down of the
higher ideals of official station, to produce a man who could so far forget the common decencies of life and the proprieties of the
high office of Governor.
With the Governor standing by his subordinates in concealing their official misconduct, we may have but little hope of getting
at the truth so long as the books remain in their keeping. It may be that under the continued lash of the newspaper press, enforced
by the lash of public opinion, they may be driven into making some sort of a statement before the campaign is over; but we humbly
submit that it will be done, if done at all, under circumstances which discredit it from beginning to end. Can anyone suppose, if
Page 108
there had been nothing to conceal, there would have been any concealment? Does anyone doubt if the books had been all right,
and these books were faithful records of the facts, that these officials would have been only too glad to have the opportunity to
open them to the public and bid all men, great and small, good and bad, to examine them? Had the books and the management of
these institutions been all right, does anyone doubt that this blustering, malignant Governor would have paraded them before the
public to his own credit and to the discomfiture of his enemies? The fact that he stands by his subordinates in their refusal to give
the required information creates a suspicion that when he said there was peculation and fraud going on at the Penitentiary, he told
the truth. No amount of swaggering and vituperation will silence this suspicion, and the more he swears and the madder he gets
with those who started the inquiry, the stronger will this suspicion grow. Nor will any doctored statements, or whitewashed reports
hereafter made meet the public demand. Nothing but a look into the books by a faithful, competent legislative committee will
satisfy the public demand. We, therefore, take our appeal from the secret conclave of the Russell-Mewborne Star Chamber Court,
denying our motion for information, to the sovereign people of North Carolina, at whose command these books must and shall be
opened.
And here again history is repeating itself. The Republican administration of 1868-9 filled the air with the stench of corruption.
Rumors of evil deeds of high and low degree were floating on every breeze. The people determined to have the books opened
and to have these matters investigated. They sent a Democratic Legislature to the Capitol to do this work. The Shipp Fraud
Commission followed; and in that volume may be read the dark deeds of many a disgraced man.
The Republican Party is again in power, and the air is again full of rumors, and the Penitentiary management again emits
disagreeable odors. The men in charge of this institution, with the full knowledge and approval of the Governor, decline to give us
certain information by which we could investigate these rumors or locate these foul odors. From this arbitrary, unprecedented,
suspicious ruling, we appeal to the people. The issue is made up: "Shall we See the Books?"
Page 109
Proposition of the Populist Party to Fuse.

Raleigh, N. C., May 25, 1898.
Hon. Clement Manly, Chairman Democratic State Executive Committee.
Dear Sir:--We, the Conference Committee elected by the State Convention of the People's Party, which assembled in this city
on the 17th inst., have the honor herewith to present a copy of a series of resolutions adopted by the said Convention, which
resolution, together with this letter, we request you, as Chairman, to present to the Democratic State Convention, which is to
assemble in this city on Thursday, May 26, 1898, for such consideration and action as the judgment of your Convention may
determine.
This Committee was elected by the People's Party State Convention under the fifth resolution of the series here presented.
If your Convention shall declare its endorsement of the principles and purposes set forth in these resolutions, and favor a co-
operation with the People's Party in the coming campaign to carry the same into effect, your Convention is requested to name a
committee to confer with us as to the details of the co-operation.
We are now present in this city, with headquarters at room No. 19, Park Hotel, where we will await the action of your
Convention upon this transaction. We have the honor to be,
Very respectfully,
CYRUS THOMPSON, Chmn.,
JAMES B. LLOYD,
MORRISON H. CALDWELL,
J. B. SCHULKEN,
Z. T. GARRETT,
E. A. MOYE,
Committee.
Hal W. Ayer, a member of the Conference Committee, was out of the State when the letter was transmitted, and did not sign
it, though he approved it.
Page 110
Resolutions Accompanying the Communication.

"Whereas, The People's Party was organized to remove the causes that produce hard times in the midst of plenty by
overthrowing the domination of the gold ring and its allied trusts and monopolies, and by restoring our government to the great
fundamental principles of good government as advocated by Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln; and
"Whereas, To-day the rank and file of all parties (including a large majority of the voters of the United States) unequivocally
agree with us on the great fundamental questions involved and the results for which we have constantly striven; and
"Whereas, The only difference between this great majority of patriotic voters is as to questions of detail and method; now,
therefore,
"Resolved 1st. That we most earnestly endorse the address recently issued by the National Chairman of the People's Party,
and also the open letter of Hon. W. J. Bryan to the New York Journal urging an honorable and harmonious co-operation of all who
oppose the domination of gold and monopoly, and who favor the overthrow of the National Bank and railroad influence in
controlling legislation.
"Resolved 2d. That in the coming State election, we invite the patriotic co-operation of any party or faction of a party who
favors the above general principles and who will co-operate with us to secure the following results, viz:
"(1.) To elect nine free silver and anti-monopoly Congressmen.

"(2.) To elect SIX judges of ability and high character and free from partisan bias.
"(3.) To elect twelve solicitors, fearless and impartial.
"(4.) To elect an anti-monopoly Legislature pledged to the following, viz:
"(A.) A Legislature opposed to the demonetization of silver by private contract, and which will enact legislation to put a stop to
the giving and taking of gold notes and mortgages.
"(B.) A Legislature opposed to government by injunction, which will enact sufficient legislation, including a license law similar
to the Wisconsin statute, to effectually prevent the removal to Federal Courts of all causes which should be tried in our State
Courts.
"(C.) A Legislature opposed to the ninety-nine year lease of the North Carolina Railroad, and which will use all lawful and
legitimate means to set the same aside.
Page 111
"(D.) A Legislature opposed to free passes, and which will make the present law prohibiting the giving of free passes apply
equally to those receiving the same.
"(E.) A Legislature in favor of a free ballot and a fair count, and which will enact legislation guaranteeing to each political party
the right of being represented on all election boards by representatives of its own selection.
"(F.) A Legislature in favor of a system of local self-government, and which will enact under proper safeguards sufficient
legislation to guarantee to the counties the right to elect local officials.
"(G.) A Legislature in favor of a reduction of freight, passenger and express rates, and of telegraph and telephone tariffs to
the gold standard level; that will endorse the action of Commissioner Pearson in taking a stand for such reduction, and which will
favor upholding the Railroad Commission law, making the same effective according to all of its intents and purposes, and which
will enact legislation providing for the election of Railroad Commissioners by the people.
"(5) Resolved, That this Convention elect a Conference Committee, which shall be authorized to confer with any party or
faction of a party, that declares its endorsement of the above principles and purposes, and that favors co-operation with the
People's Party, to carry the same into effect upon such basis as will maintain intact the integrity of the People's Party, and as will
preserve to it not less than its present representation in both State and National affairs."
The Reply of the Democratic Convention.

The following was the reply received:
"The Committee on Platform and Resolutions, by direction of the Convention, having had under consideration the proposition
for fusion made by a committee of the Populist Party, recommend that this Convention adopt the following resolutions in respect
thereto:
"Resolved 1. That the proposition for fusion submitted by the Populist committee, be, and the same is hereby, respectfully
declined.
2. That the Democratic State Executive Committee be, and the same is hereby instructed to entertain no further proposition
for fusion."
Soon after the adjournment of the Convention to which this proposition was submitted, it was charged by the Populist organs
that the Convention had been captured by gold-bugs
Page 112
and railroad lawyers. The only suggestion of a reason for this charge was the rejection of the proposition to fuse. Since then
Populist leaders and Populist papers have repeated this charge until possibly some of their hearers or readers may believe it. The
lie often out-travels the truth, and it is well in this case that this one is so clumsy that it is easily overtaken and exposed.
It cannot be denied by any one who has any regard for the truth that, if any one ran the Convention it was the Committee on
Platform and Resolutions. This committee was composed of Mr. Jarvis, of the First District; Mr. Kitchen, of the Second District; Mr.
Duffey, of the Third District; Mr. Daniels, of the Fourth District; Mr. Kitchin, of the Fifth District; Mr. Lockhart, of the Sixth District; Mr.
Overman, of the Seventh District; Mr. Doughton, of the Eighth District, and Mr. Martin, of the Ninth District. It may be stated with
absolute positiveness that not one of these gentlemen is a gold standard man, or an attorney of a railroad. Not one of them was in
favor of accepting the proposition of the Populists on the terms proposed by them. Not one of them voted against the report made
to the Convention. Not a single vote was cast in the Convention against the report of the Committee.
In view of these facts it seems impossible for a man who has any regard for the truth ever hereafter to repeat this charge and
keep company with his self respect.
The Convention, in its wisdom, declined the proposition. Since then it has been asserted that in doing so the Convention went
counter to the wishes and advice of Mr. Bryan and Mr. Jones. This charge is also easily disposed of. Neither Mr. Bryan nor Mr.
Jones ever recommended or advised the acceptance of this proposition. It is not supposed or suggested that either one of them
ever saw it. What they recommended was that the silver, anti-monopoly forces get together. Now let us see if this is such a
proposition. Does it ask for the appointment of a conference committee to consider the means by which the followers of Bryan and
the enemies of monopoly and of the gold standard can be got together? No, it does nothing of the kind. It refers to these matters
and proceeds to lay down a platform on State matter, coupled with a resolution that it must be distinctly understood that only such
co-operation could be agreed upon, even upon that platform, "as will preserve to it (the Populist Party) not less than its present
representation in both State and National affairs."
Page 113
The communication of the Populist committee required the Democratic Convention to accept all this as a condition precedent
to even the appointment of a committee of conference! A close study of this propostion will develop the fact that it concerns itself
much more about a trade between two parties on State matters for offices, than it does about a union of these parties on national
questions! There is one view that must impress even the casual reader. That is, that the Populist committee, in effect, said to the
Convention, "If, in addition to the National questions upon which we agree, you will adopt our positions on State matters, as
outlined by our Convention, and will concede to the Populists all the offices they now hold, both State and National, then 'your
Convention is requested to name a committee to confer with us as to the details of the co-operation.' " What co-operation? Not
"the co-operation" suggested by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Jones, but the co-operation outlined by the Populist State Convention, which
contains matters never heard of by either of those gentlemen.
There is another feature of this proposition which must attract the attention of the casual reader. It is this. The Populist Party
had "co-operated" with the Gold-standard Monopolist Republicans in 1894 and in 1896; and by means of this co-operation it had
not only aided in the election of a lot of Gold-bug Monopolist Republicans, but a great number of Populists had secured office by
the help of these Gold-standard Monopolist Republicans. In the Populist proposition they propose to repudiate the men that
helped them to get the offices, but to hold on to the offices. They come to the Democrats and say, "If you will let us keep the
offices these Gold-standard Monopolist Republicans gave us, we invite you to join us in arranging a plan for their destruction."
Because we respectfully declined their proposition, and invited all men who favor the free and unlimited coinage of gold and
silver, white supremacy and good government, to unite with us, they have denounced us as hypocrites. Well, we shall watch these
gentlemen closely as the campaign progresses, to see how many of these saintly men who now call us hypocrites, are caught
before its close co-operating with these same detestable Republicans.
Page 114
[NEWS AND OBSERVER, JULY 22.]
Will the Republicans and Populists Fuse?
A correspondent asks our opinion in answer to the inquiry, "Will the Populists and Republicans fuse in North Carolina this
year?"
They will not.
It may be that the Republican office-holders and negroes may arrange a trade for offices with Populist office-holders and
expect the voters to carry out their trade. In fact, arrangements have already been perfected for such trafficking in some counties
and in some districts, but no Populist committee and no Populist office-holders have authority to trade the party off, now that the
Republican Party has adopted a platform re-affirming allegiance to the gold standard and ignoring all the State issues the
endorsement of which the Populist State Convention made a condition precedent to co-operation with any other party. And if any
committee or office-holders effect a trade with the Republicans it will be in direct violation of the resolutions adopted by the State
Convention of the Populist Party in Raleigh on the 17th day of May, 1898. The resolutions, first adopted by a two-thirds vote and
then by acclamation, are as follows:
(The Preamble and Resolutions having been printed on pages 110, 111, of this book, are not repeated here.)
"Resolved, That this Convention elect a Conference Committee, which shall be authorized to confer with any party or faction
of a party, that declares its endorsement of the above principles and purposes, and that favors co-operation with the People's
Party, to carry the same into effect upon such basis as will maintain intact the integrity of the People's Party, and as will preserve
to it not less than its present representation in both State and national affairs."
Later, to-wit, on the 25th day of May, a committee composed of Cyrus Thompson, James B. Lloyd, Morrison H. Caldwell, J. B.
Schulken, Z. T. Garrett and E. A. Moye, addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Democratic State Executive Committee,
enclosing the above resolutions, and requested that they be presented to the Democratic State Convention, which met May 26. In
the letter to Mr. Manly the Populist Committee said:
Page 115
"If your Convention shall declare its endorsement of the principles and purposes set forth in these resolutions, and favor a co-
operation with the People's Party in the coming campaign to carry the same into effect, your Convention is requested to name a
committee to confer with us as to the details of the co-operation."
The effect of the resolutions adopted was to exclude, as declared by the Populist Committee, any co-operation unless the
Convention should "declare its endorsement of the principles and purposes set forth in these resolutions," i. e., the resolutions
printed above. The Democratic Convention declined the proposition for co-operation.
Nearly two months have intervened. The Republicans were served with notice that the Populist Party would not co-operate
with any party that did not endorse the legislation and the aims set forth in the resolutions adopted by the Populist State
Convention on May 17. What action did the Republican State Convention take with reference to those measures, the endorsement
of which was declared by the Populists to be a condition precedent to co-operation? They repudiated and spat upon all three of
the "whereas" clauses, and repudiated all the resolutions that they did not ignore.
Let us note the differences between the Republican and Populist State platforms, in the light of the utterances of the
Republican State Convention that the Republicans and Populists are agreed as to State issues though "representing conflicting
financial views," and also the Democratic attitude:
1. The Populist platform declares the People's Party was organized "to remove causes that produce hard times in the midst
of plenty by overthrowing the domination of the gold ring and its allied trusts and monopolies." The Democratic platform and the
Populist platform are in accord on this plank. The Republican "renews its allegiance to the St. Louis platform," which declared, "We
are therefore opposed to the free coinage of silver except by international agreement with the leading commercial nations of the
world, which we pledge ourselves to promote, and until such agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be
preserved." It "points with pride" to the policy of more firmly committing the country to the gold standard, and hails "the return of
prosperity."
2. The Populists declared, "We most earnestly endorse the address recently issued by the National Chairman of the People's
Party (denouncing Republican and gold Democratic
Page 116
policies) and the open letter of Hon. W. J. Bryan in the New York Journal urging an honorable and harmonious co-operation of all
who oppose the domination of gold and monopoly," etc. The Democrats and Populists are agreed as to the end in view, differing
only in the best policy to secure it. The Republicans endorse the Dingley and the war tariff bill, the four hundred million dollar bond
issue, and the subserviency of the administration to syndicates, and oppose everything favored by Bryan and Butler in their letter
and address.
3. The Populists declare that they are in favor of co-operation to elect nine silver and anti-monopoly Congressmen. The
Democrats will name nine men who will exactly fill this bill. The Republicans have already nominated three gold and monopoly
tools for Congress, and will nominate others when their Conventions are held.
4. The Populists declare for the election of "six judges of ability and high character, and free from partisan bias." The
Democrats have nominated six able jurists who come up to this requirement. The Republicans "invest the State Executive
Commitee with plenary power to deal with the nominations of candidates for the offices of Superior Court Judge and Solicitor."
They will name more drunkards and clowns to disgrace the bench, as they did under a like resolution in 1894.
5. The Populists say they want "twelve solicitors, fearless and impartial." The Democrats are nominating men of that stamp in
the twelve districts. The Republicans have already named several of the calibre and character of Claudius Melnotte Bernard,
whose own party makes sport of his incapacity and unworthiness.
6. The Populists declare "for a Legislature opposed to the demonetization of silver by private contract, and which will enact
legislation to put a stop to the giving and taking of gold notes and mortgages." The Democrats voted solidly for such a measure in
the last Legislature. The Republicans, in State and Nation, are in favor of gold contracts, gold notes and mortgages, and
everywhere denounce this plank as "dishonest and anarchistic."
7. The Populists want to elect "a Legislature opposed to government by injunction, which will enact sufficient legislation,
including a license law similar to the Wisconsin statute, to effectually prevent the removal to Federal Courts of all cases which
should be tried in our State Courts." The Democrats re-affirmed the vigorous declaration against government by injunction
contained in the Chicago platform,
Page 117
and also declared in their State platform adopted in May: "We oppose the removal by corporations of suits or cases from our State
to the Federal Courts, and favor legislation to prevent it." The Republican platform is silent. It was Republican judges and
Republican policies that brought goverment by iujunction into being, and the Republican Party everywhere stands sponsor for this
"new and highly dangerous form of oppression by which Federal judges, in contempt of the laws of the State, and rights of
citizens, become at once legislators, judges and executioners."
8. The Populists demand "a Legislature opposed to the ninety-nine year lease of the North Carolina Railroad, and which will
use all lawful and legitimate means to set the same aside." Before the Democratic State Convention met the Republican Governor
had traded off the right of appeal, the "lawful and legitimate means to set the same aside." The Republicans are silent, but their
party is almost solid in favor of letting the lease stand. In their platform they virtually endorse it, because they call Jeter C.
Pritchard "the acknowledged Republican leader of the Republican Party in North Carolina," and everybody knows that Pritchard
always sneezes when the political manager of the Southern Railway takes snuff. This is more than equivalent to an endorsement
of the lease.
9. The Populists declare in favor of "a Legislature in favor of a free ballot and a fair count, and which will enact legislation
guaranteeing to each political party the right of being represented on all election boards by representatives of its own selection."
The Democratic declaration is essentially the same, differing only in the details, for the State platform said, "We favor fair and just
election laws." The Republicans, in their platform, make this declaration: "We favor an amendment to the State Constitution
embodying the provisions of our present election law which will guarantee to every citizen of the State the right to cast one free
ballot and have that ballot counted as cast." Elsewhere in the platform this sentence occurs: "We believe that the men who broke
the chains of Democracy in 1894, and who restored to the people the right of local self-government and of honest elections, will
stand together in the coming contest for the preservation of those rights which assure to our beloved State in fact as well as in
name a truly Republican form of government." The only basis of fusion offered to the Populists by the Republicans is contained in
the above two extracts in the platform. In 1895, when the Populists
Page 118
and Republicans first controlled the Legislature, an election law in many particulars like that demanded by the Populist State
Convention was enacted. At the session of 1897, after the Republicans and Pritchard Populists obtained full control of the
Legislature, the Republicans drafted an election law which gave to that party such control of the election machinery as would have
forever made a fair election impossible in North Carolina. It was drawn to give Harry Skinner and Jeter Pritchard power to carry the
elections in North Carolina, no matter how the voters might deposit their ballots. It was the most infamous and transparently
dishonest election law that ever crossed the threshold of an American Legislature, giving as it did two-thirds of the election
machinery at every precinct to Republicans. It would be the law of the State to-day if the Democrats and Silver Populists had not
joined forces to expose its villainous features. They could not enact such a law as both parties now demand in their platforms. The
present election law, which the Republicans threaten to embody in the Constitution, is a miserable makeshift, and the Democratic
and Populist parties are both committed to its repeal. And yet, in the face of the Populist platform pledged to repeal the law, the
Republicans offer fusion to the Populist Party on the basis of "embodying the provisions of our present election law in the State
Constitution." That is the very thing the Populists have declared they do not want. The present election law gives to the Clerk of
the Court, the Register of Deeds, and the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of each county, the right to appoint election
officers, thus denying to "each political party the right of being represented on all election boards by representatives of its own
selection"--the very thing that the Populists insist upon as essential to any co-operation, and to insure fair elections. If they could
agree upon other measures, the threat of the Republicans "to embody the present election law in the Constitution," would make it
impossible for the Populists to co-operate with the Republicans.
10. The Populists want a "Legislature in favor of a system of local self-government, and which will enact under proper
safeguards sufficient legislation to guarantee to the counties the right to elect local officials." The Democrats declared, "We
denounce all enactments of the last two Legislatures by which cities and towns in the State have been turned over to negro
domination, and we pledge ourselves to enact such laws as will give security and protection to the
Page 119
property and people of every town and community in the State." The Republicans favor "the preservation of the right of local self-
government," which means that they favor corrupt and incompetent negro rule in eastern towns, cities and counties. The
Republicans invite the co-operation of the Populists on the assumption that the Populists want to continue the present system that
is working evil to the white people. As a matter of fact, in their platform the Populists declare for such a change in the present
system as will put "proper safeguards" around the local government--the very thing that the Democrats stand for, though the
parties might disagree as to details. The Legislature of 1895 did put some "safeguards" around negro government, but the
Republicans, when they got control of the last Legislature, repealed them all. Nothing in the statutes now stands between the
eastern taxpayers and the voracious negro office-holders. The Populists declare in favor of "proper safeguards." The Republicans
declare for the present system, and yet ask the Populists to unite with them and repudiate the very thing that the Populist platform
pledges the party to give.
11. The Populists want "a Legislature in favor of a reduction of freight, passenger and express rates, and of telegraph and
telephone tariffs to the gold standard level; that will endorse the action of Commissioner Pearson in taking a stand for such
reduction, and which will favor upholding the Railroad Commission law, making the same effective according to all of its intents
and purposes, and which will enact legislation providing for the election of Railroad Commissioners by the people." The
Democratic platform contained two planks covering the above. (1.) "We favor the extension of the powers of the Railroad
Commission, and closer scrutiny into their affairs in order to ascertain, establish and maintain such rates as shall be fair and just to
the people and to the transportation and transmission corporations;" (2.) "We favor the election of United States Senators and
Railroad Commissioners by the people." The Republican platform upon this live question contains nothing at all. Why? Because
the Republican Party's representatives on the Commission, one Republican and one assistant Republican, represent the
Republican policy of accepting the dictation of the corporations. They dare not declare in favor of doing justice between the people
and the roads, or of letting the people elect Railroad Commissioners, because their bosses and owners will not permit them to do
so.
Page 120
Is it not clear, therefore, that no Populists can act with the Republicans this year without repudiating their platform in every
plank, State and National? As far as the Pritchard traitors are concerned, we make no reference to them. They are already
Republicans in everything but name, but those Populists who believe in the principles and policies of their party cannot be led into
co-operation with the Republican Party again. If the machine attempts such a dishonorable and dishonoring dicker for offices, the
honest men who believe in the principles enunciated by the Populist Party will no more ratify such unholy agreement than they
would commit perjury. They have resolved to vote for the legislation demanded in their platform. They cannot in this year of grace,
1898, with the Republican utterances and legislation staring them in the face, have any more alliance with the Republican Party
than a Christian minister can co-operate with the priests of Buddha.
But it may be argued that the failure of the Democrats to accept the proposition for co-operation has given so much offense to
the Populists that they can be induced to fuse with the Republican Party out of spite. There is no doubt that there was much of this
feeling last month. Some of it still remains. Those office-holders who think the Populist Party was organized to give them an office
are busily engaged in trying to fan that spark of resentment into a flame. They are actuated by the same spirit that moved the
silversmiths to stir up the people of Ephesus to cry out, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Just as these silversmiths had their
wealth by making images of Diana, so the office-holders have their wealth by selling out party principles to get Republican votes.
Unless they can stir up the people, their occupation is gone. They may be depended upon, certainly most of them, to use their
own Republican money to create and keep up an uproar for their individual pocket-books. If the election had taken place last
month, they might have gone in on the wave of resentment, which is now ebbing upon thoughtful consideration.
The Democratic Party stands for certain principles. The Populist Party shares with it in the advocacy of some of the
fundamental issues before the people. There have been differences and friction between them which have prevented united
action. Because of the failure to come together, is it defensible for either of them to join hands with the common enemy of both?
Because Shafter and Garcia have not welded their soldiers into one army, is there any
Page 121
reason why Garcia should join forces with Blanco, the common enemy of both? If he were to become irritated because Shafter
had not seen his way clear to accept all his suggestions, would he not betray all the principles for which he stands, if he should
seek a union with the Spanish troops who have murdered and starved his countrymen? He would be as justifiable in making such
an alliance as the Populists would be to join forces with the Republicans because the two silver forces cannot march in the same
mighty army.
The Populists who really believe in the principles represented by the shibboleth, "The White Man and the White Metal," will
not vote at the bidding of any man or committee to continue negro and bad government in the State, and the gold standard in the
Nation, not even if they do bear a feeling of resentment toward the Democratic State Convention. Let us suppose that a Methodist
preacher were to say to a Baptist preacher, "We ought to come together and have only one church. Let us discard our churches
and build one big church and worship together." If the Baptist should reply, "There are reasons why my congregation will not agree
to this. We will each assail the devil from his own pulpit and in his own way"--if this were to offend the Methodist preacher, would
he permit his resentment to go to the extreme of joining forces with Ingersol to tear down all Christian churches? The Populist who
would join hands with the Republicans to permanently put the gold standard on himself and his country, and continue the present
bad government in North Carolina, out of a spirit of resentment, would be guilty of pulling down the temple on himself and
destroying himself and his children, as well as the Democrats. We do not believe, in the present condition of affairs, the Populists
can be persuaded for any reason to thus destroy themselves and their neighbors to please a few tricky office holders.
Our homes are in jeopardy, our firesides are assailed. The white men of the State will be true to the admonition, "To your
tents, Oh Israel."
Page 122
A Great Question Still Undecided.

It is common information that the Populist orators and leaders, in the first days of that party, declared that both of the old
parties were corrupt, and that the mission of the Populist Party was to reform them. It worked industriously and independently
along these lines in 1892, the first year of its existence. It denounced both the old parties as equally deserving of condemnation in
National affairs, and presented to the country many novel and new theories of government to take the place of the old fossilized
notions of Jefferson, Jackson, and the best thinkers of the country; but it frankly and kindly admitted that the State government
was all right, and about as good as it could be made. The newspapers which supported this organization were formed into a
separate association, and called themselves the "reformed press." Nothing discouraged by its small vote of 1892, it kept right on
with its campaign of "reformation" in 1893, and up to the opening of the State campaign of 1894. In that campaign many of the
new and novel ideas of reform which had hitherto been the slogan of that party dropped out of sight, one by one, and were
forgotten. Still it declared itself to be the especially chosen champion of "reform." Under the pretext of working out these reforms,
its leaders got into very close and confidential relations with the Republican Party, whose principles the Populist leaders had
declared, in 1892, to be the very embodiment of all that was wicked, devilish and mean. While the leaders of the Populist and
Republican Parties had, in 1892, been at daggers points, in the spring and summer of 1894, strange to say, a wonderful intimacy
sprang up between them. They met in close and confidential conferences, and these meetings occurred so often that the followers
of each grew suspicious and made enquiries of their respective leaders as to what it all meant. The Populist leaders informed their
followers that they were hard at work on the Republicans to reform them, and that they were progressing finely. "Trust us," said
these Populist leaders, "and we will reform that party." The Republican leaders smiled a smile, and when challenged by their
followers said, "Trust us, and we will absorb the Populist Party." The Populist leaders still kept up their
Page 123
cry of reform, and their confiding followers trusted them. The Republican leaders whispered to their followers that the process of
absorption was going on, and that ere long the whole party would be "absorbed." The result of the election of 1894 could be
interpreted either way. The Populist leaders could say to their followers, "Why, don't you see that we have got a reform Senator, so
many reform members of the National House of Representatives, many members of the Legislature, a great many county officers
and several judges?" "The work of reform is going on finely."
The Republican leaders could say, "Look at the progress absorption is making." "We have got a gold-standard Senator in
place of Vance; we have beaten several silver Democrats for the House of Representatives with gold-bug Republicans; we have
elected a great many members of the Legislature, among them a number of negroes; we replaced honest, capable Democratic
county officials with black and white Republicans; and all this was done by Populist votes." The same intimate, confidential
relations were kept up through 1895 and 1896, and the election of 1896 resulted as did that of 1894.
While the Populist leaders in 1896 kept on crying "Reform," the last of their new and novel ideas upon which they started out
to work out that "reform" passed away, and the free and unlimited coinage of silver, an old Democratic creed, became their
paramount issue. This, however, did not interfere with their intimate relations with Republicans who held diametrically opposite
views.
This seemingly serio-comic contest between the Republican and Populist leaders has been going on four years, and the
question whether the Populist Party will "reform" the Republican Party, or the Republican Party will "absorb" the Populist Party, still
remains unsettled. Conditions, however, seem to have arisen which require an accounting on the part of their respective leaders.
The Democratic press and the Democratic speakers have been giving the people information which has startled the Populists and
aroused the consciences of good men of all parties. It be gins to look as if this very important contest between "reformation" and
"absorption" was promoted by the leaders so they might use it as a means to an end, that end being the parcelling out of offices,
and when there were not enough offices to go around, the making of others to order. The Populists all over the State are
demanding of their leaders the evidences of any "reform" that has been
Page 124
wrought in the Republican Party. This demand has attracted our attention, and we, too, have been hunting for the evidence, but
we have hunted in vain. There is no evidence of reform in either declaration of principles or in their administration of public affairs
in this State. They are more steadfast adherents to the gold standard, to high tariff taxes, and to monopoly, than ever. From the
Penitentiary, the Agricultural Department, the counties and towns, and other departments turned over to the Republicans, come
evidences of peculation or gross mismanagement that remind us of old Republican usages. About the only rumor of any "reform"
we have heard of was in the case of His Excellency, the Governor. Rumor has it that, at the recent Republican State Convention, it
had been whispered that the Governor had been contemplating "a reform movement," and that on this account, as well as others,
there were serious objections to giving him the endorsement of the Convention. A conference of leading Republicans was had,
and the Governor's special friend and general spokesman, the man of many offices, was present in that conference and spoke for
His Excellency. It is said that he frankly admitted that some weeks before the Governor had been contemplating reforming himself
in some respects, but that he had abandoned all such notions, and that thereafter he would be a stronger Republican than ever.
Thereupon the Convention endorsed him. So it must be apparent to any Populist that the so-called effort at reform has been a
failure, and that their leaders have been working this reform racket to lull them into a false security while the work of the absorption
was going on.
Let us now look for a moment at the other side and see what progress absorption has made. It must be manifest to the
Populist that many of their leaders are getting perilously near the stage of absolute absorption into the Republican Party. They
hold on to the name of Populist, and that is about all that distinguishes them from the Republicans. They can be seen at the State
Capital, at the court-houses, at their offices, at their homes, in close touch and conferences with the Republicans, and the lines of
differences are growing so dim it is difficult to tell one from the other. Nothing is ever heard from them these days about the great
Populist principles or the new and novel ideas that were to reform our system and bring plenty to our homes. Not a word is now
heard from them against the Republican Party. When they open their mouths at all it is in denunciation of the
Page 125
Democratic Party. When they send out literature among their readers it seems to be their sole purpose to poison the minds of their
readers against the Democratic Party. "Hunt with the Republicans, eat with them, sleep with them, vote with them, and even be
one of them, if you choose, but do not go near the Democrats or listen to one of them," say these late reformers. What does all
this mean?
We repeat this question, and we put it to the rank and file of the Populist Party. What does all this mean? Why is it that some
of your leaders will spend hours in consultation with a prominent negro politician and are not willing for you to go to hear a
Democrat speak? Why is it they call upon you to vote for negroes who believe in nothing that you believe in, but warn you against
hearing a Democrat talk, who advocates most of the things that you do believe in? Why is it they treat the negroes as saints, and
denounce white men as hypocrites? Answer us these questions, ye honest Populist! Is it not because your leaders have been
deceiving you? Is it not because when they were outwardly crying reform, they were inwardly arranging with the Republicans for
you to be absorbed by that party? Can there any longer be any doubt of their deliberately planned purpose?
You have been warned time and again that many of your leaders were going into the Republican Party, and that they were
planning and trading to deliver you to that party. Your leaders denounced it as a Democratic lie, and bade you pay no attention to
it. Recent events confirm these warnings, and we are glad to see that you are in open rebellion against these traitorous leaders,
and that you have determined to put an end to this process of absorption.
Page 126
The Chief Aim of Republican-Populist Fusion.

It cannot be claimed by the most ardent advocate of Republican-Populist-Fusion that in such fusion either party is promoting
any distinct political principle held by either. We must therefore look for the aim or purpose of such fusion elsewhere. What, then,
is it that induces two parties holding distinctively antagonistic views to work together in perfect accord and harmony with each
other? The answer to this question, it seems to us, may be found in the record these fusionists have made. This record,
formulated into a single sentence, would be about this: "The chief aim of fusion is to find places for the place hunters, and then the
money to pay them; and when the old places are filled, to create others, and then increase the taxes or find new subjects of
taxation in order to raise the necessary money to pay them."
It is a matter of common information, often published and never denied, that the Fusion Legislatures of 1895 and 1897
multiplied the number of pages, clerks and employees, till the number of employees in the Senate at the session of 1897 greatly
exceeded the number of Senators in that body. There are fifty Senators, and the Auditor's report for 1897, on pages 122 to 132,
show that there were ninety-one regular employees and twenty-four temporary ones. This accounts in a measure, no doubt, for
the fact that the Legislatures of 1895 and 1897 (both Fusion Legislatures), cost $14,032.70 more than the Democratic Legislatures
of 1891 and 1893.
Before the Fusion Legislature of 1895 met, New Hanover, Mecklenburg, Buncombe, and it may be one or two other counties
having large cities, had a criminal Court, the expense of which, including the salaries of the Judge, was paid for by the county
having the Court. Two Republican Fusionists had to be provided for, and to fill the aching void, two criminal circuits were created
and counties placed in them in which the Superior Courts could not find enough to do to fill out half of the term. It is a notorious
fact that Court business has fallen off very greatly in the State, and it has been suggested that the over-crowded dockets in the
counties where the work has accumulated could have been provided for by giving more time of the Superior Court to
Page 127
them and less to the counties where less would do the work. But such an arrangement as that would not have met the long-felt
wants of these fusion gentlemen. Two criminal circuits had to be created, and it was done; and the Judge holding these Courts
was authorized by a Fusion Legislature to order a Court held, upon the request of the Solicitor (another paid official), whenever he
deemed it necessary; and for his services for holding such Court so ordered by him, he should receive one hundred dollars per
week. The Judge holding these Courts therefore had it practically in his power to fix his own salary most anywhere between two
thousand dollars and five thousand dollars a year. But then this was Republican-Populist reform.
Rumor has it that there has been considerable increase in the number of employees at the Penitentiary. In order to get at the
facts the Chairman of this Committee, on July 14, 1898, addressed a polite note to the Superintendent of the Penitentiary, asking
him, among other things, to furnish "a list of all officers and employees of the Penitentiary, giving the names of each, the date of
his election or appointment; the designation and place of his appointment; the date of the creation of such office or place; the
character of and nature of his services, and his monthly compensation."
This letter is published elsewhere in full. The law requires the Superintendent to keep such a list by months; so it would have
been the work of an hour or so to have sent him a copy of this list, if he really keeps it. By comparing this list with that kept by Mr.
Leazer, the former Superintendent, we could have ascertained with absolute certainty what truth there is in these rumors, and
what increase, if any, has been in the number of employees. But the Superintendent declined to furnish the list, and in place of it
he published a low, scurrilous, open letter. We are, therefore, unable to give the increase from official sources, but the following
statement comes to us from a reliable source and, believing it to be accurate, we give it to the public.
"The Democratic administration had in its employ at the Penitentiary only so many men as by diligent attention to business
could perform the needed service. The new powers, immediately upon assuming control, crowded by an eager horde, began to
prepare at once to satisfy their clamorous demands for places. There were not enough to go around. They made others and filled
them with their families and political heelers. A private secretary, never needed before, was installed at a good salary. A typewriter
Page 128
soon followed, never employed before. An extra-door-keeper or two, an extra warden, an extra steward, an extra assistant
bookkeeper, an extra supervisor for general control of far more competent men on the Roanoke farm, a more than useless place,
at a good big salary by way of reward as surety on the bond of one of the officials; more men and increased salaries; and this
included all the members of one official family, except two feeble females, and all the brothers of the Chief Executive, so far as
known."
The same gentleman gives us another piece of information, which we also believe to be true, and we give it to the public in
the very words and form in which it is given to us. Here it is:
"The Democratic administration left 199 bales of cotton at Wadesboro. This cotton was sold in March, 1897, by the new
authorities. The following statement, capable of certain proof, exhibits the transaction:
"Sold to Hardison & Company--

199 B. of C., 84,841 lbs., at 6.90, $5,854.03
Less 3 light weight Bs., $ 3.00
Less weighing, 11.94 14.94
Balance received, $5,839.09
There was deposited in the treasury, 5,506.32
Not accounted for $332.77"
This is one of the numerous things we had in mind when we asked the Superintendent for information.
If a report is ever made, it is possible the Board may be able to clear up this transaction. Had the reports required by law
been made, or had the information requested been given, the truth or falsity of this charge would have been established beyond
the shadow of a doubt. Mr. Leazer, the former Superintendent, from whom we got the main facts, repeated the statement above in
a speech at Newton on August 3; and, so far as we have seen, there has been no denial of it by any one.
Agricultural Department.
When we commenced the preparation of this book the air was full of rumors about the increase of employees and the
wasteful expenditures of the Agricultural Department. Not wishing to print anything in this book which is not founded
Page 129
on indisputable evidence, the Chairman of this Committee addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Agriculture, in which he
asked that official to give him a list of the officers and employees of the Department, and an itemized statement of the receipts and
expenditures. No response whatever has been received to this polite letter, which is published elsewhere in this book; and being
denied the information, we are not able to make a statement based on official sources. There are some things, however, which are
of common knowledge and general repute, and these we are able to state.
It is a fact beyond all question that the Board or Boards which have this Department and the Agricultural and Mechanical
College in charge, have been about doubled by Fusion laws. These Boards meet much more frequently than ever before. The
compensation of the members makes the inducement for frequent meetings very tempting. They receive, we are told, $4 per day
and actual traveling expenses, and $2 per day for hotel bills; and that the $4 and $2 per day count from the time the member
leaves home till his return, and are not based on the days actually engaged in the sittings of the Board.
It comes to us, also, that two of the members of the Board hold lucrative positions under either the Board for the government
of the College or the management of the Department, to-wit, Mr. King and Mr. Allen. We must admit it is a little unusual for a
member of a Board to employ himself to work for the Board, but then these are the days of reform, and in the light of these reform
days it may be all right. It is also said that a Mr. Chamberlain, who runs a fertilizer factory, sits as a member of the Board that has
charge of the work of directing the analysis of his stuff; but then these are the reformers, and the reformers can do no wrong. It is
further alleged that the negro politician, Jim Young, is the clerk or person that has charge of collecting the samples of fertilizers for
analysis. But then this man is the pet of the Governor, being managing director of the white Blind Asylum, and the only negro
colonel in the army, and it may be treason to His Excellency to suggest that his friend is not all right, now that he is a Fusionist
Reformer, although some years ago he denounced this fellow as a scoundrel. Common report also has it that arrangements have
been made to send out a fresh supply of employees to collect samples. Mr. Bailey's letter resigning his position as Director throws
much light on these matters, and we here give it in full:
Page 130
To His Excellency, Gov. D. L. Russell, Raleigh, N. C.
Dear Sir:--I hereby resign my commission as a member of the Board of Agriculture of North Carolina.
It is due to you, our people and and myself that I make known my reasons for this action.
When you tendered me the position I accepted it against my personal desire and interest with the single motive of serving our
Commonwealth. Experience has relentlessly impressed it upon me that this is impossible on the present Board under the present
administration.
By your will Mr. John R. Smith was made Commissioner of Agriculture in my absence from this city. On my return I went to
see you and inquired why you had done this; and you informed me that you had done it to get Mr. Smith out of the office of
Superintendent of the State's prison, as under his administration of that office our State was suffering the disgrace of personal
scandal and financial loss by corruption, and that you, having exerted yourself to the utmost and having failed to get him out of
that office by direct measures, had resorted to the plan of exchanging the office of Commissioner for that of Superintendent,
because in the Department of Agriculture there was little opportunity to do anything, good or evil.
I then inquired if you were under obligation to keep Mr. Smith in the office of Commissioner for the, full term; and if you would
help me to have him removed at the next meeting of the Board. You declared that you were under no obligation whatever to Mr.
Smith, and you gave me to believe that you would be glad to lend me your influence in opposition to him. With this understanding I
kept silent, enduring the reproach of being a member of a Board which had become a party to a bargain whereby the Department
of Agriculture was put into the hands of a man publicly charged with being unfit for the public trust of Superintendent of the State's
prison, until the Board met in the month of June, 1898. Then I moved against Commissioner Smith. But I failed to realize the
weight of your influence, with which I think I would have been easily successful in my effort to remove the reproach from the
Department of Agriculture.
This is my first reason for resigning, and my conclusive reason for making this resignation public.
Page 131
Again, I would not fail to mention that the disposition of some of the members of the Board to hold sessions of three or four
days' duration--being paid by the day--several times a year to perform duties which would require scarcely four hours, has
disgusted me time and again.
Finally, it is my opinion that the Department of Agriculture is the sheerest example that we have of paternalism run to seed.
Paternalistic in conception, it has grown into an institution for the rewarding of political workers, with little purpose of public good.
I accepted the office with good will toward you, reasoning that without regard to prejudices, it was my duty to help you as the
chief servant of our people. I have done the best I could, only to discover that my efforts are defeated. The best service I can now
render all concerned is to resign and make known my reasons, the necessity for which I regret more than I would endeavor to
have you believe.
Sincerely,
J. W. BAILEY.
What a shame it is that a department of the State government specially designed for the benefit of the agricultural people of
the State, and which might be so useful to them if properly managed, should be in the hands of such men! John R. -Smith,
Commissioner of Agriculture! Great heavens! What an outrage upon an innocent and unoffending people! Will the farmers of North
Carolina submit to it, or will they rise up in their power and indignation and drive into oblivion the men who perpetrated this outrage
upon them?
Wherever the number of employees is not restricted by law, and Republican-Populist Fusion has charge of any interest
belonging to the State, there seems to be an increase of persons employed or an increase of compensation or both. Since the
Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad passed under the control of the Republicans, there has been considerable increase in the
number of persons employed. In some instances additional places have been made, and in others additional compensation has
been given. The Road Master received, under Democratic administration, $70 per month; but recently a Republican who was a
stranger to the work was appointed, and his compensation was raised to $100 per month. Two-thirds of the stock of this company
belongs to the State so that the people of the State are deeply concerned in the management of this property. Its management
does not appear to be on business principles.
Page 132
We submit that these things herein stated lead to the conviction that the chief aim and end of fusion is to multiply places and
provide good places for Fusion leaders. Are the honest Populists who left the old parties to secure reforms in government content
to aid others who lead them in this wild race for spoils? Is the chief end and aim of political efforts merely to secure spoils for
certain designing men?
Page 133
Government by Committees.
In the great campaign of 1896 much was said about government by injunction. We have here in North Carolina an evil, which
seems to be on the increase, of a like character, which may be justly termed "government by committees."
Prior to 1894 it had been the custom of all parties in North Carolina, so far as we are informed, to hold their Conventions--
State, district and county--and nominate their candidates for the offices to be filled. Under such a custom the people composing
these parties had some voice in the selection of their candidates. But a new and novel practice has grown up, which is now the
rule with the Republican and Populist parties. Under this new practice the people are excluded from all participation in the
selection of the candidates they are expected to vote for. The method of procedure seems to be this:
A committee of Republican bosses and a committee of Populist bosses get together and parcel the offices among their
favorites, and then say to the rank and file of these parties, "These are your candidates and you must vote for them." Only a few
days ago, we are told, a committee, with a prominent negro politician at its head, met a committee with a prominent Populist at its
head, met and wrangled all day over the distribution of the county offices for one of the largest and best counties in the State, and
for the Senator and Representatives of that county in the Legislature. Finally an agreement was reached between the negro and
the Populist, which disposes of the county offices and the representation of the great county of Edgecombe in the Legislature; and
this agreement provides for negroes for county officers and negroes for Representatives. In many other counties of the State we
see the same thing going on. Committees meet and dispose of the offices, like dividing up so many hogs, sheep or cattle held in
common. It seems as if office, instead of being a public trust, has come to be a private snap. The people are left in the dark, and
really have nothing to do with choosing their public servants, except to obey the behests of their bosses! This government by
committees is not confined to county affairs.
Page 134
Candidates for State offices and for judges have been and are being designated in the same way. Hence we have government by
committee in State and counties.
There are two reflections we wish to make on this method of choosing candidates and designating public officials. In the first
place, it is the worst form of bossism. It makes the boss supreme and the people nothing. And who would have thought that men
who talked as much about boss rule as the Populist leaders did in 1892, could ever have come to practice this worst form of
bossism? The truth is, there never has been a party so completely the subject of boss rule as the Populist Party. The Populist
State Convention met on the 17th of May, nearly three months ago at the time of this writing, and yet we doubt if there is a Populist
in the State who knows who will be his candidate for judge in any district, unless it be the committee of bosses! And yet this
committee of bosses contains some of the very men who lead away many a confiding Democrat from his party by falsely
denouncing that party as the victim of boss rule!
The other reflection is that by this method of choosing candidates and public officials, it cannot be expected that fit and
competent men will be chosen. The man who is the most subservient to the boss, or who stands in with the committee, will be
chosen without regard to fitness. We appeal to the deliberate judgment of all men who are not crazed by the fascinations of office,
or blinded with prejudice, to say if in practice the worst results have not been obtained by government by committee.
The old Democratic way is the best. In this good old way the people rule. They meet in their primaries, in their county, district
and State conventions, in open daylight, in the presence of all who choose to attend, and name their candidates. No boss rule or
government by committee here. It is the rule of the people. Nothing more, nothing less. And we invite all men who believe in the
rule of the people, and who condemn boss rule and government by committee, to forsake the party that practices these
monarchical methods and join our party, which is the only real representative party of the people now to be found in North
Carolina.
Page 135
Fusion Method of Assessment and Taxation.

It is unquestionably true that all property ought to be valued and assessed alike for taxation, and that any system of
equalization which will produce this result is to be commended. But it is maintained that the system adopted and put in practice by
the Fusion Legislature, instead of being a system of equalization, is one of oppression. What can Otho Wilson, in 1895, or
Chairman Caldwell, in 1897, know about the true value of hogs, horses, sheep, cattle, and the like property in Wayne, Duplin,
Sampson, or any other county in which they have never lived? A board of assessors, living in the neighborhood, well acquainted
with the property to be assessed, and acting under oath, fixes a value to the property given in under oath; and yet under this
Fusion law the Railroad Commissioners, sitting as a Board of Equalization, can change these assessments in any county in the
State of their own sweet will, and without a particle of testimony before them that the property has not been fairly valued. Hence,
we say it is a system of oppression, and not of equalization. The results of such a law is so well told in an article in the Goldsboro
Argus that we will give it in full, and commend it to the careful attention of the taxpayers of the State. Here is the article:
"The Fusionists in North Carolina have been driven by their own extravagance to devise means for paying their reckless
expenditures. A direct increase in taxation would call attention to their profligacy, and was, therefore, as far as possible to be
avoided. Indirect methods were preferable. So, by the provisions of Chapter 510, Laws of 1897, the Railroad Commission was
constituted a Board of Equalization, with the 'power to increase the total valuation of any class of property in any county,' with a
like power to decrease, so as to equalize valuations in any county, and also with the power 'to add to or deduct from the aggregate
valuation such a percentage of such aggregate valuation as may be necessary to establish uniformity and equality of valuations
among the several counties in the State.' This power of increasing the value of property in the State is graciously limited so that it
cannot exceed 6 per cent.
"We have before us, as we write, the order of this Board
Page 136
of Equalization as it affects Wayne County. That order directs the Register of Deeds of this county to add to the value of each cow
on the tax list in the county 15 per cent, to each hog 25 per cent, to each sheep 10 per cent. It will be observed that this arbitrary
act and this wonderful order add alike to the valuation of those hogs, cattle and sheep, which the owners had already valued at
their true value, as well as to the valuation of those which had been undervalued. This order finds, in effect, every man who gave
in for taxation cattle, sheep and hogs, substantially guilty of perjury--every farmer in this county is found by this august Board to
have undervalued, under oath, all of his stock, and the Register of Deeds is arbitrarily directed to increase the valuation--and this
was done, and the farmer paid his tax without even knowing that it had been increased. The particular order now before us has a
printed blank for adding to the valuation of bicycles, but the blank is not filled, and bicyclists may be understood to have been
acquitted of perjury by the Board of Equalization. These orders changing valuations may be found in the offices of the various
Registers of Deeds, and will be shown any one on application, if the Register is a Democrat, but if he is a Russellite he may inform
you that you are a ballot thief and refuse you the information.
"Another scheme to increase the revenues, without letting too many people know it, will be found in Chapter 168, section 41,
of the Laws of 1897. Under the provision of this Act, every administrator and every executor is required to pay into the office of the
Clerk of the Superior Court, when the annual reports are filed, two-thirds of one per cent 'upon all legacies or inheritances devised
or descended to persons in the direct lines, and one and one-half per cent upon all such legacies and inheritances devised or
descending collaterally (except such as are for charitable uses).' Some of the States are resorting to an inheritance tax as a
means of checking the accumulation of large fortunes; but in a poor State like North Carolina it has no proper place except in
cases where the State, being heavily in debt, is compelled to resort to new methods of taxation. Contrast this tax with the tax on
billiard tables, and one sees at a glance the unfitness of Republicanism to rule the State. Under the Democratic Revenue Act of
1893, billiard tables run in connection with bar-rooms were taxed $75, and the little estate which the small farmer left to his
children descended to them free of tax; in 1895 the Fusion Legislature
Page 137
reduced the tax on billiard tables to $50, but still left the little estate free; in 1897 the Legislature, which the Caucasian
characterized at the time as 'a damnable disgrace to the State,' reduced the tax on billiard tables to $25, and levied a tax on small
estates.
"The sheep, cattle and hogs of the farmer must be arbitrarily increased in valuation in the name of 'equality,' while the taxation
on the down-trodden industry of running a billiard table in connection with a bar-room is reduced! The Fusion orator, when
confronted with his promise to reduce taxation, points with pride to his only achievement in that direction and proudly boasts that
he reduced taxation on billiard tables."
Page 138
[THE POST, JULY 29.]
Example of Tobias Knight.

That public office is a public trust is an aphorism as old as popular government itself. In monarchies and aristocracies it may
be different. Kings and lords may be irresponsible in their management of public affairs; but in this country, where the people are
the sovereigns, the records of all public offices are open to the public. Even when North Carolina belonged to the Lords-
Proprietors, those rulers always instructed their governors that all public records should be open to public inspection. It was about
1718 that Edward Moseley and Maurice Moore, believing that the papers in the office of Tobias Knight, the Secretary, would show
dealings with the pirate Teach, old Black Beard, went into that office and locked the door and made search for the evidence. From
that day until this year of grace no public officer in North Carolina ever declined to give information about the records of his office.
It has been reserved for J. M. Mewborne to emulate the example of Tobias Knight in withholding evidence.
Knight's complicity with the pirates being discovered, he resigned his office and in a few months died--doubtless because of
disgrace on being found out. Who can tell whether the men connected with the Penitentiary, and whose wrong-doings would be
made evident by a truthful publication of Penitentiary matters, will have the grace to follow Tobias Knight's example even unto
death? Will they have the decency of old Tobias Knight, who traded with Black Beard? We hardly think so. They will hope to
escape punishment. They think the worst that may befall them is to be transferred to some other department of the State
Government.
The law requires the Superintendent of the Penitentiary, on December 31st of every year, to file a sworn inventory of the
property of that institution, and such an inventory had been regularly filed year by year. The law also requires the Board of
Directors, at the same time, to make an annual report to the Governor, in which shall be set out the full details of the management;
and these annual reports had been regularly made. But on December 31, 1897, the new Superintendent did not file his inventory;
nor did the
Page 139
Board make its annual report. In the absence of these reports, one seeking information that should be contained in them can only
apply to the Penitentiary officers for facts shown by their records. Mr. Simmons, Chairman of the Democratic State Committee, in
courteous letters, asked for such information. Instead of complying with his request, the Board and Superintendent Mewborne and
Governor Russell appear to have determined that they would treat the Penitentiary affairs as their personal matters, and so they
assailed him personally.
This is somewhat in line with what the people are thinking--that some of the Penitentiary property has been treated as if it
were the private property of certain officers. The difference between "public" and "private" seems in some measure to have been
ignored--not only in regard to the Penitentiary books, but also in regard to certain Penitentiary property. Even the Governor is
credited with having said that the property there was being squandered and stolen. A notion seems to have been entertained that
the Penitentiary was only a private snap. And so an application for information from the public records was sought to be turned
into a private quarrel.
Of this proceeding the public will have its own judgment. People generally will doubtless regard the answer of the
Penitentiary authorities to the application of Chairman Simmons as a confession of wrong-doing and an attempt to muddy the
waters by a discharge of black, venomous gall, similar to the discharge of the cuttle fish. Certainly there is something very fishy
about it. But sensible people know that if there were nothing to conceal there would be no effort made at concealment, and there
would be no such malicious, viperous striking back, nor such venom displayed in answer to a courteous request for such
information as the published reports of the Penitentiary authorities are required by law to contain.
Clearly, then, Superintendent Mewborne's reply amounts to this: The reports required by law have not been published
because the facts, if made public would damage us. While it may be hurtful to us to refuse to give the information asked, it would
probably hurt still more to let the full truth be known. We therefore prefer to confess to some wrong-doing by saying nothing as to
those facts, and letting the public draw its own conclusions, rather than to lay bare the full measure of the iniquity.
Without doubt, under the circumstances, every intendment
Page 140
is to be made against the Penitentiary management. Public officers who resort to such shifts are like Otho Wilson, and Dr. Moss,
the Chairman of the Commissioners of Vance County, who, being indicted for bribery, came into court and entered the plea of
"nolo contendere." And perhaps, after all, Mewborne is wise in making his implied confession; but we shall see what we shall see.
The public judgment is that Mewborne's letter was "a confession and avoidance;" but the Governor cannot avoid the issue by
raising a personal quarrel.
Page 141
Hancock Shows Up Russell.

Having printed some things in this Book about Robert Hancock, we give place to a letter written to the Governor of the State
by Hancock, exposing the Governor's proposition that Hancock should make "a violent assault and battery on the person of
Josephus Daniels." Such a proposition by the Governor of the State needs no comment.
His Excellency, Daniel L. Russell, Raleigh, N. C.:
Your letter of the 17th inst., notifying me of my attempted removal as a Director on the part of the State in the Atlantic and
North Carolina Railroad, was duly received, and in reply I deem it my duty to address to you this open letter, in order that the
public may judge for themselves as to whether or not I was acting properly in what has been termed my "defiance of your
Excellency." To-day you Board of Directors, acting under instructions from you, have removed me from my position as President of
the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad, and your victory is apparently complete. I have lost my position. I am, so far as it is in
your power to place me so, at the mercy of my enemies, but your Excellency, through it all, I have preserved something that you,
perhaps, can never feel--that is, self-respect. When you removed me as a Director, and caused your Board of Directors to deprive
me of my position as President, upon charges made by my personal and political enemies, and of which there has been but a
superficial and imperfect investigation, you well knew that a suit was pending against me, and that a judicial inquiry could alone
determine my guilt or innocence, and being a lawyer of some reputation at the bar, you were fully aware that to prejudice a case
was in the highest sense unjust. You had frequently and publicly declared your belief in my innocence of the charges as alleged.
You stated to the seven Directors on the part of the State, when they were assembled in your presence at the Mansion on the
night of February 4, 1898, that you did not believe me guilty, and after polling the Directors, you ascertained that they were
unanimously of the same opinion. Since that time no additional charges have been made. There have been no new developments
in the case, except that your Excellency has perhaps ascertained
Page 142
that I am not as subservient to your wishes as you would have me to be.
During the session of the Legislature held in 1897, having great confidence in your good judgment, I was of some assistance
to you in endeavoring to procure legislation you desired, and several times since my appointment as President of the Atlantic and
North Carolina Railroad Company, I have followed your requests in the administration of the affairs of the Company, when my own
judgment told me that the opposite course would be to the interest of the Company and the State.
This, together with the fact that I was dependent upon you for my position, doubtless led you into the error that no
requirement of yours, however absurd or infamous, would be disobeyed by a man bowed down in sorrow, a victim of unrelenting
political malignity, blackmailed by personal foes. You have been disappointed.
So long as your wishes could be obeyed without the sacrifice of my personal honor, I was your servant; but when you
delivered your ultimatum on the 13th day of January, that I should make a violent assault and battery upon the person of Josephus
Daniels, editor of the News and Observer, and retain my position, otherwise I should lose it, I felt that indeed you were trespassing
upon sacred grounds.
I was compelled to decline to continue in a position purchased at so great a cost. I endeavored to move you to a sense of
justice, because I was fully cognizant of the effect my removal would have upon the charges against me, but I have found that
your selfishness has destroyed your sense of justice, and that gratitude is a sentiment unknown to you.
Subsequently I have received several messages from you indirectly urging this violation of law, in order, doubtless, that your
private thirst for revenge might be satisfied, and each message contained an assurance that this act would be absolute guarantee
of my retention in office; but, your Excellency, I decline to be your unscrupulous tool, and however great the cost, I am thankful
that my manhoood repelled the temptation--even in my present unfortunate condition.
There is no one who knows me, your Excellency, who will doubt my personal courage. Among my own people, not one of my
enemies will believe that I was ever afraid to vindicate my personal honor with any man; so a suggestion of cowardice will not help
you.
Page 143
In conclusion, I desire to say that in these charges I have used no names of third parties, because I do not desire to injure
those who are my friends, while, at the same time, they have acted as messengers from you; but if you deny that you suggested
the outrageous alternative published in this letter, I assure you that I have full and ample proof to substantiate my statement.
(Signed) ROBERT HANCOCK.
[PROGRESSIVE FARMER.]
Please Don't, Governor.
There is talk of an extra session of the Legislature. Please don't, Governor Russell. We can endure famine, pestilence,
drouth, war, but don't inflict any prolonged agony on the State, such as extra session. If they don't do anything let 'em go home.
Page 144
The Progress of the Rule of the Negro.
When the Democratic Party went out of power it was rare that a negro office-holder could be found in the State; and when
one was found, it was in a position and under circumstances which did not make him obnoxious to the white people, and which did
not create within him a desire to rule over and dominate the white man.
In the four years of Republican Fusion legislation, and in the year and a half of the Republican-Populist Fusion
administration, wonderful strides have been made in conferring office upon the negro, and in setting him up to rule over white men.
Elsewhere in this Book we have told in detail how the town of Greenville was turned over to the negroes; and we have also
spoken in a general way of the domination of the negro in Wilmington and Newbern, both of which cities are now under his control,
or under the control of white men dominated by the negro.
To show the progress being made in establishing the negro as a ruler in various and sundry positions in the State, we give a
list of offices held by him, selected from a few counties among the counties of the State as a sample, by way of illustration:
In Craven County there are 26 negro magistrates, 13 negro school committeemen, 4 negro Deputy Sheriffs, 1 County
Commissioner, 1 jailor, 2 constables, 1 Register of Deeds, 2 Deputy Registers of Deeds, 1 Coroner. In the City of Newbern there
are 5 negro policemen, 1 City Attorney, 3 City Councilmen, 1 cemetery sexton, besides the negro engineer and other negroes
employed in the public buildings.
In Columbus County there are 17 negro school committeemen, 5 negro magistrates, and 2 negro postmasters.
In Hertford there are 6 negro magistrates, 1 constable, 10 negro school committeemen, 2 negro postmasters, and 1 negro on
the Board of Education.
In Chowan there are 2 negro aldermen, 8 school committeemen, 1 County Commissioner, and 1 member of Board of
Education.
In Pasquotank there are 3 negro magistrates, 1 policeman, and 5 school committeemen.
Page 145
In Perquimans there are 6 negro magistrates, 10 school committeemen, 1 member Board of Education, 1 County
Commissioner, and 1 town constable.
In Jones there are 3 negro magistrates, 12 negro school committeemen, in five townships there being two negroes on each
committee.
In Hyde there are 8 negro school committeemen.
In Beaufort there is 1 negro school committeeman in each township.
In Caswell there are 7 negro magistrates, 1 negro school committeeman in each township, 1 negro Deputy Sheriff.
In Wayne there are 6 negro magistrates, 2 negro postmasters, 3 negro aldermen, 1 clerk in the Goldsboro post-office.
In Nash there are 3 negro magistrates, and 11 school committeemen.
In Carteret, 1 negro town commissioner.
In Edgecombe there are negro postmasters in the towns of Rocky Mount, Battleboro and Lawrence; there are 35 negro
magistrates and 8 negro constables, besides a large number of negro school committeemen.
In Montgomery there are 4 negro school committeemen.
In Richmond there are 10 negro magistrates, 23 negro school committeemen, two negroes being on every school committee
(except one, where there is a vacancy), 1 negro on the Board of Education, 1 Deputy Sheriff, and 3 negro road overseers.
From these sample counties, taken indiscriminately from the central and eastern sections, any one can see how the negro is
progressing as a ruler of white men.
Elsewhere in this Book we have laid stress on the fact that under the Republican-Populist Fusion the share of the negro in
the pie was the local offices. The above illustrations show how true this is. And in another place we have suggested that as the
States to the south of us have put up a barrier against the negro, and the States to the north of us won't give him anything, North
Carolina is the only State holding out to him the allurements of office, and thus invites him to come here and agitate for office; and,
unless there is some change, if the negro progresses in office-holding in the future as in the last two or three years, it will not be
long before he is in absolute control.
This progress has been made under Republican administration of affairs, with the aid of the Populists; and it is safe to
conclude that if the Republican Party is continued in power, this progress of the negro as an office-holder will continue to go on.
Page 146
The white people who have aided in bringing about these things were once much opposed to negro rule. But they have
become familiar to it, and apparently do not object to it. And the longer they are familiar to it, the less they will object to it. They do
not seem to object even now to negro school committeemen having supervision of white schools; in many cases there being two
negroes to one white man over the schools where the sons and daughters of white men are taught. We do not see how any white
man can approve of that. But by degrees the white men who have aided the Republicans in bringing all this to pass, have become
habituated to it.
And in some counties we observe, as in Richmond, there are negro overseers of the public roads. The white men of those
down-trodden communities being obliged to go out and work the public roads under negro overseers.
We cannot express our abhorrence of all these things. Will the white men give it their countenance? Under Democratic rule
such things could never have come to pass, and it is only by putting the Democrats again in control that what has been done can
be undone, and these outrages on the white school children and the white men of these counties be remedied.
Page 147
[NEWS AND OBSERVER, AUGUST 11, 1898.]
The White Institution for the Blind in the

Hands of a Negro.
The following letter to the editor of this paper was written by Mr. W. M. Saunders, a well-known and prominent citizen of
Smithfield:
Mr. Josephus Daniels, editor News and Observer, Raleigh, N. C.
Dear Sir:--I have had some correspondence with Professor Ray, Superintendent of the Institution for the Blind, at Raleigh,
North Carolina, relative to the education of my little daughter, who, unfortunately, is afflicted with bad eyesight. At one time I feared
the condition of the child's eyes would force me to place her under the tuition of Mr. Ray, but fortunately the skillful treatment of my
physicians, Drs. Lewis and Battle, has, I hope, relieved me of this melancholy necessity.
My correspondence with Mr. Ray has led me to make some inquiry in reference to the management of this great institution,
and to my utter astonishment and shame, I have been informed that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of this institution, in
which are educated the blind white children of North Carolina, is James H. Young, a negro politician. I write to inquire of you if my
information is correct, and if correct, to request you to state explicitly the duties and powers of this negro politician over these
unfortunate white children.
Yours truly,
WM. M. SAUNDERS.
Jim Young is not officially known as Chairman of the Board, but practically he is the chairman and the whole outfit. That place
is filled by one Geo. L. Tonnoffski, a variegated politician, who has not failed in any instance to do what Jim Young wanted done.
At one meeting of the Board, when things were not going exactly to his notion, Jim determined to break a quorum, and turning to
Tonnoffski said to him, "Come on, George, let's go." And George meekly got up and followed his political boss. This incident
illustrates Jim's control of the Chairman and his management
Page 148
of the White Institution for the Blind and the Colored Institution for the Deaf and Dumb and Blind.
There is not an official in any of these institutions who does not know that Jim Young is the head of the directorate and that
Tonnoffski (they call him Turn-off-sky in Wake County) is merely Jim's agent to do his bidding. In official circles, the name of
Tonnoffski appears as Chairman; in the practical operations of the Board, Jim Young is as complete boss as Quay in Pennsylvania
and Platt in New York are bosses of the Republican Party.
In the contest over the election of a Principal of the colored institution, the Governor showed that he wanted Jim Young to run
the institution, for he named a Director of Young's choice in order to let Young elect a negro politician who has no fitness for the
place over a negro who was highly recommended. Russell and Young were for the unfit negro politician in preference to the
capable negro teacher. That is a sample of the policy that has been pursued. Negroes and defaulters have been placed in
positions of trust that ought to be held by intelligent white men, and when positions for negroes were to be filled, no capable negro
who had fitted himself had any chance against a political parson. That's the record that has been made.
Writing of the debasement of this institution by Jim Young and his automatons, this paper published the following article in
September last:
"James Young (colored).
"George Tonnoffski.
"Charles McNamara.
"R. C. Rivers.
"Has either one of these men ever done anything to show that they were qualified to have charge of the education of the blind
children of both races, and the deaf and dumb children of the negro race?
"If you had to pick out four men to select instructors for the deaf, dumb and blind children of the State, and had the whole
State to choose from, do you think it possible you would select either of these men?
"More than that: If, in addition to selecting teachers for these children to whom the State owes a special duty, the men chosen
had the management of a large sum of your money, do you think, after looking over the three hundred thousand voters in North
Carolina, you would select these four men?
Page 149
"What have these men done in life to entitle them to be entrusted with such delicate responsibilities? Have they succeeded in
doing anything in any line to show their fitness? Are their names connected with any deeds of charity, any missions of mercy, any
business of such character as to fit them to be the stewards of a high trust?
"Those of them who are known at all, are known as ward politicians whose highest idea of public service is to get something
out of it for themselves or their kin. The others are mere puppets, voting as Jim Young directs them to vote, either not knowing
their duties or not caring to take the trouble to perform them.
"These four men's votes control the destiny of the State white Institution for the Blind and the colored Institution for the Deaf,
and Dumb, and the Blind. There isn't a lady teacher in the Blind Institution who cannot be removed at their will. There isn't a dollar
that is not to be spent as they decree.
"It is even worse than that: While it takes four votes to control the Board, one man--and he the negro politician, Jim Young--is
its dictator as absolutely as Quay is the dictator of the Republican machine in Pennsylvania. He cracks the whip, and his three
automatons make the motions as he directs.
"Here we have, in this year of grace 1897, in the city of Raleigh, a negro politician who is master not only of the three white
men who do his bidding at the crack of his whip, but who directs the policy of the State's institution for the education of the deaf,
dumb and blind.
"How do you like such white slavery to a negro master in Raleigh? Can you contemplate the picture without indignation,
particularly when the institution is run extravagantly and in some instances by incompetent and unworthy men? If so, you are not
the kind of Anglo-Saxon who has made the race illustrious throughout all the past.
"There are seven Directors of these two institutions--one for the white blind and one for the colored deaf, dumb and blind.
The men who manage the negro institution manage the white one. The Superintendent of both is Prof. John E. Ray, a capable and
experienced man, a native of Wake County, who has had large experience in Kentucky and Colorado. He has no power to elect
any of his assistants, but must take such as Jim Young gives him. He takes them and does the best he can with them. His
recommendations are heeded whenever no political advantage can be
Page 150
made by ignoring them, and then they are ruthlessly ridden over or ignored.
"The public is familiar with the resignation of Professor Meserve. He is a Republican President of a negro college. He
accepted a place on the Board to help keep it efficient. He was forced to resign because, as he said:
"'I cannot conscientiously, with self-respect and a conscientious desire to do my duty, remain in a position where I must share
responsibility, when a majority of the Board has adopted a line of policy which, in my judgment as to how the institution should be
managed, is positively detrimental to the highest good of both the institution and the State. . . . . . Individual efficiency and high
moral character, rather than political "pull," can alone subserve the highest interests of the public service.'
"The Committee on Education of the Board is composed of Jim Young, Geo. Tonnoffski and Chas. McNamara. If this was not
so serious, it would be the funniest joke perpetrated in this century.
"Mr. J. A. Briggs has been a member of the Board twelve years, and has done great service as Chairman of the Executive
Committee. The gang now in charge turned him down to put George Tonnoffski in his place. The story of the difference in
management could not be better told to those who know the two men!
"It is not our purpose to-day to review the June meeting, when Mr. W. H. Rand, a capable and efficient steward, was removed
to make place for J. Rowan Rogers, who had defaulted as the Republican Sheriff of Wake County.
"The recent meeting of the Board either passed a resolution, or entered an order, or something like it, excusing Rev. Joseph
Perry from teaching in the institution. The Reverend Joseph is the political parson recently elected Supervisor of the colored
department over a competent colored man named Patillo. At the time of his election this paper said he was unfit for the place.
Were we right? The action of the Board excusing him from teaching proves it.
"Let us see what Perry costs the State. He gets $60 a month and 'keep.' It is the same salary Professor Pegues received, but
Professor Pegues had classes and taught the children.
"At the June meeting Mr. T. H. Tillinghast, a deaf and dumb man, with life-long experience in teaching the deaf and dumb,
was dropped and a negro by the name of W. H. Caldwell was elected in his place. Every man who knew
Page 151
anything about the institution, knew the loss of Mr. Tillinghast was serious. But the gang wanted a place for the negro Caldwell,
and Mr. Tillinghast had to walk the plank. After Rev. Joseph Perry was elected, the Board saw that somebody just had to be
elected who knew something about the business, and Mr. Tillinghast was re-elected to teach the classes formerly taught by the
man who was Perry's predecessor. So Perry's election virtually costs the State $110 a month and 'keep.' This is characteristic of
the management of the one man power.
"Jim Young is a hard negro to satisfy. He is not only Chief Fertilizer Inspector, having white men under him; Grand Mogul of
the Deaf, Dumb and Blind Institution, having three white men who do his bidding; a leading candidate for postmaster; and general
boss of his party in the Fourth District. He wanted more. And so he had his daughter elected teacher of music. She is said to be
not over sixteen years old and without experience. However that may be, she was elected at a salary of $37.50 a month; her
predecessor, who was a trained teacher, receiving $30 a month and board. She may be worth it. If so, the white ladies who teach
in the white institution are greatly underpaid.
"What do the white music teachers receive? The following lady teachers and employees get less than Jim Young's daughter:
Miss Maggie Brombly gets $20 a month; Miss Mary Shanks, $25 a month; Miss Fannie E. Floyd gets $20 a month; Miss Estelle
Timberlake, $25 a month; Miss Laura Newsome, $27.50 a month; Miss E. S. Crow, $32.50 a month; Mrs. M. C. Brinson, $20 a
month; Miss Tyrie Grubbs, $25 a month, and Miss Mary Davis, $25 a month.
"There are a number of instances which might be cited showing favoritism. Mrs. L. S. Harrison, a most competent lady who
had been matron of the institution for many years, was dropped to make a place for S. Otho Wilson's candidate. Mrs. Meadows,
who came from Granville County. Without experience or special fitness, the new appointee was paid the same salary given Mrs.
Harrison, with particular fitness and long experience. But S. Otho's candidate, like Jim Young's daughter, must have the biggest
pay.
"At the June meeting they abolished the broom and mattress shop at the white department; sent the machinery down to the
colored department; and then, of course, dropped the two Andersons who were in charge of the work. It was not paying.
Subsequently they found out that
Page 152
Charles Anderson was a Republican, and re-established the department and put him in charge. This will necessitate purchase of
additional new machinery.
"These are the more flagrant instances of partisanship, mismanagement and favoritism going to prove the unfitness of the
men in charge.
"Of course this sort of management will prove costly to the State's taxpayers. The pay-roll already shows $1,136.70 more
than last year. If managed as well as by the old Board, it should be $2,136.70 less than it is. Last year, after electing Mr. Ray as
the head of the institution, Mr. Young was employed at a salary of $1,000 for a special purpose, and the Board would have saved
that $1,000 this year. The new Board saved this $1,000, decreased the salary paid Mr. Blair's successor $400--effecting a saving
in two positions of $1,400, and yet the pay-roll is already $1,136.70 more than last year.
"In view of the fact that Governor Russell has seen fit to turn the deaf, dumb and blind children over to the mercy of Jim
Young, it may not be inappropriate to ask, Who is Jim Young, and what are his qualifications?
`It is perhaps best to let Governor Russell answer these questions, as he ought to know most about the man he selects to
discharge the responsible duties of manager of a great State educational and charitable institution. The following letter explains
itself:
" 'Wilmington, N. C., April 8, 1892.
" 'Mr. A. Brady, Charlotte, N. C.
"'Dear Sir:--I hear that you and Colonel Myers were named by the Jim Young-Lockey gang at Rockingham. The decent
Republicans at this end regret that men of character like yourself and Colonel Myers should be yoked with a gang of scoundrels
with whom not one single respectable man in this region will affiliate. Of course you may answer that they are just as good as such
rascals as Gordon & Company. It seems that the rascals are on top at both ends.
" 'We have made up our minds not to be bound by hoodlums and thieves. I hope Colonel Myers will not permit himself to be
humiliated and degraded by running on the same ticket with Lockey. Of course we would like to support him for anything he wants,
but we can't stand the combination. We think the thing to do is to put decency in charge or break up the concern. I had supposed
that Colonel Myers would be opposed to running any State ticket,
Page 153
or any county ticket in the negro counties, except where respectable white men are in control.
" 'Yours truly,
D. L. RUSSELL.
" 'P. S.--Please show this to Colonel Myers. I should say that all the presumptions of title are in favor of Gordon. The negroes
generally go with the rascals. It will take strong evidence to prove that Mecklenburg is an exception to the rule.' "
No wonder it was to the "utter astonishment and shame" that he found the only white school for the blind in the State under
the control of an unfit negro politician. It is a fact that has brought "humiliation and shame" to every respectable man in the State,
and a bitter and deep feeling of resentment to those parents whose unfortunate children are dependent upon the State's generous
provision for their education. It is as much a regret to have to send a child to a school controlled by Jim Young, as if Wake Forest
were to turn Dr. Skinner out as President of the Board of Trustees and make Rev. Joe Perry President, or for the Trustees of
Trinity to turn out Mr. James H. Southgate and substitute John C. Dancy. Such actions are, of course, impossible, but they would
be no greater insult to the parents whose sons are educated at those honored institutions than have been offered the parents of
the blind children of the State. It is even a greater insult to them if Governor Russell's estimate of Jim Young is correct, for he said
that "not one single respectable man" in the region about Wilmington would "affiliate" with Jim Young, who was declared to be a
"rascal." If Colonel Myers would be "humiliated and degraded" by running with the Young-Lockey combination of "rascals," is it not
more "humiliating and degrading" for the white blind children to have the only institution in the State at which they can be educated
dominated and controlled by a negro politician, who is characterized as a "rascal with whom not one single respectable man will
affiliate."
Page 154
[FROM THE POST, AUGUST 3.]
Blood is Thicker than Water.
A good citizen of one of our western counties was one of the first to join Butler and his Populist Party. No one in his county
became a more bitter partisan of that organization. He is an honest man, and believed that the new party, led by Senator Butler,
would reform conditions and bring about prosperous times, as well as better government. He had been taught that the Democratic
administration in the State was not only corrupt, but was designedly oppressive of the people, and responsible for the low prices of
farm products. Thus misled, he united with the Butler party, and has since been one of its most uncompromising supporters.
That is, has been until very recently. He had occasion to visit Raleigh, and having a friend and neighbor who has a little
unfortunate child at the Institution for the Blind in this city, he naturally felt an inclination to make inquiries concerning the child of
his neighbor and friend. The horror and disgust that seized him upon ascertaining that one of the chief rulers of this institution, an
institution sacred in the affections and sympathies of all the people, was the negro "Col." Jim Young, and that he was the
appointee of Governor Russell, can better be imagined than described. He realized at once what Russellism means. Here was the
innocent, unfortunate little child of his neighbor and friend, of his own race, in an institution the central figure of whose directory is
a negro who, though appointed by the Governor, was but recently denounced by that same Governor as meriting the stripes and
punishment of a Penitentiary convict. His indignation found vent in words that are more expressive than complimentary to Russell
and his associates, and he goes home to not only tell his friends and neighbors of this crime against their race, perpetrated by
their own party leaders, but to declare his purpose to do all in his power to rectify the wrong done his State and neighbors and
friends partially by his vote. It is needless to say this gentleman will work and vote for the Democratic Party and white supremacy
hereafter.
Page 155
But, having his eyes opened as to the Jim Young influence in the management of this institution for white unfortunates, led
him to make further inquiries, and he was shocked when he learned the true facts of the way white schools are dominated in
eastern counties by offensive negro politicians of the Russell-Jim Young stripe. He had heard much of such things before, but had
been told that such statements were Democratic lies, and having but few negroes in his section and not being brought in contact
with actual facts before, had become indifferent at least to the charges. But when brought face to face with it, in the case of the
tender little child of his neighbor and friend, and being given proof positive of the existence of similar offenses throughout eastern
North Carolina, the good man's indignation and shame could not find suitable expression, save in the earnest declaration that,
"God being my helper, I will do all I can to relieve my race from such degradation. I am a white man, and 'blood is thicker than
water.' "
Let the truth of the real condition of affairs as brought about by the Russell combination be given to the people, and a white
man's government for the good of all the people will surely be re-established in old North Carolina. The above is simply a sample
of the indignation that will be felt all over the State.
Page 156
[FROM THE POST, AUGUST 7.]
A False Charge Refuted.

In order to try to discredit some of our Democratic workers in the estimation of the friends of silver, some of the Populist
papers are charging that these workers are not true silver men. An article in the Morning Post of August 7, 1898, so completely
answers this false charge that we publish it in full:
"It has become the habit of late of the Progressive Farmer and Caucasian, and their crowd of the Russell and McKinley pie-
eaters, to exercise censorship not only over the conduct, but the motives of North Carolinians, who refuse 'to play in their back-
yard.' They assume to possess divine omniscience, and to be able to look into the hearts of men, and discover whether they are
sincere in what they say and do. They make a great outcry for silver and against gold. They denounce everybody whom they wish
to damn, regardless of all truth, as 'gold-bugs,' and claim that only the select few who submit to their dictatorship are really and
sincerely friends of silver. These self-ordained high priests of silver are just now engaged in excommunicating from the fold of the
white metal all those whose sense of honesty and decency will not permit them to march under the Russell and Pritchard banner,
which they have so recently helped to carry to victory in this State and triumphantly hoisted over the Capitol. The Democratic State
Executive Committee is composed of fifty-eight members; of these only one is an advocate of the gold standard. For this reason
they denounce the other fifty-seven members of the Committee either as gold bugs outright, or under the control of the gold
propaganda. In the late Democratic State Convention there were a few avowed advocates of gold, who, nevertheless, vote and
act with the party because they believe in white supremacy, honest government and all other things favored by the party, except
silver. For this reason these public censors denounce all the balance of this magnificent body of eight hundred North Carolinians
as gold-bugs hypocritically masquerading in the livery of silver. There are in the Democratic Party of this State a few thousand
avowed advocates of gold, who nevertheless
Page 157
vote and act with the party because they believe in everything that party advocates, except silver. For this reason the one hundred
and forty odd thousand North Carolinians who, in 1896, voted and worked for the Chicago platform, Mr. Bryan and free silver, are
denounced by this crowd as gold-bugs hypocritically advocating free silver. The reason which these censors of the honest voters
of the State assign for this alleged hypocrisy is truly amusing. It is this: That the Democrats are pretending to be for silver when
really for gold, in order to deceive and mislead and by false pretense secure the vote of a few thousand voters whose suffrages
this crowd claim the right to control and trade on to secure offices for themselves. They denounce as gold-bugs, without the
slightest regard to their past record and position upon the financial question, every man appointed, nominated or elected by the
Democratic Party to any position of trust or responsibility. Governor Jarvis has grown old in the service of the State; has enjoyed
the respect and confidence of the people of the State as but few men have; has been heard upon every stump in the State in
support of silver; as United States Senator worked and voted for silver; but because he was selected by the Chairman of the
Democratic Executive Committee to assist in writing the record of the misdeeds of the present Fusion administration in this State,
he is denounced by this crowd as a gold-bug and a hypocrite. Recently Mr. Simmons was elected Chairman of the State Executive
Committee, and despite the fact that he is known to have begun the advocacy of silver, when he was a candidate for Congress,
many years ago; despite the fact that before the Populist Party was born, he made free silver speeches at Alliance picnics, in his
home county; despite the fact that in the campaign of 1894, at the risk of losing his position, he advocated free silver on the stump,
in twenty counties in the State; despite the fact that in the Democratic Convention of 1896, he made a speech in favor of unlimited
coinage, and declared that the two metals were found in the bowels of the earth, at about the ratio of 16 to 1; despite the fact that
in the campaign which followed, he again, at the risk of losing his place, canvassed the State for free silver; despite the fact that in
1892, as the then Chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, he advocated in the Clinton Congressional Convention, a
more advanced declaration for silver than was then contained in the State and National platforms of his party, he is denounced by
this crowd as a gold-bug and a hypocrite. How different things appear to
Page 158
these censors of the honest voters of North Carolina when they turn their contorting search-light upon the hearts and minds of
Republicans.
"In 1896 Oliver H. Dockery was a candidate for the nomination for Governor. He was loud and boisterous in his advocacy of
the gold standard and attacked Russell, his opponent, upon the ground that he was not exactly straight for gold. Russell, however,
tricked and cheated him out of the nomination. The tortuous course of Populism in this State under the leadership of this crowd
made it convenient to have Colonel Dockery on the Populist State ticket, and despite his gold record he was placed there. It
became necessary to satisfy the rank and file of the party, who were sincerely and honestly for silver, that Colonel Dockery was a
bi-metallist. To most men, in view of the Colonel's record upon this question, this would have been regarded as a herculean, if not
impossible, task. It was an easy undertaking, however, for this crowd. It was only necessary that Colonel Dockery should say a
word for silver--just a word. The inducement offered him to say this word was an office. It is useless to say that the Colonel looked
at his old idol, gold, and then at the office which was held before him as the price of betrayal--looked again and hesitated not--for,
like Spencer Blackburn's drummer boy, he had never learned how to 'beat a retreat' from an office. The Colonel very readily
agreed that he would hold his gold views in abeyance and with the adriotness for which he is famous, would dally with silver while
he ran with all his might for the office. As usual, the Colonel was defeated, and having held his gold views in abeyance as long as
was necessary to serve the purpose of Mr. Butler and his crowd of party manipulators, he returned again to the worship of the
Golden Calf. No more was heard of the doughty Colonel until a few weeks ago, when the Republican Convention of the (Sixth)
Congressional District met, adopted a gold platform and endorsed gold-bug McKinley, and nominated him and placed him on this
platform for Congress. Everybody said at once this means three tickets in the Sixth District, for the Populists will not dare attempt
to palm off this gold-bug as a silver man on their party. But everybody was mistaken. For some dark reason of Populist policy,
notwithstading the Colonel was standing upon a gold-bug Republican platform, pledged to die by it, Mr. Butler commended his
endorsement to his party, and this old gold-bug, to the disgust of honest men of all parties, is to be again paraded before Populist
audiences in the Sixth District as a friend of silver.
Page 159
"In 1896 Linney and Pearson were nominated in their respective districts on a gold-bug platform and freely declared their
purpose to vote for a gold-bug President. But Populist policy required the endorsement of the gold-bugs; and in order to satisfy the
consciences of the true silverites in their party, they extorted an equivocal declaration for silver from them, and then began to
make the welkin of the Eighth and Ninth Districts ring with their praises as loyal champions of the White Metal. Both Linney and
Pearson were elected with the aid of Populist votes, and for two years in Congress they did all they could to preserve the present
gold standard. Now and then, for policy's sake, they dallied a bit with silver, always taking care to do nothing for it that might
peradventure hurt gold. Everybody thought after this record in Congress the Populist leaders would not dare again to hold up
these gold-bugs to the Populist voters of their Districts as friends of silver. But everybody was mistaken. They have both been
nominated again, and despite their gold record, the Populists of their Districts will be asked to support them again in the name of
bi-metalism.
In 1896 Jeter Pritchard, the acknowledged leader of the Republican Party in North Carolina, the boisterous advocate of
McKinley, who so loved this great apostle of gold that he named his new-born babe after him; who is an admirer of Mark Hanna,
and who telegraphed his congratulations to Hanna when he fixed the Ohio Legislature, was elected to the Senate by Populist
votes under the pretense that notwithstanding his gold-bug associations, he was really for silver. In the Senate, when there was no
chance to help silver, he professed readiness to help it. When there was a chance to help it, he flatly refused to help it. His record
there was distinctly one of hostility to silver, yet he was re-elected by the help of seventeen Populist Representatives and Senators
of what is known as the minority Populists in North Carolina, who, in the face of his gold record still insist that he is a friend of
silver. Every one of these seventeen Populist Senators and Representatives who voted for Pritchard have received from him, or
expect to receive an office, under gold-bug McKinley. Under ordinary circumstances, the acceptance by a silver man of a
commission of a gold-bug President against whom he had voted, would at least create suspicion as to his sincerity, but not so with
the Populist horde who hold Federal offices in the post-office, revenue and other departments of the National and State
governments. A few
Page 160
months ago a Populist conference was held in Raleigh. To this conference came Butler Populists and Skinner Populists: Populist
postmasters and Populist revenue officers with commissions in their pockets from gold-bugs McKinley and Pritchard. Another
election was about to be held, more offices were to be distributed, and the fierce war which had been waged between minority and
majority Populists was forgotten. Butler Populists and Pritchard Populists and McKinley Populists came together in loving embrace
and agreed that every act of treachery to silver should be condoned and pardoned, and that no Populist should hereafter be
permitted to question the sincerity for silver of the gang who had elected Pritchard and attorned to McKinley and gold by accepting
commissions in the post-office and revenue service, and the famous resolution declaring that any Populist who should thereafter
question the sincerity of these Pritchardites by raising the "question of majority and minority Populists, should be viewed with
suspicion," was unanimously passed.
Nothing a Democrat can do for silver proves to this crowd of self-constituted censors his sincerity for that metal; nothing that
a Republican or Populist can do for gold discredits him with them as a friend of silver.
The people may be deceived by hypocrisy for a time, but not always. The people may be misled by falsehoods for a time, but
not long. Truth is proverbially slow in overtaking falsehood, but it invariably catches it. Truth is frequently crushed to the earth, but
it never fails to rise again. It does not require a prophet to foretell the fate of the men who have won high places in North Carolina
by falsehood; by slander; by treachery; by hypocrisy.
Page 161
Secretary Cooke's Letter.

The books and records of the various departments of this State have been in the possession of the enemies of the
Democratic Party for more than eighteen months. These enemies have had time and opportunity to search them through and
through. The only suggestion of any failure of duty on the part of any Democratic official comes from a newspaper against two
brave and chivalrous men, who are now dead and cannot speak for themselves. But Hon. C. M. Cooke, late Secretary of State,
has so completely and fully answered the insinuations of this paper, that we give his letter to the public. Neither he nor the letter
needs any words of commendation, both speak for themselves, and no one can discredit either. The letter is as follows:
"Louisburg, N. C., August 8, 1898.
"My attention has been called to a publication made in the Progressive Farmer in its issue of April 19th last, comparing the
present administration of the Secretary of State with the administrations of his predecessors, which does injustice to the latter.
There have been other references to this subject by the same paper and by other papers in the State, and unjust deductions
drawn from the estimates and figures given in the said article.
"The article referred to gives what is claimed to be a correct statement of the taxes from insurance companies collected and
paid to the Treasurer by the present Secretary of State, from January, 1897, to April 1, 1898, and compares this statement with the
amount reported collected and paid over by Secretary Cooke, from September 1, 1895, to January 1, 1897. To one unacquainted
with the law, this comparison would seem fair. But to one familiar with the law, it would appear, as is the fact, that the period
covered by the time selected from Dr. Thompson's administration is for the purpose of collecting the commission taxes on
insurance, to which it refers, practically two years; while the period covered by the time selected from Secretary Cooke's
administration, in respect to this same subject-matter, covers practically only one year.
"The law in respect to the commission taxes on insurance
Page 162
companies is: 'That the commission tax of two per cent on the receipts of the insurance companies, is due and payable within fifty
days after the reports of the companies are filed, and that such reports must be filed within thirty days after the first days of
January and July, respectively. A much larger business is done by the insurance companies during the fall months, and the taxes
on January reports are much larger than on the July reports. It will be seen that while there were sixteen months of the Cooke
administration, it only embraced the times for the receiving of two semi-annual reports and two semi-annual taxes, namely,
January, 1896, and July, 1896, while the fourteen and two-third months taken from Dr. Thompson's administration include the
return periods of January, 1897; July, 1897, and January, 1898.
"There are two taxes on insurance companies. The one is the commission tax, referred to above, and the other the specific
and license tax. The commission tax has been uniformly two per cent, but the law allowing a reduction of this tax to one per cent
for investment of the companies' receipts in this State has not been uniform in respect to its requirements. For years this reduction
was allowed on the investment of one-half of the premium receipts in this State, and a number of the insurance companies
complied with this law and only paid one per cent taxes on their receipts. In 1895, during the last year of Secretary Coke's
administration, the law was changed so as to require the investment in this State of one-fourth of the entire assets of the company
to secure this reduction. None of the companies, except those chartered in North Carolina, availed themselves of this new law.
This should be considered in favor of Colonel Coke and Colonel Saunders in considering the increase of the amount of taxes
collected by the Cooke and Thompson administrations over theirs. The license tax has been several times changed. At the
commencement of Col. Saunders' administration, in 1879, it was $100 on both fire and life insurance companies. It so continued
until the act of the Legislature preceeding the adoption of The Code in 1883, when it was raised to $120, and it was so written in
The Code. But in 1885, this license tax was reduced, both for fire and life insurance companies, to $50, and so continued to 1891,
when it was again increased to $100. In 1895 the tax on fire insurance companies was left at $100, but was increased to $200 on
life companies. In March, 1897, it was increased to $200 on fire companies and $250 on life companies. So it will be seen that
during the last year of the Coke administration, and during the Cooke
Page 163
administration, the license on fire insurance companies was twice what it was during six years of the Saunders administration, and
the license on life insurance companies was four times as great as during the said six years, and twice as much as it was during
Saunders' administration, from 1883, and all of the Coke administration, except the last year. Now, the tax during the Thompson
administration has been twice as great on the fire insurance companies as it was during the Cooke administration and of the Coke
administration, and the tax on life companies 150 per cent greater than in first three years of the Coke administration, and 25 per
cent greater than in the last year of Coke administration and during the Cooke administration.
According to the reports made by Secretary Cooke to the last General Assembly, the amounts collected by his predecessor
and himself and paid into the treasury on account of these insurance taxes for the two years preceding December 31, 1895, as
follows:
Insurance commission tax, 1895 (by Coke) $35,652.45

11
License tax, 1895 (by Coke) 10,016.59

45,669.04
Insurance commission tax, '96 (by Coke) $46,333.03
License tax, 1896 (by Cooke) 13,375.80
59,708.83
In addition to the above there was on deposit in the bank as part of the amount
2,966.14
and turned over to Secretary Thompson
62,674.97
"Dr. Thompson's books show that he collected during the first year of his administration, that is, up to January 1, 1898, as
follows:
For commission tax $59,057.01

I::=
I ===:::: I1:=======:
For license tax
:: I25,963.62 11
I I
85,020.63 I
"So it will be seen that the collections in 1896 under the Cooke administration exceeded the collections of 1895, the last year
of the Coke administration, by $17,005.45. The increase in 1896 over 1895 would be accounted for by the increase in the number
of insurance companies and the extension
Page 164
of the business. The increase of Secretary Thompson's administration for 1897 over 1896 would be accounted for by the increase
on the amount of the license tax--because of the higher rate, this alone would amount to something over $10,000--and a slight
increase in the number of companies, and the increase of the commission tax on account of extension of the business, which has
been much. Those who have not investigated the development of the insurance business of North Carolina have no idea as to
what extent and how rapidly it has continually grown in recent years. A reference to the annual statements of Secretary Cooke,
made in 1896, and to that of Secretary Thompson, made in 1897, shows that in one year this increase amounted to over a quarter
of a million dollars for sixteen life companies, and the increase in the commission tax thereon to more than five thousand dollars.
"The license year of insurance companies is from April to April. Some of the taxes aggregating over two thousand dollars,
due for the year commencing first of April, 1896, and ending first of April, 1897, which were collectible under the Cooke
administration, were collected by Secretary Thompson after he came into office. Some of these were from old companies which
had been doing business in the State for some time, and who had made their regular reports, and their solvency approved, but the
tax had not been paid, nor new licenses issued to the companies. The other companies were doing business without license and
without the knowledge of the Secretary of State, who had no means of detecting them in so doing. When these companies filed
reports at the beginning of 1897, these reports showed that they had been doing business in North Carolina in 1896; and
Secretary Thompson, as was always the rule of the office, collected the full amount of taxes which they should have paid in 1896,
before authorizing them to do business for 1897.
"It appears from the report of Capt. Coke that the collection, from the 1st of April, 1891, to April, 1895, amounted to
$166,994.60, an average of $41,498.65. Now, the fact that the amounts collected per year by Secretary Coke were less than the
amounts collected by Secretary Cooke and Secretary Thompson, ought not to be considered as any evidence of unfaithfulness on
the part of Secretary Coke, for the reasons: that it is accounted for by the increase of the license tax and the large extension of the
insurance. And this applies also to the collections made under Col. Saunders' administration. During the early years of his
administration
Page 165
the insurance business was insignificant as compared with what it is now; and during the last six years of his administration the
license tax was only $50 a year for all companies, whereas during Secretary Thompson's administration it is $250 a year for life
companies and $200 a year for fire companies. During these six years the annual amount of license tax could not have been more
than about $5,000. A greater injustice could not be done to the memory of this brave and honorable man than to suggest this as
ground for impeaching his character either for integrity or faithfulness.
"On the day of Dr. Thompson's qualification as Secretary of State I presented to him a balance-sheet, showing a balance on
depositt to the credit of Secretary of State on all accounts of $9,766.64, which amount I immediately turned over to him. I at the
same time tured over to him the books of the office, including two ledgers, which contained a full account of my administration of
the office. I believe Dr. Thompson is an intelligent and efficient officer. As he did not call my attention to any error found in the
office, I am obliged to conclude that he has given out no statement to any one which reflects in any way upon my administration of
the office, and that he is in no way responsible for the publication referred to in the beginning of this communication.
C. M. COOKE."
Page 166
A Chapter of Contrasts and Comparisons.
First--In the Nation.

The Republican Party stands for the single gold standard. The Democratic Party stands for the free and unlimited coinage of
both gold and silver.
The Republican Party stands for a high tariff tax levied mainly on that class of articles consumed chiefly by the farmer and the
laborer.
The Democratic Party stands for a low tariff tax on these articles.
The Republican Party stands for trusts and monopoly, and by its policies fosters the growth of these cormorants. The
Democratic Party is the implacable enemy of these instruments of oppression. A triumph of its policies would utterly destroy them.
The Republican Party favors raising the money to meet the war expenditures by a high tariff tax on consumption, by a
burdensome tax on business, and by issuing interest bearing bonds. The Democratic Party favors raising this money by a tax on
accumulated wealth, by the coinage of the silver bullion now in the treasury, and by issuing treasury notes.
The Republican Party stands for gold, and interest bearing bonds and bank notes redeemable in gold alone--the money of
the rich easily hoarded.
The Democratic Party stands for both gold and silver, and treasury notes redeemable in either, the money of both the rich and
the poor, which cannot be hoarded.
In the State.
The Republican Party in two years increased the bonded debt of the State millions upon millions of dollars, until this increase,
principal and interest, amounted, January, 1877, when the real Democratic period began, to over $25,000,000.
The Democratic Party reduced this debt by submitting to the voters of the State a constitutional amendment, repudiating the
fraudulent debt and by compromising the honest debt, so that the entire debt for which the people are taxed is only $3,615,000.
Page 167
The Republican Party destroyed the credit of the State. The Democratic Party restored it.
The Republican Party overrun many of the counties with debt and destroyed their credit. The Democratic Party, by honest
and economical management, paid off these debts and restored the credit of these counties, all the while reducing taxation.
The Republican Party misapplied and squandered the school fund and closed up the school-houses. The Democratic Party
created another fund and opened the school-houses.
The Republican Party, in its two years and more of power, from July 1, 1868, to September 30, 1870 (the end of the fiscal
year), used $370,569.19 of the school fund. Only $38,981.86 was used for the schools--the balance, to-wit, the sum of
$331,587.33 was misapplied or wasted.
The Democratic Party did not waste or misapply a single dollar, but by increasing the fund as rapidly as the condition of the
people would allow, it increased the expenditures for schools each year, commencing in the year 1877, with $289,213.32, and
ending in the year 1896 with $817,562.31.
The Republican Party taxed the people in 1869 eighty cents on the one hundred dollars worth of property, and made no
improvement whatever. The Democratic Party levied an average tax from 1877 to 1895 of twenty-three and one-half cents on the
one hundred dollars worth of property; and with this small rate of taxation it made vast improvements.
The Republican Party filled many of the local offices with negroes and incompetent white men. The Democratic Party
replaced those with fit and competent white men.
The Republican Party, through its Union Leagues and incompetent, lawless, corrupt officials, created and fostered a spirit of
lawlessness that culminated in the Kirk war, the arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of innocent men, the suspension of the writ
of habeas corpus, the exhaustion of the judiciary and the attempted trial of men charged with crime by military tribunals, in open
violation of the Constitution and laws of the State. The Democratic Party, through its wise laws and impartial, faithful officials,
restored and maintained law and order to every section of the State.
The Republican Party, by its ignorant, vicious officials demonstrated its utter inability to give security to life, liberty or property,
and as a consequence fear seized upon the people and a reign of terror swept over the State. The Democratic
Page 168
Party replaced these ignorant, venal officials with faithful, competent men, and demonstrated its ability and determination to give
protection to life, liberty and property; then fear gave way to confidence, and anxiety to security.
The Republican Party dishonored and disgraced the State. The Democratic Party wiped away these stains and made her
name and fame equal to that of any other State in the Union.
The Republican Party turned loose a lot of vampires on the State to suck her very life blood. The Democratic Party tore these
vile creatures loose and sent them away into the darkness of eternal infamy.
In election after election the Republican Party, with its dark and damnable record, went down in defeat before the Democratic
Party, with its pure and patriotic record.
In 1892 the Populist Party was organized for the avowed purpose of reforming the two old parties in National affairs. It wrote
reform in it platforms, emblazoned it on its banners and engraved it upon its press. It put up its own candidates and fought its own
battles for recognition in State and Nation. It inveighed against both the old parties in National affairs, but admitted that the
Democratic record in State affairs was good. It failed to make a lodgment that gave promise of future success.
In the campaign of 1894 the momentous question of the future of North Carolina was involved--whether the State should be
turned over to the party that had debauched and disgraced it or be kept in the hands of the party that had governed it wisely and
well. Near fifty thousand voters had cast their ballots for the Populist Party in 1892, so that party held the balance of power
between the two old parties, and could therefore determine the result of the election. It had the record of these two parties before
it, and, strange to say, the leaders of this party of reform sat down and deliberately planned and traded and bargained with the
Republican party in consideration of certain offices for themselves to turn the State over to the Republican Party disgraced as it is,
with its dark and damnable record; and then, in '96, for like consideration, the same disgraceful trade was confirmed by this same
party of reform.
Page 169
We now resume the contrast and comparison:
The Democratic Legislature of 1891 cost $63,018.01

The Democratic Legislature of 1893 cost 65,976.78
These were the last two Democratic Legislatures. and they cost 128,994.79
The Rep.-Pop. Reform Legislature of 1895 cost, $72,266.74
The Rep.-Pop. Reform Legislature of 1897 cost, 70,760.75
The two Rep.-Pop. Reform Legislatures cost, 143,027.49
So the two Rep.-Pop. Reform Legislatures cost the taxpayers $14,032.70 more than the two preceding Democratic
Legislatures.
Now, let us compare the costs of the State Government for the years 1891 and 1893, when Democratic Legislatures made
the appropriations, with the cost for the years 1895 and 1897, when Rep.-Pop. Reform Legislatures made the appropriations:
1891--cost of State Government $1,179,794.88

1893--cost of State Government 1,319,648.10
Cost for 1891 and 1893 (Democratic years), $2,499,444.95
II II I
Cost for 1895 and 1897 (Republican years), 2,713,383.94 11
Deducting the costs of the two Democratic years from the two Republican years, and we have this result--the two Republican
years cost the tax-payers $213,938.96 more than the two Democratic years.
We mention another item. It is not much, it is true, but it shows how reformers reform in little things. It was the custom for
years and years to pay the Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Insane Asylum at Raleigh $100 per year for recording their
proceedings. This is the most any Democratic Board ever thought of paying for that service. The Republican-Pupulist Fusion
Board elected one of their number clerk, and pay him $300 a year to record their proceedings. The Fusion Board pays three times
as much for the same service as the Democratic Board paid. But then they went for pie, and why should they not get as large a
slice as
Page 170
possible? If a small piece is good, a larger piece is better, seems to be their motto.
So it seems that as rank-set as the Populists started out as reformers, they have not been able to reform the Republicans.
These contrasts and comparisons might be carried further with interest and profit, but it is believed that enough has been said
along this line to show any fair-minded white man the path of duty in the coming election, when it is certain that either the
Democratic or Republican Party will be chosen to legislate for the State.
Page 171
Democratic Polity as to Property,
"We favor the enactment of such legislation as will encourage capital "to make investments within our State and we guarantee that the same
"shall be protected."
--DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM OF 1898.
Elsewhere in this book we have stated the record of the Democratic Party in reference to property and property rights. To that
record we point with pride and challenge the most searching scrutiny. The more it is searched and read the stronger will become
the confidence of all classes of our people in the wisdom and justice of the Democratic Party in its treatment of persons and
property. It would seem that a party with such a record could stand upon it; and with confidence, can challenge the support of
every citizen of the State who loves just and equitable laws for the encouragement of industries and the protection to property the
well as the rights of persons. But there has grown up in the State such a feeling of insecurity, under the present administration,
that the party thought it proper, in its recent State Convention, to re-state its position on this important question, and in pursuance
of this purpose it passed the resolution which stands at the head of this article.
We hold that good government means protection to property, as well as to persons; and that there can be no good
government without proper protection to life, to liberty, to property and to the pursuit of happiness. The fundamental law of the land
declares these to be the prime objects of government; and any discrimination in favor of one of these objects and against another,
or any warfare on one in favor of another, is a violation of this fundamental principle of government.
No State can be truly great that does not have an intelligent, honest, virtuous, independent, self-reliant population. It must
also possess resources of wealth, in which the thrift, enterprise, industry and energy of the people may engage. Its laws and
administration of justice must be such as to encourage the investment of capital and to guarantee its fair treatment. Intelligence
and virtue and justice must preside in all its courts, and be the constant attendants of all its ministers.
North Carolina, in our opinion, possesses the people and
Page 172
the resources to make her truly a great State, and it but needs the rule and voice and power of the virtuous, intelligent portion of its
population and the investment of capital in her resources to give profitable employment to all her people, to place her in the front
rank of the States of this Union. As we have elsewhere said in this book, the favorable and necessary conditions to investment,
growth and development cannot exist under Republican rule in which the negro and the vicious elements predominate. The
Democratic Party is therefore acting for the best interest of all the people when it seeks to regain power and to re-establish an
administration which shall promote investments, encourage the starting up of new industries, thus affording larger opportunities to
the laboring man and his family, and guarantee justice and protection to all classes of property. Its invitation to capital to seek
investment, and its guarantee to protect it, are not meaningless words. It desires this investment to take place, because it is for the
good of the laborer as well as of the investor. It pledges itself to protect these investments because justice and honor and the good
of the State alike require it.
It is a significant fact, and one that should be constantly borne in mind, that under Democratic rule in this State there was
never any conflict between labor and capital--both worked in harmony for the upbuilding of the State under just and equitable laws.
Everything was done that could be done for the promotion, protection and elevation of the laborer. And just here we wish to bear
testimony to the conservatism of the laborers of North Carolina. We have never known them to be unreasonable in their demands
upon any of the departments of the government. All they have asked is to have laws which give them an even chance in the race
of life, and which foster and guard and protect the fruits of their labor with the same jealous care that thay do the fruits of the
investments of the capitalist. This is more noteworthy when it is remembered that the intelligent laborer, in shop and field, and the
man of small means, form the bulk of the Democratic Party, and they can and do shape its destiny and control its action. The
conservative force these classes of our people exert in their communities marks the party to which they belong as the best and
safest for the State. They are the people, and it is their party.
If, at times in State and in Nation, large aggregations of wealth make unreasonable demands or undertake to exercise
unlawful power, or to make oppressive rules and regulations,
Page 173
it is no reason why a general warfare should be made on property. The proper thing to do is to deal with these instances with a
strong hand, and to compel obedience to just and equitable laws, made for their suppression or supervision. To such a course as
this the North Carolina Democracy stands pledged. The party has no prejudices, and it can have none against any class of
property. Under Democratic policies every class of property must obey the laws and contribute its fair proportion to the support of
the government, and then must receive, in return, like equitable treatment. Equal opportunities to all and special privileges to none
is an axiom as true of property as of persons. When, therefore, our party invites capital to enter into the enterprises and industries
of the State and guarantees to it protection, it re-affirms its long and honorable record, from 1876 to 1896.
It is common history that a new life, a new energy, a nobler impulse and a higher aspiration seized upon our people upon the
accession to power of the Democratic Party after the dark night of Republican misrule. Under this new life, nobler impulse and
higher aspirations, the State went bounding forward as never before. If it shall please the people to call this party back into power,
after this second era of Republican misrule, we confidently believe that the industries, the enterprises and energies of the people
will again receive and respond to the influences of these higher ideals, nobler life and loftier aspirations, and that the State will
again bound forward in intellectual, moral and material development. We believe, from the great deep of our hearts, that the best
interests of the State and all her people are wrapped up in the success of the Democratic Party. Becase we love our State and her
people, and want to see her great and them prosperous and happy, we appeal to the capitalists, to the property-holder and laborer
alike, to restore to power the only party which has shown its ability to lead the State and her people in the paths of progress, of
peace and of prosperity.
Page 174
The Silver Question.

The silver question is something more than a mere policy in regard to the circulating medium. As important as an abundant
supply of money is to our people, the foundations of the silver question lie even deeper than that. It not only involves the volume of
money, but the value of money; and since the value of all commodities and property is affected by the value of money, the silver
question has a direct bearing on the value of property of every kind whatsoever. Its importance is thus seen at a single glance to
be so high as to take it out of the category of merely partisan issues on which the voters divide to-day, but which are soon
forgotten in the presence of some newer questions.
It has been the teaching of the best political economists, both in England and in this country, that the joint use of gold and
silver at a fixed ratio gave a more stable standard of value than the use of either metal alone could give, and that by the adoption
of the single gold standard, and the rejection of silver as a standard of value, money has appreciated, and all property values have
correspondingly fallen.
Thirty years ago the prosperity of the people of Europe as well as of this country was at its highest tide. Aside from those
communities where local influences caused an exceptional depression, the people of the civilized world generally were enjoying
the most splendid prosperity recorded in the annals of history. It was in that era of wide-spread competency and general prosperity
that without much, if any, consideration on the part of the masses, the fateful step was taken of making gold the single standard of
value. The evils that necessarily attended the change were much mitigated by the action of various countries; and especially here
in the United States was the baleful effect of this step mitigated by the passage of the Bland Act in 1877, and by various other acts
subsequently thereto. But, nevertheless, this country, like all other countries, has greatly suffered in consequence.
Nothing could entirely arrest the development of this country, whose free institutions and fertile lands and wonderful
opportunities attracted millions of foreigners to our thriving towns and Western territories. For years the wealth
Page 175
created in the process of developing our resources lulled the people into a state of indifference as to the working of the new
system. But the Democratic leaders at the South early saw the dangers and, raising their voices against the demonitization of
silver, demanded its immediate restoration as a full money metal.
North Carolina Democrats for Silver.

In particular were the Democrats of North Carolina emphatic and persistent in their declarations in favor of silver.
In every Convention of the party, since the earliest agitation of the silver question, they have declared in plain and explicit
terms for the free and unlimited coinage of silver, and such was the position of the Democratic Party in North Carolina long prior to
the agitation that led to the birth and formation of the Populist Party.
The record of our public men will be searched in vain to find a single utterance against the full remonitization of silver, until
about the time of the panic of 1893. In that memorable year of panic and distress President Cleveland used all the powers of his
high office to turn the Democratic Party away from its advocacy of silver, and a few of our public men and some of the business
men of North Carolina followed his lead. But the Democratic Party in the State never wavered. It rejected the counsels of those
who adopted the new ideas, and rallied closer and closer around the old banner of North Carolina Democracy.
At the opening of the succeeeding campaign, it sent a solid silver delegation to the National Democratic Convention, and its
voice was for the nomination of that wonderful leader who electrified the continent with his earnest declaration, "You shall not
press this crown of thorns upon the brow of labor nor crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Soon afterward the Populist Party,
which had formerly in this State insisted on the Sub-treasury Bill as the only practicable measure of financial relief, was also
holding its National Convention, and was ardently supporting silver. These two organizations, having the same purpose in regard
to silver, made common cause against the Republican Party, whose adherence to the gold standard was well understood. At the
election of 1896 the Democrats in North Carolina had no candidate from Governor down to constable who was not for free silver;
and every Democratic candidate for Congress was for free silver and a Bryan man.
Page 176
In this year of grace, 1898, the same condition prevails. The Democratic nominees will all stand for the advocacy of the white
metal.
Populists Help the Gold-Bugs.

In the election of 1896, however, the Populists, while supporting Bryan, voted for many gold-bugs--gold-bugs for Congress,
gold-bugs for the Legislature, gold-bugs for county offices. And when the Legislature met in January, 1897, some of the very
Populists who voted for Bryan and free silver, voted for Pritchard and the gold standard and sent a gold standard man to
misrepresent this State whose voters had given Bryan and free silver a majority of twenty thousand over McKinley and the gold
standard!
The course of the Populists in coalescing with the anti-silver Republicans is extraordinary and makes it questionable as to
how earnest they are in their devotion to silver. They used to say that birds of a feather flock together; and never have we seen
such an inconsistent association as the co-operation of silver men and gold-bugs.
Republicans Against Silver.
In 1878, twenty years ago, Stanley Matthews introduced in the United States Senate a set of resolutions to the effect that the
bonds and other debts of the United States were payable in coin," and therefore were payable in standard silver dollars. That
resolution goes to the very root of the silver question.
Last winter Senator Teller introduced those resolutions over again, and they passed the Senate. But in the House only one
Republican voted for them, while one hundred and eighty Republicans voted against them.
Now how can a silver Populist with any conscience at all vote to strengthen a party in Congress that is so pronounced
against silver as all that? Only one for and one hundred and eighty against! The only Republican who voted for it was Linney, of
this State, who was indoctrinated with silver doctrine when he formerly was a Democrat; but even he explained that he was not
now in favor of free coinage.
Again, when Mr. Gage, the present Secretary of the Treasury under McKinley, was before the committee of the House
explaining his views on currency, he started out by saying that the measure he proposed was intended by him to have the effect of
strengthening the gold standard and to commit the country more thoroughly to it.
Page 177
To strengthen the gold standard was his first aim; and President McKinley repeated the same declaration at the great
banquet of the New York manufacturers a few days afterward. Indeed, the Republican Party at the North is almost unanimous on
that line. What process of reasoning the Populists of North Carolina use to satisfy themselves with politically affiliating with these
gold-bugs and strengthening them in Congress, we cannot understand. It passes all comprehension. They try to run with the hare
and hold with the hounds, to be two very inconsistent things at one and the same time.
As earnest advocates of silver, as men who seek to promote the welfare of their country by securing silver legislation, as men
zealously striving to lay broad the foundations of the people's prosperity and to obtain for ourselves and our posterity relief from
the trusts and combines and the oppression of the gold standard, we protest that the Populists should not play hide and seek with
this great question in such a puerile fashion; we protest that they should not claim to be silver men and then vote for gold-bug
Republicans. They have a right to be one thing or another; but they have no right to wear the livery of heaven to serve the devil in.
Democrats Opposed to Trusts and Monopolies.

The Democratic Party is no ephemeral, time-serving association, organized only for the spoils of office and playing for what is
in sight. It is a grand organization, based on the enduring principles of popular government, and teaching the correct view of our
duplex constitutional system. Its measures are moulded by the constantly varying conditions of the masses of our people and the
changes that circumstances bring; but the underlying priniciples of its measures, the policy and purposes to be served, are ever
the same. It is the party of men as distinguished from property; it is for the brotherhood of man rather than for the associated
wealth of the country. It is for the happiness of the men and women of the country, in preference to gratifying the avarice of sordid
greed.
In all its history, from Jefferson's day to the present, it has strenuously opposed the influences of aggregated capital, seeking
to dominate the flesh and blood of our country. It has ever opposed trusts and combines. Jackson, conscious of its strength,
moved forward as its leader in the great fight against the money power when he was President. Sustained by the Democracy, he
overthrew the monster in his day.
Page 178
Democratic Tariff.
The sectional tariff that the New England manufacturers had fastened on the country was opposed by the Democratic Party
because it put the manufacturing communities into a trust that levied tribute under the forms of law upon the agricultural States.
Finally, the hold of the tariff combine was broken, and new tariff laws were made by the Democrats, which gave much
prosperity to the country; and in the period of Democratic rule, just before the civil war, when the tariff was the lowest ever known
in this country, the subject was eliminated from politics, and no political platforms contained any reference to it. The wisdom of the
Democratic Party was at that period fully exemplified in the wonderful results of their tariff policy.
Since the war the Democrats have constantly urged correct principles of tariff reform; but the hold which tariff robbers got
during the period of Republican rule proved too strong to be broken until during Cleveland's last administration. After that the
Democratic Party, largely weakened by the defection of the Populists, lost their power, and the Republicans again came in and
enacted the Dingley Bill into law. But the good seeds had been sown. The country had a brief taste of Democratic tariff, and during
this year large and important meetings of manufacturers in New England have declared in favor of the underlying principles of the
Democratic policy. Those principles are founded on common sense, common honesty, and true patriotism; and they will win.
The War and Our Victories.

It is most earnestly hoped that before this book is published the war with Spain will have closed with great honor to our
country, whose glorious victories by sea and land have exalted the American name and illuminated the history of the world with the
deeds of heroism performed by our brave sailors and soldiers in distant countries. Words are too cold to give full expression to our
warm admiration for those who have startled the world by such a magnificent display of American skill and American valor. We
glory in the annihilation of a Spanish fleet at far-off Manila; we glory in Schley's still greater victory, that makes July the 3d
memorable in naval warfare; and we glory in those brilliant
Page 179
achievements on land that forced the surrender of Santiago and of twenty-three thousand Spanish soldiers to our brave little army
and that have given us a foothold in Porto Rico without much sacrifice. As North Carolinians we feel a particular pride in the daring
and heroism of Hobson and Blue, whose kin live among us, and we mourn with the families of Bagley and Shipp, who fell as
heroes fall, and whose memories will long be cherished by their sorrowing countrymen.
But as glorious as have been the results of the war, we believe that the prime object for which it was waged could have been
obtained without the loss of life and the heavy burdens it has entailed. The war was undertaken to free Cuba from the vile
government which was an offence against civilization. We believe that, had the Republican administration acted as vigorously a
year ago as it has since hostilities began, the prime object would have been accomplished without the loss of a single life or the
expenditure of any treasure. The blowing up of the Maine was a bold act of Spanish malignity that sought that devilish channel to
manifest itself, because our Government dallied with the matter instead of boldly asserting itself at the right time.
But, however that may be, we give full credit to the Republican administration for the action it has taken since hostilities
began. In the time of our country's need we have all been patriots. And we all stand together in demanding that the Spanish flag
shall disappear forever from the islands to the south of us; and that Cuba shall be free and that Porto Rico shall be ceded to these
United States.
How Should the Cost Be Paid?

And yet differences have arisen among us. We have differed with the Republicans as to how the expenses of the war should
be borne.
The Republicans have thought it wise and proper to lay heavy taxes on the current business of the country in order to raise
the necessary cash; and to issue bonds that bear interest and tend to make perpetual the heavy bonded debt of the country.
The Democrats, we say, differed with the Republicans as to that policy. The Democrats proposed to raise the necessary cash
by coining the silver bullion piled up in the Treasury, and obtained by the government as "seignorage." This bullion belongs to the
people of this Union, and the
Page 180
Government is as free to coin it and use the money, when made, as if it were so much gold bullion bought and paid for and lying
idle in the Treasury vaults.
The Democrats also proposed to issue as many greenbacks as might be necessary; and then they further proposed to lay
necessary taxes, but not entirely on the business of the country, but to make the wealth of the country contribute its share and pay
its part of the public burden.
In a word, the Democrats proposed that there should be a reasonable income tax; but to this the Republicans would not
listen, and they had the majority.
So the income tax was rejected; the proposition to issue more greenbacks was rejected; the proposition to coin the silver
bullion lying idle in the Treasury was rejected. And a thoroughly Republican measure was adopted laying heavier tariff taxes, and
taxing many sorts of occupations, and taxing business--all of which taxes in the end are paid by the consumers--but letting
incomes and wealth generally go scot free.
It is for the people to express their mind on this question. Which policy do they approve? If they approve the war taxes laid by
the Republicans; if they think it best for these taxes to be laid; if they approve the issue of interest-bearing bonds and the other
steps of the administration tending to strengthen the gold standard; let them vote to sustain that policy. But if they think it would
have been better to have resorted to the means the Democrats proposed to carry on the war, let them vote with the Democrats.
What We Asked for and What We Got.

The campaign of 1896 was waged on the money issue, involving a discussion of the quantity, kind and price of money, and
the price of farm products. There was a general consensus in the demands of the people of North Carolina.
We demanded more money. We got more taxes.
We demanded cheaper money. We got cheaper farm products.
We demanded higher prices for our cotton. We got higher taxes on manufactured cotton goods.
We demanded higher prices for what we had to sell, and we got higher prices for what we had to buy.
Page 181
We demanded more United States Treasury notes with which to do the business of the country, and we got more interest-
bearing-bonds.
We demanded the free and unlimited coinage of silver as well as of gold. We got the gold standard more tightly fixed upon
the country.
We demanded an income tax upon the accumulated wealth of the country, and we got a heavy tax on the business of the
country.
We demanded that the fellow with his million of income should pay some tax, and we got a tax put upon ourselves when we
give a check or a draft or note.
This is the way the Republican Party has treated our demands. The Populists united with the Democrats in making these
demands. In fact, they were persistent in urging them. Will they now co-cperate with the Republican Party? Can they do it and live
as a party? We shall see.
Last Year's Deficit.
Assistant Secretary Howell, of the U. S. Treasury, made public, August 3d, some statements in regard to the receipts and
disbursements of the United States Government for the year beginning July 1, 1897, and ending June 30, 1898. Leaving off the
items concerning the Pacific Railroad, the receipts were $340,570,111; and the expenditures were $438,819,214, showing a deficit
of $98,249,103. This large deficit is accounted for in part by the extraordinary demands on the Treasury to carry on the war. Mr.
Howell thinks that a conservative estimate of the war expenditures during the months of March, April, May and June is
$56,000,000. If we deduct that, the deficit would be $42,249,103. But then some "war taxes" came into the Treasury before June
30, 1898, and in view of those increased taxes there were great quantities of tobacco "tax-paid" in May and June, which otherwise
would not have been "tax-paid" then. The Treasury doubtless received because of the war taxes $20,000,000. So we may
compute that the Dingley tariff bill has failed to raise enough revenue by $62,000,000. As a revenue measure, the Dingley tariff bill
has not been a success.
Page 182
Democratic National Platform.

[ADOPTED AT CHICAGO, JULY 9, 1896.]
Preamble--Against Centralization.
We, the Democrats of the United States, in National Convention assembled, do reaffirm our allegiance to the essential
principles of justice and liberty upon which our institutions are founded, and which the Democratic Party has advocated from
Jefferson's time to our own--freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, the preservation of personal rights,
the equality of all citizens before the law and the faithful observance of Constitutional limitations.
During all these years the Democratic Party has resisted the tendency of selfish interests to the centralization of
Governmental power, and steadfastly maintained the integrity of the dual system of government established by the founders of this
Republic of republics. Under its guidance and teachings the great principle of local self-government has found its best expression
in the maintenance of the rights of the States and in its assertion of the necessity of confining the general Government to the
exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States guarantees to every
citizen the rights of civil and religious liberty. The Democratic Party has always been the exponent of political liberty and religious
freedom, and renews its obligations and reaffirms its devotion to these fundamental principles of the Constitution.
The Money Question.

Recognizing that the money question is paramount to all others at this time, we invite attention to the fact that the Federal
Constitution names silver and gold together as the money metals of the United States, and that the first coinage law passed by
Congress under the Constitution made the silver dollar the monetary unit and admitted gold to a free coinage at a ratio based
upon the silver dollar unit.
We declare that the Act of 1873, demonetizing silver without the knowledge or approval of the American people, has resulted
in the appreciation of gold and a corresponding fall in the prices of commodities produced by the people; a
Page 183
heavy increase in the burden of taxation and of all debts, public and private, the enrichment of the money-lending class at home
and abroad, and the prostration of industry and impoverishment of the people.
We are unalterably opposed to monometalism, which has locked fast the prosperity of an industrial people in the paralysis of
hard times. Gold monometalism is a British policy, and its adoption has brought other nations into financial servitude to London. It
is not only un-American, but anti-American, and it can be fastened on the United States only by the stifling of that spirit and love of
liberty which proclaimed our political independence in 1776 and won it in the War of the Revolution.
We demand the free and unlimited coinage of both silver and gold at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the
aid or consent of any other nation. We demand that the standard silver dollar shall be a full legal tender, equally with gold, for all
debts, public and private, and we favor such legislation as will prevent for the future the demonetization of any kind of legal tender
money by private contract.
We are opposed to the policy and practice of surrendering to the holders of the obligations of the United States the option
reserved by law to the Government of redeeming such obligations in either silver coin or gold coin.
We are opposed to the issuing of interest-bearing bonds of the United States in time of peace, and condemn the trafficking
with banking syndicates which, in exchange for bonds and at an enormous profit to themselves, supply the Federal Treasury with
gold to maintain the policy of gold monometalism.
Congress alone has the power to coin and issue money, and President Jackson declared that this power could not be
delegated to corporations or individuals. We, therefore, denounce the issuance of notes intended to circulate as money by
National banks as in derogation of the Constitution; and we demand that all paper which is made a legal tender for public and
private debts, or which is receivable for dues to the United States, shall be issued by the Government of the United States, and
shall be redeemable in coin.
The Tariff.
We hold that tariff duties should be levied for purposes of revenue, such duties to be so adjusted as to operate equally
throughout the country and not discriminate between class
Page 184
or section, and that taxation should be limited by the needs of the Government honestly and economically administered.
We denounce as disturbing to business the Republican threat to restore the McKinley law, which has been twice condemned
by the people in National elections, and which, enacted under the false plea of protection to home industry, proved a prolific
breeder of trusts and monopolies, enriched the few at the expense of the many, restricted trade and deprived the producers of the
great American staples of access to their natural markets.
The Income Tax.

Until the money question is settled, we are opposed to any agitation for further changes in our tariff laws, except such as are
necessary to meet the deficit in revenue caused by the adverse decision of the Supreme Court on the income tax. But for this
decision by the Supreme Court there would be no deficit in the revenue under the law passed by a Democratic Congress, in strict
pursuance of the uniform decisions of that Court for nearly one hundred years, that Court having in that decision sustained
Constitutional objections to its enactment which had previously been overruled by the ablest judges who have ever sat on that
bench.
We declare that it is the duty of Congress to use all the Constitutional power which remains after that decision, or which may
come from its reversal by the Court as it may hereafter be constituted, so that the burdens of taxation may be equally and
impartially laid, to the end that wealth may bear its due proportion of the expenses of the Government.
Protection for Labor.

We hold that the most efficient way to protect American labor is to prevent the importation of foreign pauper labor to compete
with it in the home market, and that the value of the home market to our American farmers and artisans is greatly reduced by a
vicious monetary system which depresses the prices of their products below the cost of production, and thus deprives them of the
means of purchasing the products of our home manufactories; and, as labor creates the wealth of the country, we demand the
passage of such laws as may be necessary to protect it in all its rights.
We are in favor of the arbitration of differences between employers engaged in interstate commerce and their employees,
and recommend such legislation as is necessary to carry out this principle.
Page 185
Railroad Trusts and Pools.
The absorption of wealth by the few, the consolidation of our leading railroad systems, and the formation of trusts and pools,
require a stricter control by the Federal Government of those arteries of commerce. We demand the enlargement of the powers of
the Interstate Commerce Commission, and such restriction and guarantees in the control of railroads as will protect the people
from robbery and oppression.
Economy in Federal Expenditures.

We denounce the profligate waste of the money wrung from the people by oppressive taxation and the lavish appropriations
of recent Republican Congresses which have kept taxes high, while the labor that pays them is unemployed and the products of
the people's toil are depressed in price till they no longer repay the cost of production. We demand a return to that simplicity and
economy which befits a Democratic Government and a reduction in the number of useless offices, the salaries of which drain the
substance of the people.
Home Rule.
We denounce arbitrary interference by Federal authorities in local affairs as a violation of the Constitution of the United States
and a crime against free institutions, and we especially object to government by injunction as a new and highly dangerous form of
oppression by which Federal Judges, in contempt of the laws of the States and rights of the citizens, become at once legislators,
judges and executioners; and we approve the bill passed at the last session of the United States Senate and now pending in the
House of Representatives relative to contempts in Federal Courts and providing for trials by jury in certain cases of contempt.
Pacific Railroad Debt.

No discrimination should be indulged by the Government of the United States in favor of any of its debtors. We approve of the
refusal of the Fifty-third Congress to pass the Pacific Railroad Funding Bill, and denounce the effort of the present Republican
Congress to enact a similar measure.
Pensions.
Recognizing the just claims of deserving Union soldiers, we heartily endorse the rule of the present Commissioner of
Page 186
Pensions that no names shall be arbitrarily dropped from the pension roll, and the fact of enlistment and service should be
deemed conclusive evidence against disease or disability before enlistment.
The Territories.
We favor the admission of the Territories of New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona into the Union as States, and we favor the
early admission of all the Territories having the necessary population and resources to entitle them to statehood, and while they
remain Territories we hold that the officials appointed to administer the government of any Territory, together with the District of
Columbia and Alaska, should be bona fide residents of the Territory or District in which their duties are to be performed. The
Democratic Party believes in home rule, and that all public lands of the United States should be appropriated to the establishment
of free homes for American citizens. We recommend that the Territory of Alaska be granted a delegate in Congress, and that the
general land and timber laws of the United States be extended to said Territory.
The Monroe Doctrine.

The Monroe doctrine, as originally declared, and as interpreted by succeeding Presidents, is a permanent part of the foreign
policy of the United States and must at all times be maintained.
Sympathy for Cuba.

We extend our sympathy to the people of Cuba in their heroic struggle for liberty and independence.
Life Tenures.
We are opposed to life tenure in the public service. We favor appointments based upon merit, fixed terms of office, and such
an administration of the Civil Service laws as will afford equal opportunities to all citizens of ascertained fitness.
The Third Term.

We declare it to be the unwritten law of this Republic, established by custom and usage of one hundred years, and
sanctioned by the examples of the greatest and wisest of those who founded and have maintained our Government, that no man
should be eligible for a third term of the Presidential office.
Page 187
The Great Waterways.

The Federal Government should care for and improve the Mississippi River and other great waterways of the Republic, so as
to secure for the interior States easy and cheap transportation to tide-water. When any waterway of the Republic is of sufficient
importance to need aid of the Government, such aid should be extended upon a definite plan of continuous work until permanent
improvement is secured.
Confiding in the justice of our cause and the necessity of its success at the polls, we submit the foregoing declaration of
principles and purposes to the considerate judgment of the American people. We invite the support of all citizens who approve
them and who desire to have them made effective through legislation for the relief of the people and the restoration of the
country's prosperity.
Page 188
Democratic State Platform.

[ADOPTED MAY 26, 1898.]
The Democratic Party of North Carolina, in Convention assembled in Raleigh, N. C., on this day, May 26, 1898, do hereby
approve, indorse and ratify, the last Democratic National and State platform, and pledge our earnest support to the principles
therein expressed.
We denounce the Republican Party for the passage of the Dingley tariff bill, which has increased the burdens of taxation
upon our consumers and given the trusts and monopolists greater power to rob the people.
Believing that under our present methods of Federal taxation that more than three-quarters of our National revenues are paid
by people owning less than one-quarter of the property of the country, we protest against such inequality and injustice, and in
order to remedy, to some extent, this great wrong, we favor an income tax, and favor all constitutional methods to sustain it.
We denounce the Republican Party for its defeat of the Teller resolutions declaring our National bonds payable in silver as
well as in gold, and denounce it for its determined purpose of more thoroughly fastening the single gold standard upon our people,
and for its avowed hostility to the free and unlimited coinage of silver, as well as gold, at the ratio of 16 to 1 into full legal tender
money.
We denounce the Republican Party for its determination to issue bonds at this time, and we denounce the Republican war-
tax bill which lately passed the House of Representatives as unjust, unequal in its burdens, unnecessary and vexatious, and we
demand that the silver seigniorage be coined; that an income tax be levied, and that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized
to issue the necessary amount of full legal tender greenbacks, or United States Treasury notes in order to meet the expenses of
the war with Spain and to supply the revenue deficit under the Dingley Bill.
While we deplore the war with Spain, we pledge our earnest support to the Government in all honorable ways to effect a
speedy and successful conclusion of hostilities.
We favor a union of the silver forces of the country in the Congressional elections, and cordially invite all voters, without
Page 189
regard to past political affiliations, to unite with us in support of our candidates for Congress who favor the free coinage of silver,
thus giving practical force and effect to the recommendation of our Democratic National Chairman, Hon. James K. Jones, and to
the Congressional committee.
That we admire and commend without stint the great and gallant fight made by Hon. William J. Bryan in the last National
campaign for the success of our party and the principles of our platform.
We denounce the scandal, extravagance, incompetency and corruption of the present Republican State administration.
We denounce all enactments of the last two Legislatures by which cities and towns in the State have been turned over to
negro domination, and we pledge ourselves to enact such laws as will give security and protection to the property and people of
every town and community in the State.
We denounce the placing of negroes on committees to supervise white schools, and we pledge ourselves, if restored to
power, to enact such legislation as will make this impossible.
We denounce all legislation enacted by the Legislatures of 1895 and 1897 for carrying out the base and partisan designs of
the Republican Party.
We denounce the placing of ignorant, irresponsible and corrupt men in office.
We oppose the removal by corporations of suits or cases from our State to the Federal Courts, and favor legislation to
prevent it.
We favor fair and just election laws.
We favor a government of the people, by the people and for the people--economy in expenditure, the abolition of
unnecessary offices, decency in administration, constant improvement in our educational system, charity to the unfortunate, and
rule by the white men of the State.
We favor the extension of the powers of the Railroad Commission, and closer scrutiny into their affairs in order to ascertain,
establish and maintain such rates as shall be fair and just to the people and to the transportation and tranmission corporations.
We condemn free passes.
We favor the election of United States Senators and Railroad Commissioners by the people.
We favor the enactment of such legislation as will encourage capital to make investments within our State, and guarantee
that the same shall be justly protected.
Page 190
We call attention to the wise, economical, honest and honorable administration of the affairs of our State for twenty years
prior to the present Republican administration, and promise the people a return of wise, honest, economical and honorable
administration under Democratic success. We call upon every believer in honor, honesty and economy, upon every advocate of
white supremacy, upon every advocate of equal and just taxation, upon every advocate of the income tax and opponent of
plundering tariff taxation, upon every advocate of the restoration of silver and opponent of the single gold standard and the present
issue of bonds, as threatened by the Republican Party, upon every opponent of government by injunction and advocate of the
jurisdiction of State courts over cases arising in the State against corporations doing business therein, upon every lover of
decency and good government and opponents of the present prevailing conditions, to unite with us in our contest with the
Republican Party--the great enemy of our principles, and aid us in redeeming the Nation from the clutches of greed and injustice,
and the State from the scandal and incompetence which now afflict it.
Page 191
The People's Party Platform.

[ADOPTED MAY 17, 1898.]
The People's Party of North Carolina, in Convention assembled at Raleigh, on the 17th day of May, 1898, affirms its
unqualified allegiance to the principles of the party, and hereby approves the platform of the People's Party adopted at its National
Convention held in the city of St. Louis, July 22, 1896.
The Election Law.

We hereby reaffirm our fixed determination to support and maintain a free ballot and a fair count in all elections held in North
Carolina. To this end we contend that it is of vital importance for each political party to have on all election boards, representatives
of their own selection. We condemn the Republican Party and those who joined with it in the last Legislature to strike this just,
essential and vital provision from the election law of 1895; and we pledge ourselves to use our best efforts in the next Legislature
to re-enact this provision into law.
Local Self-Government.
We are in favor of guaranteeing to the respective counties the right of local self-government by the election of their county
commissioners and justices of the peace by the vote of the people, under proper safeguards, to guarantee the best possible
government to each county; and we pledge the People's Party to the continued support and maintenance of that principle, and
warn the voters of the danger of electing members of the General Assembly hostile thereto.
Gold Notes and Mortgages.

We believe that all money demands should be payable in the lawful money of the United States, without preference or
discrimination, and therefore favor the passage by the General Assembly of a law to prohibit the taking or giving of gold notes,
bonds and mortgages in this State, and to make all the money demands solvable in any kind of lawful money of the United States.
To avenge the Maine, to advance Republican institutions,
Page 192
and in the interests of humanity, the brutal and treacherous Spaniard should be driven from the Western Hemisphere, and a
Republican form of government established in the islands which she has misgoverned, robbed, persecuted and pillaged.
Against Issuing Interest-Bearing Bonds.

We condemn the present National administration for its efforts to fasten upon the people and future generations the burden of
interest-bearing bonds, and for endorsing and carrying out the infamous bond and monopoly policy of the preceding administration
of Grover Cleveland.
We commend the action of the Populists, Silver Republicans and Silver Democrats in Congress for their wise, brave and
patriotic course in solidly co-operating to strike out the bond provision of the pending war revenue bill, and to substitute therefor an
issue of greenbacks and the coinage of the silver seigniorage to carry on the war.
Interest.
We pledge ourselves to maintain the six per cent interest law, enacted by the General Assembly of 1895.
Public Schools.
The action of the People's Party members of the last two General Assemblies has demonstrated beyond question that the
People's Party has been true to its antecedent platform declarations in favor of public education. We demand still further improving
and broadening the public school system of the State as rapidly as a proper regard for the interests of the taxpayers and the
resources of the State will permit. We also favor such revision of our present school system as may increase the efficiency of our
public schools and insure the most competent and effective supervision.
Non-Partisan Judiciary.
Our judiciary should be kept above the plane of partisan politics. To this end we appeal to all good citizens to join us in our
efforts to make a non-partisan judiciary an established and permanent feature of our State Government.
Reformatory for Young Criminals.

We favor the establishment of a State institution for the reformation of young criminals.
Page 193
Free Passes.
We call attention to the interference of railroad corporations in our politics as one of the greatest sources of corruption in our
State and National governments. Free passes and other favoritisms and discriminations are among the most poisonous and
effective weapons to corrupt politics and defeat the will of the people in Legislative halls. Therefore we favor a law not only
forbidding the giving of free passes and other favoritisms and discriminations, but also forbidding any one except the actual
employees of said corporations from receiving the same.
Election of Railroad Commissioners by the People.

No State has a better railroad commission law than North Carolina; but the public has not received the benefit the law was
designed to produce on account of the failure of our Railroad Commissioners to do their duty under the law. As one remedy for
this evil we are in favor of the election of Railroad Commissioners by a direct vote of the people.
Reduction of Freight and Passenger Rates.
We favor a reduction of freight, express and passenger rates, telegraph and telephone tariffs to the same level to which the
general range of prices of products has fallen under the gold standard. If the Railroad Commission continues to refuse to do its
duty in this respect, we are in favor of such reduction being made directly by the next Legislature.
North Carolina Railroad Lease.

We condemn the lease of the North Carolina Railroad to the Southern Railway Company for ninety-nine years, not only as a
bad business transaction in which the interest of the State amounting to the large sum of $3,000,000, invested in good paying
property, yielding an income, was sacrificed; but we also, in most emphatic terms, condemn the hasty and secret manner in which
it was done several years before the former thirty-year lease, by its terms, would have expired. We call the attention of the people
of the State to the fact that the mysterious power of a strong railroad lobby prevented the last Legislature from enacting the
necessary legislation to enable the State to make an investigation through the proper legal channels, of the transaction, which was
so universally condemned by the press of the State and all classes of citizens when it first became known.
Page 194
We therefore demand that the next General Assembly fully investigate this transaction, and to the end that the interests of the
State may be fully protected as far as it can be done, such legislative action shall be taken as to counteract, as far as possible, this
unwise and secret transaction.
Removal of Cases.
The removal of cases from the State Courts to the Federal Courts for trial, and especially cases wherein the plaintiffs are
poor persons and the defendants are rich foreign corporations, on application of defendants, is a growing evil in North Carolina,
and in its practical operation frequently amounts to a denial of justice to poor suitors, and therefore should be condemned. We
demand, therefore, that the next General Assembly shall pass such a general statute on this subject, including an alien law similar
to the Wisconsin statute, so as to take from such corporations doing business in this State the privileges of carrying on business in
North Carolina and withdrawing the protection of the State extended to their business, if they persist in escaping the jurisdiction of
our Courts when actions are brought against them. We also recommend a constitutional prohibition of the purchase, lease or
rental of parallel or competing railway lines.
A Just Distribution of the Burdens of Taxation.

We advocate such legislation as will insure a just listing and taxation of all evidences of debt, and make an equitable
adjustment of the burden of taxation between the debtor and a creditor.
Reduction of Salaries.
In order to keep our public servants in thorough touch and sympathy with the oppressed masses, and to check to some
extent the scramble for office, we demand a reduction of salaries until such a time as through an increase of the currency the price
of property and products will justify the present rates.
The Rule of the People.

We favor the principle of direct legislation known as the Iniative and Referendum, in order to restore and preserve the rule of
the people. It will not be opposed by any Democrat who endorses the declaration of Jefferson that the people are capable of self-
government, nor will it be opposed by any Republican who holds to Lincoln's idea that this should be "a government of the people,
by the people and for the people."
Page 195
Republican Platform.
[ADOPTED JULY 20, 1898.]
Resolutions adopted by the Republican State Convention, held in the city of Raleigh on the 20th day of July, 1898:
"The Republican Party of North Carolina, in Convention assembled, renews its allegiance to the principles and policies set
forth in the National Republican platform, adopted in St. Louis in 1896; and we point with pride and enthusiasm to the triumphant
vindication of those principles and policies under the wise and vigorous and splendid administration of William McKinley.
"We condemn the unjust, partisan and hypocritical civil service methods of Grover Cleveland; and we insist that the Civil
Service Act of 1883, and the rules made in pursuance of the same, should be changed so as to conform to the laws of common
sense and common justice.
"We are justly proud of the distinguished record and splendid services of the acknowledged leader of the Republican Party in
North Carolina, the Honorable Jeter C. Pritchard.
"We have remarked with unfeigned satisfaction the ability and industry which he has brought to the solution of great National
questions and the painstaking devotion and loyalty with which he has attended to the wants of even the humblest of his
constituents; no problem has been too great for his intelligent consideration, and no demand too trifling for his patient and
courteous attention; elected to the Senate by votes representing conflicting financial views, he has so acted as to command the
respect of all honorable men--never faltering in his devotion to the interests of the Republican Party, and at the same time meeting
all reasonable expectations of his Populist supporters.
"The Hon. A. E. Holton is entitled to the lasting gratitude of the Republicans of the State for the able, firm, and the successful
manner in which he has discharged the difficult and delicate duties of State Chairman.
"We extend our cordial thanks to W. S. Hyams, Esq., for his faithful, laborious and effective work as Secretary of the State
Committee.
"We hereby commend the administration of the State, because (first) the finances have been wisely, economically and
honestly administered; (second) the laws have been ably, fairly and impartially administered, and the rights of life and property
secured thereunder; (third) there are marked and gratifying signs of progress and development in all the material conditions of the
State exhibiting the return of prosperity and the satisfaction of the people.
Page 196
"We believe that the men who broke the chains of Democracy in 1894, and who restored to the people the right of local self-
government and of honest elections, will stand together in the coming contest for the preservation of these rights, which assure to
our beloved State in fact as well as in name a truly Republican form of government. The joint administration of local and county
affairs by the Republican and Populist parties through their chosen representatives has met the expectation of the men who
elected them, and the financial conduct of the affairs of the different counties east and west, has been honest and circumspect, as
well as economical, and deserves our highest praise.
"We favor the amendment to the State Constitution embodying the provisions of our present election law, which will
guarantee to every citizen of the State the right to cast one free ballot and to have that ballot counted as cast.
"We invest our State Executive Committee with plenary power to deal with the nominations of candidates for the offices of
Superior Court Judge and Solicitors in the several Judicial Districts of the State.
"We endorse the Dingley tariff bill, and also the Republican tariff measures made necessary by the enormous expenditures
incident to the war; while the Democratic administration sold bonds in secret in time of peace to foreign syndicates, the present
Republican administration has required the banks and syndicates to stand back until the common people could have all the bonds
which they were able and willing to pay for; and we point with pride to the fact that our bonds are worth 20 per cent more in time of
war than they were worth in time of Democracy, and that the common people of the country have displayed their confidence in the
Government by subscribing three times over the amount called for by the administration.
"We favor a vigorous prosecution of this war to a triumphant conclusion, and we pledge to the administration of William
McKinley our heartiest support in every measure calculated to strengthen our arms and to provide all necessaries and comforts for
our heroic sailors and soldiers; we rejoice in the unbroken series of victories which have crowned our arms on land and sea, and
we rejoice most heartily in the signal triumph won by this administration in the hearts and in the confidence of a re-united people.
We send good cheer and greetings to our sailor and soldier boys wherever located, carrying 'Old Glory' to victory on every land
and on every sea."
Page 197
Table of Contents.
• Brief statement of some fundamental and general principles . . . . . 1

• Republican rule in North Carolina . . . . . 7
• Democratic rule in North Carolina . . . . . 13
• Democratic administration of counties, cities and towns . . . . . 31
• Vast importance of good government . . . . . 33
• The composition of the Republican Party . . . . . 35
• The Democratic Party and the negro . . . . . 37
• Difference of Republican and Democratic treatment of the negro . . . . . 42
• Eastern towns given up to the negro . . . . . 44
• The debauchery fusion has wrought . . . . . 49
• Scandalous conduct . . . . . 58
• The Penitentiary . . . . . 69
• Incompetent Fusion Legislatures . . . . . 74
• Influence of Pie in working out Republican-Populist fusion . . . . . 79
• Pure Elections . . . . . 82
• Election Law . . . . . 84
• What they said about one another . . . . . 93
• Chairman Simmons' request for information from public officials . . . . . 98
• The closed books must be opened . . . . . 106
• Proposition of the Populist party to fuse . . . . . 109
• Will the Republicans and Populists fuse? . . . . . 114
• A great question still unsettled . . . . . 122
• The chief aim of Republican-Populist fusion . . . . . 126
• Government by committees . . . . . 133
• Fusion method of assessment and taxation . . . . . 135
• Example of Tobias Knight . . . . . 138
• Hancock shows up Russell . . . . . 141
• Please don't, Governor . . . . . 143
• Progress of the rule of the negro . . . . . 144
• The white Institution for the Blind in the hands of a negro . . . . . 147
• Blood is thicker than water . . . . . 154
• A false charge refuted . . . . . 156
• Letter of C. M. Cooke . . . . . 161
• A chapter of contrasts and comparisons . . . . . 166
• Democratic policy as to property . . . . . 171
• The silver question . . . . . 174
• What we asked for and what we got . . . . . 180
• Last year's deficit . . . . . 181
• The platforms . . . . . 182
Page 199
Index.
• Atlantic & North Carolina R. R . . . . . 131

• Asylums . . . . . 21
• Bailey's Letter . . . . . 130
• Billiard tax reduced . . . . . 137
• Bosses not tolerated by Democrats . . . . . 4

• Bosses rule other parties . . . . . 134
• Broughton unfairly denied his seat . . . . . 83
• Butler's address against bolters . . . . . 56
• Blood thicker than water . . . . . 155
• Caucasian: Extracts . . . . . 94
• Closed books must be opened . . . . . 106
• Common schools.
0 Republican management . . . . . 23
0 Democratic management . . . . . 24
0 negro committeemen . . . . . 25
0 Democratic pledge . . . . . 25
• Cost of State improvements . . . . . 28
• Cooke's letter . . . . . 161
• Charges refuted . . . . . 162
• Department of Agriculture . . . . . 19
0 withheld information . . . . . 105
0 scandals in . . . . . 129
• Deficit in revenues . . . . . 181
• Democratic leaders in touch with people . . . . . 5
0 Democratic address 1870 . . . . . 8
0 fundamental principles 1
0 Democratic rule . . . . . 13
0 Democratic rule in counties and towns . . . . . 31
0 Democrats faithful to silver . . . . . 157
0 contrast with Republican and Populist . . . . . 158
• Election law discussed . . . . . 84
0 Republican denounced by Progressive Farmer . . . . . 96
• General development . . . . . 19, . . . . . 173
• Good government . . . . . 33
0 Republicans cannot give . . . . . 36
• General false charges refuted . . . . . 156
• Fusion . . . . . 79
0 chief aim of, pie . . . . . 126
0 its debauching effects . . . . . 49
0 its extravagance . . . . . 50-52
0 Republicans and Populists cannot fuse . . . . . 114
• Fusion Legislature.
0 incompetent . . . . . 74
0 extravagance . . . . . 97
0 unfair in elections . . . . . 83
• Will the Rep. absorb the Pops . . . . . 122
• Will the Pops. reform the Reps . . . . . 122
• Proposition to Dem. to fuse discussed . . . . . 109
• Government by committees . . . . . 133
• Greenville in hands of negroes . . . . . 45
0 its negro officers . . . . . 45
0 negro wards given two aldermen each . . . . . 45
• Increase in insurance rates . . . . . 164
• Negroes.
0 Democratic party and negro . . . . . 37
0 negro domination . . . . . 38
0 difference between Democratic and Republican treatment . . . . . 42
0 eastern towns ruled by negroes, . . . . . 44
0 negro school committeemen . . . . . 25
0 progress of negro rule . . . . . 144
0 negro officers in some counties, . . . . . 144
0 negro in charge of white institute for blind . . . . . 147
0 negro teacher gets best pay . . . . . 151
0 negroes denounced by Russell as savages . . . . . 42
0 shall not rule white men . . . . . 40
• Nolo contendere . . . . . 140
• Parties.
0 Democrats and Republicans contrasted . . . . . 166
0 cost of legislature and State government . . . . . 169
0 Democratic policy as to property . . . . . 171
Page 200
0 conservatism of Democrats . . . . . 172

0 Democrats always for silver . . . . . 175
0 Republicans against . . . . . 176
• Party platforms . . . . . 182
• Proposition to fuse discussed . . . . . 109
• Pritchard election . . . . . 53
• Populists bolt caucus . . . . . 55
• Progressive Farmer: Extracts . . . . . 93
• Proposition to fuse considered . . . . . 109
• Public Printing . . . . . 51
• Platforms . . . . . 182
0 Republican and Populist platforms compared . . . . . 114
• Penitentiary--see Scandals.
0 books closed . . . . . 98-107, . . . . . 139
0 convicts, how employed by Democrats . . . . . 69
0 self-supporting . . . . . 70
0 officers required to make reports . . . . . 71
0 refuse to give information . . . . . 73-98
0 Simmons' letter . . . . . 98
0 increase in offices . . . . . 97
0 proceeds of cotton not turned in, . . . . . 127
• Railroads fostered . . . . . 17
0 miles built under Democratic rule . . . . . 18
0 increased taxes paid . . . . . 19
0 increased value of counties . . . . . 69
• Railroad Commission . . . . . 26
• Revenue Act 1897 void . . . . . 75
• Revenue Act 1895 unsigned . . . . . 77
• Indictment for not paying taxes . . . . . 77
• Republican misrule in counties and towns . . . . . 31
0 misrule in State . . . . . 7
• Receipts and disbursements . . . . . 29
• Russell's letter about Jim Young . . . . . 152
• Russell's letter to Harris . . . . . 42
• Scandals:
0 Hancock scandal . . . . . 59
0 Hancock to Russell . . . . . 141
0 Atlantic & North Carolina R. R . . . . . 131
0 Kirby Smith's scandal . . . . . 62
0 Dr. Babb's scandal . . . . . 63
0 state farm scandal . . . . . 66
0 penitentiary scandal . . . . . 26
0 cotton sold not turned in . . . . . 128
0 increase in offices, . . . . . 97, . . . . . 127, . . . . . 131
0 in Agricultural Department . . . . . 129
0 public printing . . . . . 51
0 cost of legislation . . . . . 169
0 cost of State government . . . . . 169
0 increase in expenses of Blind institution . . . . . 152
• Simmons' letter to Mewboorne . . . . . 98
0 letter to Smith . . . . . 105
• State debt, history of . . . . . 15
0 difference between Republican and Democratic management . . . . . 17
• School money squandered . . . . . 23
• Taxation, rates of under Democratic rule . . . . . 30
• Tariff taxation . . . . . 181
• Silver question . . . . . 174
0 Democrats always for silver . . . . . 175
0 Republicans against . . . . . 176
0 Teller's resolution . . . . . 176
0 trust opposed by Democrats . . . . . 177
• Tariff, Democratic policy . . . . . 179
• Value of property increased by railroads . . . . . 69
• Valuation of property by Railroad Commission . . . . . 135
• The war . . . . . 178
0 how should the cost be met . . . . . 179
0 Democratic method . . . . . 179
• What we asked for; what we got . . . . . 180
Return to Menu Page for The Democratic Hand Book. 1898... by Democratic Party (N.C.). State Executive Committee
Return to The North Carolina Experience Home Page
Return to Documenting the American South Home Page
Contact Us | FAQ | DocSouth Data | Home | UNC Library | UNC-Chapel Hill
Exhibit 19
Selected provisions of Chapter 507, Entitled An Act to

Regulate Elections, of the 1899 Session Laws of North
Carolina.

658 1899.-CHAPTER 505-506-507.
CHAPTER 505.
An act for the relief of J. N. Edwards, clerk superior court of Alleghany

county, North Carolina.
The Gene1'al Assembly of N01·th Carolina clo enact :

J. N. Edwards SECTION 1. That J. N. Ed wards, clerk of the superior court of
rel leved from cer-
tain require- Al!(ighany county, be and he is relieved from complying with
ments. sections eighty and one hundred and fourteen of 'l'he Code for
three consecutive l\Iondays in one of the spring or summer or fall
months during this year, and that he maybe away from his office
three consecutive weeks.
Sha! l provide a SEC. 2. That he must keep a deputy at his office in his absenc e.
deputy.
SEC. 3. That this act shall be in full force from and after its
ratification.
Ratified the 6th day of March, A. D. 1899.
CHAPTER 506.
An act to repeal the railroad commission.
The General Assembly of North Ga1·olina do enact:

Chapter 320, pub- SECTION 1. That chapter three hundred and twenty of the pub-
~~Ja:~is0L~!~·da- lie laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-one anu all acts amend-
t.ory tt1ereof, re- atory thereof or supplementary thereto be and they are hereb y
pealed.
repealed.
SEC. 2. That this act shall be in force from and a,ft.er April
fourth, eighteen hundrecl and ninety nine.
Ratified the 6th day of March, A. D. 1899.
CHAPTER 507.
An act to reguiate elections.
The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:

SECTION 1. That on the first Thursday in August, in the year
Time of holding
eJ..,cti on fur i,,ta,te of om· Lord nineteen hundred, and every four years thereafte r,
officers.
an election shall be held in the several election precincts in each
county for the following officers: Governor, lieutenant govern or,
secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, superintendent of public in -
struction, attorney-general [and] other state offi~ers whose terme
last for four years.
And on the first Thursday in August, in the year aforesaid,
and every two years thereafter, an election shall be held for

1899.-OHAPTER 507. 665
ulent voting be evidence. The county board of elections shall Poll books shall
immed iately after the appointment of the judges of election as t;;_;~i1;;f~\~d.
herein provided, furnisll a. list of the names or such judg-es to the
sheriff of their county, who shall within ten ch1ys serve notice of Sheriffo;hall
such appointment upon said jndges; and if any person appointed ~1•~~i[i'o1~dges or
judge of election shall fail to attend the registr1:1r of the town-
ship. wa1d or precind ~hall appoint some discreet person to ad
in his steaLl, who shall ue by him sworn before acting-. ~nd if
the registrar shall fail to appear then the judge or j udg-es of elec-
tion appe11ring· may appoint another to a.ct as regh:trar, ,vho shall Jndires may ap-
th
be sworn by him or them before acting. And any registrar or ~~~1 ~\r~~~ er
judge of election appoir:ted aR above provided in the place of a
registrar or judge of election failing to attend at the polling place
on the day of the election shall be of the same politkal party as
the registrar or jL1dge of election whose place he is ap p ointed to
fill.
SEC. 18. The following classe~ of persons sha!J nol b e allowed Persons nnt
· ~
· ti )IS· state, to w1•t : p·1ri-;t, per1-,ons uncier al.owed to vote.
to reg-1ster or vote in
twenty-one years of P.ge; second, idiots and lunatics; third, per- Minors, Miots
sons who up on conviction or confession in open conrt s~1all lwve ~,~?o~~~atics .
been adjudged guilty of felony or other cri111e infa11,cus by the
laws of this Et.ate commit t ed nfter the first d ,iy of January in the
year of our Lord eighteen hm~drecl and :-e,-en ty-seven, unless
they shnl! have been legally restored to the rights of citizenship.
SEC. 9. Sul,ject to the foregoing exc6ptions eve r y ma:e person Q,nalifl.ed
born in the Uni t ed States and every maie person who has been eit::cturs.
natura1ized, twenty-011c yearo of age, who t:.h all have resided in
the state twelve monrhs 11e:xt prec-eding the e lection and ninety
days in the county in which he offers to Yote, shall be a, qualitiecl
elector i:1 the precinct or town:--bip in \Vhich he resides; and all
electors shall register and ,,ote in the election precinct of their
residence. The residence of a married man sh:dl be where his
family resides, and that of a single man wh e re he boarc1s and RPsirlence of
sleeps; and should any single man board in one ward or precinct voters.
and sleep in another then his rc:-idence _shall be in the ward or
precinct in which he sleeps, and ho shaJI not register or vote in
any other ward or preei11ct. But no elector shall be allowed to
register in any ward or prPcinct to which he shall have remo,·ed
for the mere purpose of being a voter therein, nor unless his resi-
dence thereiu is actual n.nd bona fide. Ahd it shall be the duty
of the registrar or juuge of election, wben requcRted by any by- Per~ons may be
stander, to swear any pe1'son offering to register or vote , as to his ~~~~~~~~:.d as to
residenec ancl to have placed in ,1,-riting opposite his uame the
word "sworn"; and a11y perrnn kuowingly and fraudulently r<>g-
istering or voting at any other place than that of his boll a fide
resiJence shall be guilty of a crime infamous by the la,Ys or this

666 1899.-0HAPTER 507.
Persons reg-lster- state and punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand oollars
tng In precinct
other than in or imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding two years or both in
which they re- the di~cretion of the court.
side guilty of
tnfamouf; c>rlme. SEC. 20. No registration shall be allowed on the day of election;
No rt:>gls1.ratlon
allowed on day but if any person shall give satisfactory evidence to the registrar
of elec1ion.
Exception. and judges of election that he has become of the age of twenty-
one years on the day of election or has for any other reason on
that day beco1ue entitled to register, he shall be allowed to reg
ister and vote.
Challenges on SEC. 21. On the day of election any e 1_ector may and the judgei;
day ofelectlon.
of election sha11 challenge the vote of ally person who may be
known or suspected not to be a du!y qualified voter.
Q,aalltlcatlomof SEC. 22. When any person is challenged the judges and regis
e1eetor shall be
expialnPd 10 trar shall explain to him the qualifications of an elector, and shall
person chal-
1,enged. examine him as to his qualifications; and if tho person in~bts
that he is qualified l'lnd shall prove his ictentity with the person
in whoso name he offers to vote , or his co11tinuell rel'idence in the
precinct since his name was placed upon the registration list as
the case may be by the testimony under oath of at least one
elector, one of the jm1ges or the registrar shall tender to him the
Oath of elector. following oath: "You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you are
a citizen of the United States, that you are twenty-one years old,
and that yon have re:-idecl in this state for twelve months and in
this eounty for ninety clays next preceding this election, and that
you are not dis11ualifie<l from voting l>y the constitution and
laws of tl'lb state; that yonrname is {here insert the name given),
and that in such name you were duly registered as a voter of this
town~bip. and tbat you are now an actual resident of the :-;ame
and have been ever since you -were so regh:;tered, and that. yon
are the identic-al person you represent yourself to be, and that
you have not voted in this e!ection at this or any other polling
place. Su help you, God.'' And if he refuses to take such oath.
Vote of person his vote shall be rejected; if, however, he does take the oath
takrng oath re-
ce\vea. when tenderet1, his vote shall be received: Provided, t11at after
Proviso. such oath shall have been takeiy'tbe regbtrar and judges rnay,
nevertheless, refuse to permit such person to vote, unless they be
satisfied that be is a legal voter; / and they are hereby authorized
Oath may be ad- to administer the necessary oati1s or affirmations to a11 witnesses
ru lnistered to
witnesses. brought before tliem to testify to the qualifications of a person
offering to vote. ·w11ei1ever any petson's vote shall be received,
after having taken the oath prescribed in this section, the clerks
of election shall write on the poll books at the end of such person's
name the word "sworn." The same powers as to the administra-
tion of oaths and the exam ination of witnesses as in this section
granted to registrar s and judges of election may be exercised by

676 1899.-0HAPTER 507.
shall be tried at the first term, and on such trial or for auy pur -
pose in the prosecution of such rnotiun to judgmeut, the certifi-
cate of the secretary of state or of the governor as the case may
be of the p::irticular default on which the motion is founded shall
be received as competent prima facie evidence to prove the same.
Chairman of SEC. 48. If any chairman of the county board of elections or
county bnard of
elef'tioni,. failing other returning officer whatever shall ,villfully or of malice neg-
to perform c-er-
tain duties g1:1ilty lect to perform any duty, act. matter or thing required or dir~cted
ofa felony. in the time, manner and form in which such duty, act. manner
or thing is required to be performed in 1:elation to the election
and returns thereof, of the governor, of the representatives in
congre ss, of justices of the supreme court, of judges of the su-
prerne [superior] court, of solicitors or of the elec1 ors for president
and vice president of the United States, the person so offending
shall be guilty of a felony and fined not less than one thousand
nor more than five thousand dollars and be imprisoned not less
than one nor more than three years.
Persons lntend- SEC. 49. Any person who shall with intent to commit a fraud,
l ng to commit
fraud in votfog regh,ter or vote at more than one box or more than one time, or
guilty of infam- who shall induce another to do so, or any person who shall ille-
ous crime.
gally vote. at any election, shall be guilty of an infamous crime
and imprisoned not less tban six nor more than twelve months
Penalty. or fined not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred
dollars, at the discretion of the court; and any 1·egistrar of voters
or any clerk or copyist who shall make any entry or copy with
intent to co mmit a, fraud shall be liable to the same penalty.
Persons corrupt- SEC. 50. Any' person who shall corruptly take the oath pre-
ly taking natb
guilty of perjury. scribed for voters shall be guilty of perjury and be fined not less
Penalty. than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollal's
1
and be imprisoned at bard labor in the penitentiary not less than
two nor more than five years.
Secretary of Ftate SEC. 51. The secretary of ~tate shall at least sixty days before-
shall furni"b to
certaiu pnr1ies each election furnish the county board of elections of each county
cnpiPS of tbls
chapter. with a sufficient number of copies of this chapter, as it will read
with the latest amendments incorporated with it, to supply each
county canvasser, commissioner. register of deeds, sheriff, regis-
trar of votes and judge of election with one copy thereof.
Pe,,sons breaking SEC. 52. Any person who by force and violence shall break up
up elections by
force or violence or stay any election by assau lting the officns thereof or depriv-
gmlty of a mis- ing them of-the ballot boxes or by any other means, his aiclen
demeanor.
and ahetturs, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and imprisoned
not more than three months and pay such fine as the court shall
aajnclge. not exc-eedina; one hundred dollars. If any person shall
interrupt <fr disturb the registrar while actually engaged in the
registration of voters or the registrar or judges of election while
engaged in holding the election or in counting and adding up the

1899.-CHAPTER 507. 677
1·esult thereof, or the board of county canvassers or the Etate

board of ca1wasse1·s while engaged in the discharge of their offi-
cial duties, or behave in a disorderly or boisterous manner in the
presence of said officers while so engaged in the discharge of their
official duties. or obstruct such officers in the legal discharge of
the duties of their several positions, such person shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, aud upon conviction shall be fined not more
than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days.
SEC. 53. Any person who i-hall treat with either meat or drink Treating on
un any day of election or on any day previous thereto with an ~~~~ii~~~~
intent to influence the election shall forfeit and pay two hundred
dollars, the one-half for the use of the county and the Dther to
the use of the person who shall sue for the same.
SEC. 54. Any person who shall discharge from employment, Intimldatlon or
withdraw patronage from or otherwise injure, threaten, oppress ~o~i~~e°~!a~ 0; ;,rs
or attempt to intimidate any qualified voter of this ~tate because
of the vote such voter may or may not have cast in any election
ihall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
SEC. 55. A11y person who shall at any time before or after an Persons gi vin g or
elect.ion 0O'ive or promise to :,,,
O'ive •anvJ money• , property or reward wards
promising re -ofa
g u ilty
to any elector in order to secure his Yote shall be guilty of a mis- misdem ean or.
demeanor, and any person who shall receive or agree to receive
any such bribe shall also be guilty of a misdemeanor.
SEC. 56. Any person who shal I bet or wager auy money or other P ersons wa ger ing
thing of value upon any election held in this state shall be guilty gfae~~~~e~ guilty
of a misdemeanor. mean or.
SEC. 57. (For senators and their i:aode of election, see act of Sen ato rs a n d
. . mode of election.
congress of the twenty-fifth of July, e1ghteen hundred and srxty-
si:x, fourteenth statutes at large, chapter two hundred and forty-
five, page two hundred and forty-three.)
~RQ. 58. For the purpose of selecting representat ives in congress DivMon of con-
o! the United States the state of North Carolina shall be divided f;i~st~.ona l di s-
into nine uistricts as follow ::;:
First - Beaufort, Camden, Carteret. Chowan. Currituck, Dare, First distr ict.
Hates, Hertford, Hyde, Martin, Pamlico. Pasquotank, Perquim-
~ns, Pitt, Tyrrell and ·washington.
Si>cond-Bertie, Edgecombe, Greene, Halifax .. Lenoir, North- second.
~m p1on, Warren. "',Vilson and \Vay11e.
Thi.rd-Bladen, Cumberland. Duplin, Cr aven. Harnett. Jones, Third.
lfoore. Onslow and Sampso11.
Fourth - Chatham. Frnnklin. .J ohnsto11. N ai,;h, Randolph, Fourth.
VanP-e and Wake.
Fifth-Alamance. C'nswell. (hanville. Hui1forc1. Person, Dur- ~'ifth.
ham, Orange, Rockingham and Stokes.
Sixth-Anson. Brumrn·ick, Columb u,;, l\fecklenhurµ:. ~t•w Ha11- 8ixth.
over, Pender. Richmond. Hoheson and Union.

1899.-CHAPTER 507. 681
8EC. 71. J..ny person who sh all canse or procnr6 his name to Person causiug
8
be register ed in more than one_•ele ct ion ward or precinct, or shall fe r~dei~ ~~~:gts-
c.an se
,
or procure hi.; name or that of <any• other t)er~on -
who,:;e
'
t11 ~ 11 one precinct
gmlty of infam-
na me he has procnrecl to be registered is not entit led to vote in ous crime.
the ward or election precinct wherein such regh-tration is made,
or who shall falsely personate any registered voter, shall be guilty
of a crime infamous by the laws of the state and shali be pun-
ished for e\'ery such offense by a fine not exceeding one thonsan<i
dollars or iw t>risonrnent at hard labor for a term not exceec1ini;?:two
years or both in the discretion of the court.
~me. i2. H any person be challenged a~ teing· eoudcted of any Personschal-
crime which excludes him from the right of suffrage, he shall be bee~~e~o~~~:t~!fir
required to answer any questions in relation to :mch ::i,,lleged con- crimes.
victions; but his answer to such questions sha ll not be used
against him in any criminal prosecut1011, but if any person so
convicted shall ,·ote at the e1ection without having been restored
to the rights of citizenship he shall be guilty of an infarnom; crime
and punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or
imprisoned at hard labOi· not exceeding two years or both.
SEC. 73. /rhe judges of election shall in no case receive the vote Jud~es shall not
. . . receive vote or
of any person unless they shall be satisfied that such person 1s m any person unless
all resi)ects qualified and entitled to vote· ' 'nnd th
r for the~ I)Urpo!',e ' of person a~
sat-iSfied
such 1s
satisfying themselves as to the right of any person who i:;hall claim qualified to vote.
a right to vote they shall have power to examine such person,
and any other penmn or persons under oath or affirmation touch-
ing such right. And if any judge of electio11 shall receive or as-
sent to receive the vote of any person challenged without requir-
ing such person to take the oath or affirmation hereinbefore pre-
scribed, and if such person shall not be qualified and entitled to
vote, such judge of election so receiving or assenting to receive
such vote shall be deemed to ha,·e received the same knowing it
to be illegal.
SEC. 74. That the registrar and judges of election in each ward Power orJudges
or precinct, the board of county canvassers of each county and ~j~~fl~t~ ~i:ie!~
the board of state canvassers 8halJ respectively possess full power
and authority to maintain order and to enforce obedience to
their lawful c0111m1H b du1·ing their :-;essions r esped iv el~·. and
~hall be con~tituted inferior comt:-; for that purpo~P: and if a11y
pe1·.3on shall refuse to obey the lawful co 111mand:,; of any su('h reg-
istrar or jndge of elect ion or board of C'ounty canva:-;sers 01· board
of :-;tate canva:-;ser:,; or by disordel'l~· conduct in t~wir hearing· or
, pre:-ence shall intenurt or di~turh their proceedings. they may
by an order in Wl'iting. :--ig1wd by their chairman and ntte~;tecl by
their clerk. commit the pet':-:on so offending to the common jail
of the county f'or a vcriod TI(1t ex~eeding· thirty dc1~·:,;.and :-nch Orders, by whom
order shall be exPentecl IJ~· ,Hl:' :-lwrifl' or eonstahlP to wlwn1 tlw execute d.

Exhibit 20
1900 Amendment to the Suffrage Provisions of the North

Carolina Constitution

54 moo-CHAPTER 1-2.
~c:ind~Yin lieu of deposit of mone y of the amount of the penal sum named in such
Bond filed, order bond shall be r eceived by the clerk in lieu of such bond. And
vacated until
Supreme Court upon fili ng suc,.1 bond or making such deposit, such order shall
affirms. be vacat ed until affirmed by the Supreme Court, and until so
affirmed the election officer shall proceed to perform the dutie•s
imposed by this act notwithstanding such order.
Confllcting laws SEC. 90. That all laws and claus es of laws in conflict with thi::,;
r epealed.
act are hereby repealed, and the law regulating elections as con-
tained in this act shall be construed as above and not in connec-
tion with any existing provision of law for regulation of elections.
SEc. 91. That this act shall be in_ force from and after its rati-
fication.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this 13th
day of June, 1900.
CHAPTER 2.
An act supplementalto an act entitled "An act to amendthe constitution

of North Carolina," ratified February twenty-first, eighteenhundred
and ninety-nine, the same beingchapter two hundred and eighteenof
the public laws of oighteenhundredand ninety-nine.
The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:

Amends chapter SECTIO~ I. That Chapter 218, Public Laws of 1899, entitled
218 Public Laws "An Act to Amend the Constitution of North Carolina," be
of 1899.
amended so as to make said Act read as follows:
A rticle VI That Article six of the Constitution of North Carolina be and
a brogated.
th e same is hereby abrogated, and in lieu thereat shall be sub-
sti tuted th e following Article of. said Con·stitution, as an entire
an d in divi sibl e pla n of suffrage.
ARTIC LE VI.
Substitu t e for SUFFRAG E AN D ELIG IB ILIT Y TO O FF I CE.
Act VI.
Who may vote. (SECTION1.) Every male person born in the Un ite d States, and
every male person who has been naturalized, twenty-o ne years of
age, and possessing the qualifications se t out in this Article, shall
be entitled to vote at any election by the peop le in the State,
except as herein ot herwise provided.
Q,ualifications of (SEC. 2.) He shall have resided in the State of North Carolina
voters. for two years, in the county six m onth s, and in t he precinct, ward
or other election district, in whi ch h e offers to vote, four month's

lfl00-CH A PTP:R 2. 55
next preceding the election: Provided, that removal from one Proviso.
precinct, ward or other election district , to another in the same
county, shall not operate to deprive any person of the right to
-vote in the precinct, ward or other election district from which
he has removed until four months after such removal. No per- Who shall not
son who has been convicted, or who has confessed his guilt in vote.
open court upon indictment, of any crime, the punishment of
which now is, or may hereafter be, imprisonment in the State's
Prison, shall be permitted to vote, unless the said person ·shall Condition.
be first restored to citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.
( SEC. 3.) Every person offering to vote shall be at the time a Voter to be regis-
legally registered voter as herein pre·scribed, and in the manner tered.
hereafter provided by law, and the General Assembly of North f., 1enteral Astsem-
y o enac gen-
Carolina shall enact general registration laws to carry into effect eral ngistration
the provisions of this Article. Jaws.
( SEC. 4.) Every person presenting himself for registration Q,ualificatlons !or
shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution regla tra t lon.
in the English language; and before he shall be entitled to vote,
he ·shall have paid on or before the first day of May, of the year
in which he proposes to vote, his poll tax for the previous year,
as prescribed by Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution. But
no male person, who was, on January 1, 1867, or at any time
prior thereto, entitled to vote under the laws of any State in
the United State·s wherein he then resided, and no lineal
descendant of any such person shall be denied the right to regis-
ter and vote at any election in this State by reason of his failure
to possess the educational qualifications herein prescribed:
Provided, he shall have registered in accordance with the terms Proviso.
of this section prior to December 1, 1908.
The General Assembly shall provide for the registration of all Permanent
. . r eco rd of certain
persons entitled to vote without the educational qualifications persons regl"ter-
her ein prescribed, and shall, on or before November 1, 1908, :.~fut~i~i,ti9(~
provi de for the making of a permanent record of such registra - Persons so regis-
tion, and all persons so registered shall forever thereafter have iered ba_ve right
t.o vote, 1fotber-
the right to vote in all eiecti ons by the people in this State, unless wise qualified.
disqu alified under Section 2, of this Article: Provided, such Proviso.
person shall ha ve paid his poll tax as above required.
(SEC. 5.) That 1,~1samendment to the Constitution is presented
and adopted as one indivisible plan for the regulation of the Tndivi&ible plan,
· 1 be lPglslatlve
suffrage, with the intent and purpose to so connect the different !utent.
parts, and to make them so dependent upon each other, that the
whole shall stand or fall together.
( SEC. 6.) All elections by the people shall be by ballot, and Popular election
t.y ballot: Lf'gls-
all elections by the General Assembly shall be viva voce. latlve viva voce.

Exhibit 21
Selected Provisions of Chapter 348, Entitled An Act to

Make More Effective the Control of the State Over
Corrupt Practices in Primaries and Elections, of the 1931
Session Laws of North Carolina.

438 193 1- CHAPTER 347-348
CHAPTER 347
AN ACT T O AME N D AN ACT EN TITLED " AN ACT T O
PRO HIB IT THE UNAUTHORI ZED PRACTICE OF LAW
IN T HE S'l.'AT E OF NORTH CAROLINA ."
Th e Gener al A sse mbly of N orth Ccirolina do enac t:
11. B. Ko. 566 . SECTION l. That sec tion five of an act e ntitl ed "An a ct to
Pu hlic Law :-.
1931. amend ed pro hib it th e unau t horiz ed p ractic e of la w in t he Sta te of N orth
rdative to Ca r olin a ," ac t of th e Gen era l As se m bly of North Carolina ,
ltnau thor izl'd
practice of law. sess ion nin etee n thirty-on e , be and t he sam e is he r eby amend ed
by adding to said section one th e fo llo wing:
~ ot appli cable to "P rov ided , that this a ct shall not apply to any Law Sch ool
law ~chools.
or Law Schools conducting a Legal Clinic and receiving as
t.h .,i ,· l'li.,nt:irr" on ly t h MP pp1•~nn~ nn:ih]., fin :inl'i:l ll y tn l'nm -
p ensate for legal advice or se rvic es r end ered."
Contlict ing law s SEC. 2. All Jaws and claus es of laws in confl ict with this
rcpe:ded . act are he r eby r ep eal ed.
SEC. 3. This ac t sha ll be in forc e from and after its rati-
ficati on.
Ratifi ed thi s th e 4th da y of May, A . D. 1931.
CHAPTER 348
AN ACT TO MAKE MORE EFFECT IVE THE CONTROL
OF THE STATE OVER CORRUPT PRA CT ICES IN
PRIMARIES AND ELECT IO NS .
Th e Gen eral A sse mbly of North Carolina do enact :
SECTION 1. Thi s act may be cite d as the Cor rupt Pra ctices
Corrup t P rac tices
Ac t. Act of one thousand nin e hundr ed thirty-one.
Dl'finitions. SEC. 2. D efinition. W hen use d in thi s act
"C.1ndida te ." (a ) The te rm "Ca ndid ate" means an indi vidua l who se nam e
is pr esented for any office to be vote d upon on any ballot a t
an y primary , ge neral or s11ecial election;
°Ca mpaig n (b) Th e te r m "campaign committee" inc lud es a ny com-
Committ ee . 1 • mitt ee, association or or ganization which accep t s contributions
or mak es expend it ur es for the pu r pose of influencing or at-
tempting to influe nce the nomination or elect ion of any can -
didat e at any primary , genera l or special election ;
'·Co ntr ibuti on .'' (c) The term "con tribu tion " means any gift, paym ent,
s ubscription , loan, advance, depos it of money, or a nyt hin g of
value, a nd inc lu des any contract, promise or agreeme nt to g ive,
subscribe for, pay , loan, a dvance or deposi t any money or
other t hin g of va lu e to or for the benefi t of · any can dida te at

1931- C IIAPTER 348 ·1 11
cam paign comm itte<> is ma k ing ex penditures in more than

one count ~·; a nd i( such tam1 1aig-n com mittee is making ex pen- F ri~r11lit1n1 ...
ditu r e!< in on ly one county, a lik, · or similar rt•purt so it emized " ·hm c 11111,>
sha ll be mad ,, within th e ,-.amt' periods to t he clerk of the
Superior Court of such county.
All of t he ,;tat e ment s or t·eport!, of contril,ution" o r ex pen-
di ture s as in thi s act requir f'd of a ny candidak or campa ign -.1,111 ITlllll.._
: t'qlllred.
c-ommi ttee mu st l,e verifi ed h ~• th e oai h or allinnation of th e
perso n filing- such s tate men t or repol't , tak en befo r e any offic<'r
authorized to adminbiet· oa th s.
St;c. !l. Ccrl<till act s <lcrfarcd misdcmeMwr.,. Any pe 1·son , ""'" au,
who shall. in conn ect ion wi th any prima ry or elcct ion in thi s ;::,~'.t:;;;~. ,m,,.
State, do an~• of the acts am! t hing s decla1·ecl in thi s sect ion
to be unlawful. s hall he guilty of a misd emea nor, and upon con-
victi on shall he fined or impri soned, or bot h. in th e discret ion of
th e cou rt. It s hall be unlawful:
( l) For any perso n to fail, as an officer or as a judge OJ' J ,1ilutc nf
, lccti"n ,,ffic,al ...
regi st rar of a primary or elect ion, or a s a memb er of any ,,. f•rt pare and
board of election s or hoard of ca nvasse rs, to pr epar e the books , ,la-.tril1utt'
:l\kt 1..., t<l \
lmf'lk-.,
ticket s and r etu rn blanks whi ch it is hi s duty und er th e

law to prepare, or Lo distribu te the same a s r equired by law ,
or to pel'form any other duty imposed upon him within t he
tim e and in t he manner requil'ed by law;
(2) F o r any per son to continue or attempt to act a s a Elec1ion official,
judge or reg istrar of a primary or election. or as a member ~f::~r;; ~!v!\'. 1
t ic::,
of any board of ele cti ons. aft er having been lega lly removed
from such position nnd aft er having been ~iven notice of
s uch r emoval;
(3) For any )Jer son to br ea k up or by force or violenc e l ,nerfercncc w i!h
to stay or interf er e with the hold ing of any primary or clec- elec ti ons.
tion, to interfer e with the po ssess ion of any ballot box, elect ion
book, ticket or return sheet by tho se entitl ed to possession of
th e same und er th e la w, or to interfere in any manner with
the performance of any dut y impo sed by law upon any election
officer or memb er of any boa r d of election s or board of can-
va sse rs;
( 4) For any person to be guilty of any boisterous conduct B oist erous concluct.
so as to distu rb any member of any election or canvassing
board or an y re gist rar or judge of elect ions in th e performance
of his duties as impo sed by lnw;
(6) For an y per son to bet or wager any money or other Betting.
thing of value on any electi on;
(6) For an y per son, dir ec tly or indirectly, to discharge 01· I,)· I ntlucnc ing vo tes
threa tened
threaten to discharge from employment, or otherwise intimidate d11:icllarge-.
or oppr ess any legally qualifi ed vote r on account of any vote
such voter may ca st or con sider or intend to cast, or not to
cas t, or w hich he may hav e failed to cast;

442 193 1- CHAPTER 348
r0111r:1,uti11n s not (7) For any person to make any contrib ution or expen -
pr pnly rq1orter l.
ditur e to a id, or in behalf of any candidate or cam pa ign com-
mitt ee, in any p rim ary, gen eral or sp ecia l election, unles s the
same he r eported imm ed ia te ly to such ca ndidate or campaig n
committee . to the end that it may he included by him or it
in the repo rt s r equired of h im by Jaw;
F:-iilurt' tn m.:.t.kl:' (8) Fo1· any ca ndid ate or an y cha ir ma n or t1·easurer of
, •·•1i: c,1
1t l rnei.t, , a ca mpai g n committ ee to fail to mak e und er oath the r eport
or reports 1·equ ired of h im or it by secti ons six , seven and
eight of t hi s act, or for any campa ig n commi ttee to fai l to
furn ish to a ca nd idate a dupli ca te copy of t he 1·e por t to be
mad e by it or it s chairman or treas urer;
I.11111t
a flon on (9) For any candidate for any politic al office to rece ive
.-mounts
perrnitted to he cont ri buti ons or to mak e expe nditu res, or t o ass ent to or to
exl}c n<led.
per mit contrib uti ons or expen ditur es in behalf of his candidacy
in a ny p l'imary, wh ether t he same be done befo re or after
said primary is held, in excess of the fo llowing sums:
Cmeroo r and A ca nd idate for Governor and Unite d Sta tes Senato r $12,00 0
\ ·. S. Sen ator.
Ct.Jngrcss man. A ca ndidat e fo r Congress man ... ··-····-·······-········ .. 6,000
Lie.uteuant A candidate fo r Lieutena nt Governor . 2,500
Gover nor.
Oth e r Sta t e A ca ndidat e for any other elect ive State office, one-ha lf
offices. of the amount of the annu a l sa la ry of such office.
A candidat e fo r the General As sembly , eith er th e Senate
Legislat ors.
or the H ouse of Representat ives 600
I.ocal offic.cs. A ny candidate for any dist rict, coun ty or other office not
here inbefore nam ed, one-half th e a nn ual salary of that office
as it may be at the tim e of suc h primary : Pro·vicled, howe vei·,
, ~('rtain e xpen ses all candidat es may lawfu lly pay , in addition to th ese am ounts ,
exclude d.
their tran spo rtati on expe n ses , board a nd lodgi ng bill s wh ile
ca mpaign ing fo r nom inat ion to such office, and the s ums so
Exp e n<iitures
ex pend ed ne ed not be report ~d in the r epo rt s here in before
per mitt ed in r equir ed: Provided /111·/h e r, that in any second primar y for
seco nd prirna1·ie.s.
any of sa id offices, sa id candidate or candidates ma y spend
in such secon d pr im ary one-ha lf of the amounts as above
set ou t;
Pub lication of (10) For any person to publish in a new sp aper or pamp hlet
any charges
not s igned . or otherw ise, any charge derogat or y t o any ca ndi date or ca l-
cul ated t o affect t he candidat e's chances of nominati on or
election, un less suc h p ublicat ion be sig ned by th e party giv ing
pu blicity t o and be ing res pons ible for such char ge;
Pu blicat ion of (11) Fo r any per son to publish or cause to be circul ated
fals e report s .
der oga tor y reports wit h refe r ence to an y ca ndid a te in any
primary m· elect ion, k now ing s uch report to be fa lse or in
re ckless dis r ega rd of its truth or fa lsi ty, when suc h r eport
is calcu lated or intended to affect t he chanc es of such candidate
fo r nominati on or election;

193 1- CHAPTER 348 443
( \ 2) For any pC!rson to g-i\'(' or promisr , in rC'turn fo1· J' I Hl1H""111-"

1,r,ht1c-d
politica l support or influ e nce, an y politica l appointme nt or sup- qq1u11Hmt t1l"".
port for po litical oftlce;
( 13) F or any chairman of a county board of e lec ti ons or F. ilurc • f t,, n
1,f1i, 1.11, to
ot her ret urning officer to fail or neg'lect, wilfu lly or of ma lice, pcrrnrm duti, ,.
to perform any duty , act, ma tter or thing req uir ed or dir ect ed
in t he time, mann e r and form in which said duly, matter or
thing is r equired to be pet'f or med in r ela tion to a ny primary,
g-ene ral 01· sp<'cial c•lection and the r eturns thereof;
(1 4) F or any reg iste r of deeds or clerk of the Superior l<o(u;al or
Y U tTlCl r, It
Court to r efuse to ma ke a nd give to any person applying in '-'IIUlll runu~h apJilica nt.,
w ri t ing for th e same a dul y certified copy of t he return s of rdu1n,.\\ llh c...-rtificd
any primary 01· elect ion or of a tabu lated st a te men t in a
pr ima 1·y or e lect ion, t he return s of w hich a r e by law deposit ed
in his office, upon the tender of th e fe es th er efor ;
(15) F or any corporation doing busines s in t hi s Slat e, l 11ntnl,uti o 1b
nMrle by
eit her under dom est ic or fore ign charter, di rect ly or indir ect ly, corpora tion s.
to make an y contl'ib ution or ex pend itur e in aid or i n behalf
of any candida te or campaign committ ee in any primary or
elect ion hel d in t hi s State , 01· for any poli tica l purpose what -
soever , or for t he r eim bur seme nt or ind emnifi cat ion of any
per son fo r money or property so use d, or fo r any contribut ion
or ex pe nditur e so mad e; or for an y officer, dir ecto 1·, stoc k-
holder, attorn ey or agent of any corporati on to aid, ab et ,
a dvise or consent t o any s uch contribution or expendit ur e, or
Iot· a ny pe r son to solicit or kn owin g ly receive any s uch con-
trib ut ion or ex pendi tur e.
Criminal and
An y officer , dir ecto r , stoc kh olde r, atto rn ey or ag ent of any ci vii liabili ty
corpora tio n aiding or abett ing in any cont r ibution or ex pen- 0 £ memb tr 3- o f
corporation ,
dit ur e made in vio lation of thi s sub -section shall , in addition
to being gu ilt y of a misdem ea nor as her ein before set out, be
liab le to such cor por at ion for th e am oun t of such contr ibuti on
or expe ndit u1·e, and the same may be re cove red of h im up on
suit by any stockh older th ereof;
(lG) l<'or any perso n wi lfully and kn owin gly to impo se Jfalse mpo~itio n o f
Lall ots on
up on any blind or illiterate vote r a ba ll ot in any primary or hlind or
ig noran t ,·ot er~.
elect ion contrary to th e wis h or desire of such vo ter, by
fal sely r ep rese ntin g to such voter tha t the ba llot propos ed t o
hi m is such as he desires.
SEC. 10. An y per son who sha ll, in connect ion w it h any Crr tain acts
primar y, gene ra l or s pecial election held in thi s State , do an y <l~b.rrc! fdonir s.
of th e act s or th in gs declar e d in thi s section to be unlawful ,
sh all be g uilt y of a fe lony and up on conviction shall be im -
priso ned in th e Stat e's Pri son not less than four m onth s or
fined not less than one thou sa nd dollar s, or both, in t he di s-
cret ion of th e Cou rt. It shall be unlawful:

444 1931-CHAPTE R 348
Reg-i:-kring in (1) For any pe1·son fraudul entl y Lo cause hi s nam e to be

more than 011e
votiu~ pl.lee. placc>d up on t he registrat ion books of more tha n one electio n
pr ecinct or fraudu lent ly to caus e or proc ur e his na me or that
of a ny othc>1·person to he plac c>d up on the regist r ation books
in any p rec inct whe n such r egistration in that p r ecin ct does
I111pcr.-.011ati ng not qualify suc h person to vote legally therein, or to imper-
ot hers. sonate falsely an oth er regist er ed voter for th e purpose of
voting in the stea d of such other voter:
(2) Fo r any perso n to give or promise or r equest or ac•
cept at any tim e, befo re or a ft er a ny such pr imar y or elect ion ,
an y money, pro pe rt y or oth er t hin g of valu e wha tsoeve r in
r eturn for t he vote of any elector;
Fnise cntrie ~ by (3) For any person wh o is an electio n officer, a member
elec tio n otlic iah.
of the can vass ing or election hoard or ot her officer cha rg ed
with any du ty with respect to any primary or elect ion. know -
ingl y to make a ny fa lse 01· fraudul ent ent r y on an y election
book or any fa lse or fraudulent retul'n s , or kn owing ly to make
or ca use to be mad e any fals e state ment on any ticket, or
to do an y fraudu lent act. or know ingly and fra udul ent ly omit
to do any act or make any report lega lly required of such
per son;
( 4 ) F or any person knowingly to swea r falsely with re spect
to any matter pertaining to a ny primary or electio n;
\ 'otini; IJy f elo ns. (5) For any pe r son, con victe d of a crime which exc lud es
him from the r ight of su ffrag e. to vote at a ny primary or
election without ha v ing been r estored to the r ight of citizen-
shi p in du e cour se and by the met hod pro vided by la w;
Taking o:uh (6) For a ny pers on to tak e corr uptly the oath p re scrihed
corm ptl y.
for votet ·s, and the person so offending shall be gu ilty of
perjury ;
Co rruptly (7) For an y perso n with in te nt to commit a fraud to
regist e ring or
vot ing at m on : reg ister or vote a t more than one box or mor e than one time,
th an nne place.
or to indu ce another to do so, in th e sa me primary 01· e lect ion,
or to vote ill egally at any p rim ary or election;
Fraudu lent (8) F or an y r eg ist rar or any clerk or copy ist to mak e any
ent ries.
entr y or copy wit h inte nt to commit a fraud;
;\fakin g false (9) For a ny elect ion official or othe r officer to make. cer -
return s .
tif y , del iver or tran smi t any false r eturn s of any primary or
elect ion. or to mak e any era su re or a lteration in any regi s tra-
tion or poll books wit h int ent to com mi t a fraud;
Assa ult upon (10) For an y person to assa ul t any r eg istrar , judge of
elec tio n o tli.cia ls.
elect ion or ot her election officer whil e in th e discharge of hi s
dut y in the reg ist ration of voters or in conducting a ny p rim ar y
or elect ion;
Intimid ati on of (11) Fol' any person, by thr eats, mena ces or in any other
officials.
mann er , to in timida te or attempt to in ti mid ate any registrar,
jud ge of elect ion or othe r election officer in the dischar ge of

19:H-C JIAJ'TER :318
his dut i<'S in lhl' rcg-istra tion of vote rs <ll ' in conclucl ing an y
pr im:uy or clt'cli on ;
( 12) F m· an ~• reg istr a r , poll holdl' r, nw ml il'l' of a boa r d of 1«-,,-,,, ,11 1,..,
ek di ons . a ·s ist a nt, mark er, or oth c1 ell'cti on oflicial. directl y
or indir ectly. to sl'ck, reccivl' or accl•pt mone ~· or t he pr omise
of mon<'Y, th e pr omise of office, or oth er r e\\'ar<l or comp ensa-
t ion from a candi dat e in an y prim a ry or electi on or fr om any
sou r ce ot ht:>1· tha n such compem mt ion a ~ ma y he pro vid ed hy
law fo1· his sel'vices.
SEC. 11. .Ko per son shall he exc used fr om att endin g or (..t.Jf <lllljllll 111.,.
-111cnn111,,J11•1.;
test ify ing 01· pr oducing a ny hooks. pa per s or oth er documents
befo re an y C'ourt or magi strat e up on an y invl'stigatio n. pro-
ccl'd ing or tria l fo r the violat ion of an) ' of th e provis ions of
the two pr ecedin g sect ions . up on the g r ou nd Ol' for th e l'Ntson
tha t t he te s t imon:,- or evicl\'nc<', docum enta r y or oth erw ise ,
requir ed of him ma y lend to incl'im ina te or dl'grad e him, but
such per son ma y be suhpoena ed :rnd r equ ir ed t o tes tify by
and fo r lh e State r ela ti ve lo any offense a r ising und er the
pr ovisions of th e said two pr eceding sec tio ns; bu t such per son J'rr ..un -,u
l c-~t li y ing-
s ha ll not he prosl'c ut ed or s ubjec ted to an y penalt y or fo1·- t"XC..:U -.i;d fr o m
foitu r e fo r or on accoun t of Rn)' tra nsact ion, ma t ter or thing
concernin g which he may so test ify 0 1· pr odu ce ev idence,
docum ent ar) · or ot her wise, and no test imony so g iven or pr o-
duc ed sha ll be used ag a inst him up on an y crimina l inves t i-
gat ion or prn ceedin g, but such per son so compelled t o test if y
with resp ect to an y ac ts of his own shall be immun e fr om
pr osecutio n on acc ount thereof , a nd shall be pa r doned fo r an y
viola t ion of law about wh ich such pe r son shall be so r equir ed
to testif y.
SEC. l 2. It shall be th e dut y of th e At torn ey Gene ral , the
solicitor s of th e several ju dicial distr ict s, and a ll pr osecut ing ,l).-\ttutit:, of
or ll(.:) l.it:n c..•ral
at torney s of Cour ts inf er ior to t he Sup e1·ior Court , t o mak e and .solicu or ... to
J)nJ St'CU l C
di lige nt inquiry and in vest ij!at ion w ith r espect t o an y viola- violations of nc1
t ions of thi s act , and said office1·s m·e au t hori zed and empow -
ered to subpoena a nd compel th e att endan ce of any per son or
pe1·so ns befor e them for the purp ose of ma k ing such in quir y
and inves tigatio n.
SEC. 13. It shall be the du ty of the Secret a r y of Sta te and Du ly o f
S ecreta ry of S , atc
the several cler ks of the Su peri or Cour t to call up on the ~rnd S up, rior
Cuurt Cl~rks to
can dida te s and cha ir men an d tr easu r er s of ca mpa ign comm it - ca ll for rcqu irctl
tees for th e report s r equ ired to be mad e t o th em by section s statements.
six, se ven and eig ht her eof. If an y cand idat e or ch a ir ma n
0 1· treas ur er of a campa ig n committ ee shall fail or negl ect
t o make t o th e Secr etar y of Sta te th e r eport s r equire d by said
SC! Ctions, t hen t he Secr et ar y o f Stal e shall bri ng s uch fai lur e .\Rer10 rt ing 10
ttorncy General
to t he attent ion of th e A ttorn cy Genera l, who se dut y it s hall of \'iolau o ns.

Merged PDF - StrictLiability Lawsuit - Mitch - Final PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Merged PDF - StrictLiability Lawsuit - Mitch - Final PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH

v. Civil Action No. 20-cv-876

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 2 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 6

Action NC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby respectfully request, pursuant to Federal

voting by North Carolina residents who are on parole, probation or post-release

Voting Law has no mens rea requirement whatsoever.

Recent high-profile prosecutions of individuals who mistakenly voted before

Law are Black.

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 2 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 6

criminal prosecution under the Strict Liability Voting Law.

Preliminary injunctive relief is warranted because (1) Plaintiffs are “likely to

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court preliminarily enjoin

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 2 Filed 09/24/20 Page 3 of 6

expedited consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Finally,

This Motion is supported by the contemporaneously filed Memorandum of Law,

considered by the Court.

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 2 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 6

By: /s/ Allison J. Riggs

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 2 Filed 09/24/20 Page 5 of 6

Preliminary Injunction and Request to Expedite was served by electronic mail to

Board of Elections, at the address Katelyn.Love@ncsbe.gov, with consent of counsel to

accept service in this manner.

/s/ Allison J. Riggs

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 2 Filed 09/24/20 Page 6 of 6

NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH

v. Civil Action No. 20-cv-876

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 3 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 33

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 3

A. In 1899, the North Carolina General Assembly reenacted the Strict

II. North Carolina’s Strict Liability Voting Law disproportionately impacts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................................... 11

I. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims........... 11

B. The Strict Liability Voting Law violates the Equal Protection

III. The balance of hardships tips heavily in favor of granting a preliminary

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 3 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 3 Filed 09/24/20 Page 3 of 33

Chen v. City of Houston,

City of Chicago v. Morales,

Georgia Coal. for People’s Agenda v. Kemp,

Grayned v. City of Rockford,

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 3 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 33

Jones v. Governor of Florida,

League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina,

League of Women Voters of U.S. v. Newby,

Manning v. Caldwell for City of Roanoke,

Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albemarle Cty Sch. Bd.,

North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. Cooper,

North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory,

Peoples Rights Org., Inc. v. City of Columbus,

Project Vote v. Blackwell,

Stahl v. City of St. Louis, Mo.,

Case 1:20-cv-00876 Document 3 Filed 09/24/20 Page 5 of 33

Village of Hoffman Ests. v. Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc.,

N.C. GEN. STAT. § 13-1 ....................................................................................................8

N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-1340.1 ........................................................................................1

N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-22(d) ...........................................................................................7

N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(13) ..................................................................................... 20

N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-275(5) ........................................................................... 1, 6, 8, 11