North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Thomas D. Schroeder, United States District Judge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.FINDINGS OF FACT... 332

A. North Carolina Voting Laws... 332

1. Voter ID... 332

2. Early Voting... 332

3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting... 334

4. SDR... 336

5. Pre-registration... 336

B. Post-2011 Legislation... 337

1. Introduction of HB 589... 337

2. Revision of HB 589... 339

3. Enactment of HB 836... 344

C. Procedural History... 348

D. Evidence of Voter Experience Under Current Law... 351

1. Voter ID... 351

a. Voter Education about the Voter-ID Requirement Prior to the Reasonable Impediment Exception... 351

b. Voter Education After Enactment of the Reasonable Impediment Exception... 353

c. Voters’ Experience in Acquiring Qualifying ID... 358

*330 d. Evidence of North Carolina Voters Without ID... 364

e. Availability of the Reasonable Impediment Exception,., 369

2. Change in the Early-Voting Schedule ... 382

3. Elimination of SDR... 393

4. Elimination of OOP Provisional Voting... 404

5. Elimination of Pre-Registration... 407

6. Other Challenged Provisions... 409

7. 2014 Data... 411

E. Testimony of Other Experts... 412

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW... 412

A.Section 2 of the VRA... 412

1. The Law of Vote Denial and Abridgement Claims..,. 412

2. The Totality of the Circumstances & Gingles... 422

a. The Success of the Prior Practices in Fostering Minority Political Participation... 422

b. History of Official Discrimination ... 425

c. Racially-Polarized Voting... 429

d. Enhancing the Opportunity for Discrimination ... 429

e. Candidate Slating Process,.. 430

f. Continuing Effects of Discrimination Hindering Participation... 430

g. Racial Appeals in Campaigning... 438

h. Minority Electoral Success... 438

i. Responsiveness of Elected Officials ... 439

j. Tenuousness of the State’s Justifications ... 440

i. Voter ID... 440

ii. Early Voting... 445

iii. SDR... 445

iv. OOP Voting... 447

v. Pre-Registration... 463

3. Equality of Opportunity and Social and Historical Conditions... 465

a. Voter ID... 466

b. Early Voting... 472

c. SDR... 473

d. OOP Voting... 479

e. Pre-registration... 483

f. Cumulative Effect... 484

4. Discriminatory Result: Conclusion ... 486

5. Discriminatory Intent... 488

6. Additional Problems with the § 2 Results Claim ... 503

B. “Traditional” Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment Claims... 509

C. Anderson-Burdick Claim... 509

1. Voter ID... 511

2. Early Voting... 513

3. SDR... 514

4. OOP... 516

5. Pre-registration... 518

6. CBOE Discretion... 520

7. Poll Observers and Challengers... 520

8. Cumulative Effect of Provisions... 521

D. Twenty-Sixth Amendment Claim... 521

E. Remedy... 525

III. CONCLUSION... 526

In these related cases, Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing various provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2013-381 (“SL 2013-381”), an omnibus election-reform law, as amended by Session Law 2015-103 (“SL 2015-103”). 1

*331 Plaintiffs are the United States of America (the ■ “United States”) in case 1:13CV861, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and several organizations and individual plaintiffs (the “NAACP Plaintiffs”) in case L13CV658, and the League of Women Voters of North Carolina along with several organizations and individuals (the “League Plaintiffs”) in case 1:13CV660. Additionally, the court allowed a group of “young voters” and others (the “Intervenor Plaintiffs”) to intervene in case 1:13CV660. (Doc. 62 in ease 1:13CV660.) Considered together, Plaintiffs raise claims under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VEA”), 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (formerly 42 U.S.C, § 1973). (Doc. 365 in case L13CV861; Doc. 384 in case L13CV658; Docs. 1 & 63 in case L13CV660.) The United States also moves for the appointment of federal observers to monitor future elections in North Carolina pursuant to § 3(a), of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10302 (a) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(a)). (Doc. 365 at 33.) 2 Defendants are the State of North Carolina, Governor Patrick L. McCrory, the State Board of Elections (“SBOE”), and several State officials acting in their official capacities.

The record is extensive. The court held a four-day evidentiary hearing and argument beginning July 7, 2014, on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, which evidence is now part of the trial record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). Fifteen days of trial on the merits- were conducted from July 13 through 31, 2015. An additional six days of trial on the voter photo identification (“ID”) provisions of the law were conducted from January 25 through February 1, 2016, The court has considered testimony of twenty-one expert witnesses and 112 fact witnesses. The record consists of more than 11,000 pages from the preliminary injunction phase, in excess of 12,000 pages from the July trial, and over 2,500 additional pages from the January trial. 3 As can be seen from the length .of :this memo-: randum opinion, merely trying to concisely state the court’s findings has presented a monumental challenge.

This case presents important questions as it tests North Carolina’s newly-enacted voter photo-ID requirement and the State’s modification or elimination of certain voting procedures not contemplated by the State a little more than a decade ago; seventeen days of in-person early voting before Election Day, same-day registration, voting provisionally on Election Day in an unassigned precinct, and preregistering to vote as early as age sixteen. Under both the Elections Clause of, and the Tenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, such decisions are traditionally reserved to the States, but they are subject to other constitutional and congressional limitations. The principal question in these cases is whether the North *332 Carolina General Assembly imposed a voter-ID requirement and altered these relatively recently-developed voting procedures—deemed “conveniences” and “fail-safes” by some of Plaintiffs’ own experts— based on race or, even if not, in a manner that presents an unlawful discriminatory burden on voters.

After careful consideration of the complete record and pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court enters the following findings of fact—based upon an evaluation of the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, and the inferences that the court has found reasonable to be drawn therefrom—and conclusions of law. To the extent any factual statement is contained in the conclusions of law, it is deemed a finding of fact as well.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. North Carolina Voting Laws

The provisions of North Carolina SL 2013-381 at issue establish a voter-ID requirement and repeal certain voting and registration mechanisms enacted since 1999. An understanding of the purposes and effect of the current regime requires an understanding of the previous laws, including their origin and history. See League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 242 (4th Cir.2014) (“League”) (noting that “North Carolina’s previous voting practices are centrally relevant”). Each modified or removed voting and registration mechanism was enacted while Democrats controlled both houses of North Carolina’s General Assembly and its governorship, which they held until 2011. Because North Carolina was a covered jurisdiction under § 5 of the VRA, each change required approval by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”).

1. Voter ID

Prior to 2016, North Carolina relied on a system of signature attestation to prevent voter fraud. Under this system, poll workers—as the primary gatekeepers to voter fraud—would ask the name and address of voters presenting to vote in person. (Doc. 407 at 43.) If the poll worker was able to locate a registration for the name and address provided, the voter was required to sign an authorization to vote (“ATV”) form attesting that he was the person under whose registration he sought to vote and that he currently resided at the address of registration. (Doc. 410 at 83; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit (“PI. Ex.”) 1056.) The ATV form warned voters that “fraudulently or falsely completing this form is a Class I Felony.” (PI. Ex. 1056.) Although the SBOE maintained voters’ signatures as a result of registration forms, (PI. Ex. 212A), poll workers did not have access to the signatures, either during early voting or on Election Day, (Doc. 414 at 123). Accordingly, signatures were not verified at the polling place and, unless the poll worker knew the voter, the poll worker had very limited means of determining whether the voter was the same person as the registrant. (See id.)

2. Early Voting

Prior to 1973, North Carolina required all voters to cast their ballot on Election Day or to apply for an absentee ballot. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-227 (1972). In 1973, the General Assembly passed legislation that permitted voters to participate in “one-stop” “early voting” 4 for a period of *333 sixty days before Election Day, but only if they provided a statutorily-acceptable excuse (e.g., absence from the county, sickness, or disability) and obtained their ballot from the county board of election (“CBOE”). 5 1973 N.C. Sess. Law 536, § 1.

In 1979, the General Assembly reduced the one-stop early-voting period from sixty days to thirty days. 1979 N.C.' Sess. Law 799, § 1. But see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-227.3 (providing that, unless otherwise authorized, a CBOE shall provide absentee ballots for voting by mail “60 days prior to the statewide general election in even-numbered years”). Then, as now, a voter had to be registered at least twenty-five days before the election for which the absentee ballot was being offered. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.6 (c); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-67 (1979) (making the registration cut-off twenty-one days before Election Day, excluding Saturdays and Sundays). This law provided that a ballot executed at a CBOE be completed in a voting booth or private room. 1979 N.C. Sess. Law 799, § 2.

In 1999 (effective January 1, 2000), on a vote almost entirely along party lines, 6 the General Assembly removed the excuse requirement for “one-stop” voting in North Carolina’s even-year general elections, thus establishing “no-excuse” early voting. 1999 N.C. Sess. Law 455, §§ 1, 6; (PI. Ex. 46 at 25 (chronicling partisan voting)). It also permitted a CBOE, upon unanimous CBOE vote and the approval of the SBOE, to open additional early-voting sites beyond the one site at the CBOE. 1999 N.C. Sess. Law 455, § 6. Thus, a registered voter could present herself at the CBOE or another designated site in her county of residence “[n]ot earlier than the first business day after the twenty-fifth day before an election ... and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the Friday prior to that election” to cast her ballot. Id. Because the law permitted only weekday operations, see id. (amending N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-227.2 (f)), this offered registered voters fifteen days of early voting, id.

In 2000, the General Assembly enacted SL 2000-136, which allowed CBOEs to petition the SBOE for approval when they are unable to reach unanimous agreement as to the location of additional early-voting sites. 2000 N.C. Sess. Law 136, § 2. The law empowered the SBOE, on a simple majority vote, to approve additional sites based on the consideration of the “partisan interests of that county,” among other factors. Id. (not requiring SBOE unanimity). Because the governor controls appointments to the SBOE, which in turn appoints the members of the CBOEs, both boards are effectively controlled by the same political party as the governor. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-19 (giving the governor power to appoint SBOE members but requiring *334 that “[n]ot more than three members of the [five-member] Board shall be members of the same political party”); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-30 (providing appointment power of CBOE members to the SBOE and requiring that “[n]ot more than two members of the [three-member CBOE] shall belong to- the same political party”). 7 Thus, this change injected partisan considerations into the location of additional early-voting sites.

In 2001, the General Assembly expanded no-excuse early voting to all elections and absentee ballots. 2001 N.C. Sess. Law 337, § 1. With votes split largely along party lines in the North Carolina House of Representatives, but with bi-partisan support in the Senate, 8 the General Assembly also amended the early-voting period so that voters could appear at the CBOE office to vote “[n]ot earlier than the third Thursday before an election ... and not later than 1:00 P.M. on the last Saturday before that election.” 2001 N.C. Sess. Law 319, § 5(a). Under this revision, CBOEs were granted discretion to extend the closing time on that final Saturday to 5:00 p.m. and, upon unanimous agreement (or in its absence, upon approval of the SBOE), to maintain early-voting hours during the evening or on weekends throughout the early-voting period. 9 Id. § 5(b).

In sum, these 2001 changes, effective January 1, 2002, moved the start of early voting three days closer to Election Day, reduced the number of required days of early voting to twelve and one-half days, but permitted an expansion up to seventeen days upon unanimous CBOE agreement. No one criticized or challenged the reduced minimum or other changes.

3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting

The next voting change, chronologically, was the advent of out-of-precinct (“OOP”) provisional voting, whose origins in North Carolina can be traced to Congress’ passage in 2002 of the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20901-21145 (formerly 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-15545 ), which in turn was passed in the wake of evidence of irregularities in the 2000 presidential election. HAVA, in part, required States to offer provisional ballots to individuals on Election Day who seek to vote and claim to be registered and eligible to vote for federal office, but who do “not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote.” See 52 U.S.C. § 21082 (a). However, HAVA only requires such provisional ballots to be counted “in accordance with State law.” Id. § 21082(a)(4). Thus, a provisional ballot must be counted only if State law authorizes it.

In 2003, a bill was introduced in the General Assembly titled, “Help America Vote Act Compliance.” H.B. 842, 2003 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2003). Its stated purpose was “to ensure that the State of North Carolina has a system for all North Carolina elections that complies with the requirements for federal elections set forth in” HAVA. See 2003 N.C. Sess. Law 226, § 1. It was approved unanimously. As to *335 provisional ballots specifically, the law provided that the CBOE shall count a provisional ballot “for all ballot items on which it determines that the individual was eligible under State or federal law to vote.” Id. § 15(5). •

Soon after, the SBOE claimed authority to count provisional ballots cast outside the voter’s correct precinct, and several affected Republican candidates raised a legal challenge. See In re Election Protest of Fletcher, 175 N.C.App. 755, 756 , 625 S.E.2d 564, 565 (2006) (noting the challenger’s party affiliation). The North Carolina Supreme Court unanimously' held that the counting of such ballots violated State law and SBOE regulations, which required voters to cast ballots in their assigned precinct. James v. Bartlett, 359 N.C. 260, 267-70 , 607 S.E.2d 638, 642-44 (2005) (“The plain meaning of [ N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-55 (2003)] 10 is that voters must cast ballots on election day in their precincts of residence.”). In reaching its decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized several “advantages” of the precinct system and in-precinct voting, which it observed were “woven throughout the fabric of [the State’s] election laws,” id. at 267 , 607 S.E.2d at 642 (citing statutes), including that

it caps the number of voters attempting to vote in the same place on election day; it allows each precinct ballot to list all of the votes a citizen may cast for all pertinent federal, state, and local elections, referenda, initiatives, and levies; it allows each precinct ballot to list only those votes.a citizen may cast, making ballots less confusing; it makes it easier for election officials to monitor votes and prevent election fraud; arid it generally puts polling places in closer proximity to voter residences.

Id. at 271 , 607 S.E.2d at 644 -45 (quoting Sandusky Cty, Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 , 569 (6th Cir.2004) (per curiam)). The court also noted:

If voters could simply appear at any precinct to cast their ballot, there would be no way under the present system to conduct elections without overwhelming delays, mass confusion, and the potential for fraud that robs the validity and integrity of our elections process.

Id.-.at 270, 607 S.E.2d at 644 . The North Carolina Supreme Court found that “it is but a perfunctory requirement that voters identify their proper precinct and appear within that precinct on election day to cast their ballots.” Id. at 271 , 607 S.E.2d at 645 .

In response to James, the General Assembly—on a purely partisan division— immediately passed SL 2005-2, 11 amending N.C. Gen. Stat. § • 163-55 to remove the requirement that voters appear in the proper precinct on Election Day in order to vote. 2005 N.C. Sess. Law 2, § 2. The General Assembly went further, however, to require that the law apply retroactively to the 2004 election, thus ensuring electoral victory for the Democratic candidates in the elections challenged in' James. Id. §§ 1-14. And as “extra insurance” against judicial intervention, the Democratic ma *336 jority put in place a procedure mandating that the legislature—and not' the courts— would decide contested elections for Statewide offices. (PL Ex. 46 at 30.) The General Assembly also placed in the law a finding that it had “take[n] note” that African Americans disproportionately used OOP voting on Election Day in November 2004. 2005 N.C. Sess. Law. 2, § 1.

4. SDR

The National Voter Registration Act '(“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20507 (a)(1) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(l)), permits a State to set a registration cut-off of thirty days before an election. North Carolina extends that deadline by five days such that a person is required to have registered to vote at least twenty-five days before an election in order to cast a ballot. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.6 (c).

In July 2007, the General Assembly— split almost-entirely along party lines— passed legislation permitting voters to register and vote at early-voting sites, which Governor Michael Easley signed into law. 12 The law provided that “an individual who is qualified to register to vote may register in person and then vote at [an early-voting] site in the person’s county of residence during the period for [early] voting provided under [§ ] 163-227.2.” 2007 N.C. Sess. Law 253, § 1. The law required a prospective voter to complete a voter registration form and produce documentary proof of her current name and address, either through a North Carolina driver’s license, a photo ID from a government agency, or a HAVA document. 13 Id. If she elected to vote immediately, the voter could “vote a retrievable absentee ballot as provided in [§ ] 163-227.2 immediately after registering.” Id. Within two business days, the CBOE was required, in conjunction with the SBOE, to verify the voter’s driver’s license or social security number (“SSN”), update the voting database, proceed to verify the voter’s proper address, and count the vote unless the CBOE determined that the applicant was not qualified to vote in accordance with the provisions of that chapter. Id. As will be seen, this meant that, as a practical matter votes were counted even though the voter registered and voted at the CBOE too close to Election Day to permit the CBOE to comply with North Carolina’s preexisting mail verification system for voter registration. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.7 .

5. Pre-registration

Ever since the ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971, a person who would be eighteen years-old on the next Election Day could register to vote in North Carolina, which included the primary for that election even if he would not be eighteen on the date of the primary. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-55 (a)(l), 163-59. In 1993, a bill to permit sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds to “preregister” was introduced but failed to gain passage. (PI. Ex. 46 at 23.)

In 2009, a bipartisan General Assembly passed SL 2009-541, which allowed for “pre-registration” of sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds who would not be eighteen before the next general election. 14 2009 N.C. Sess. Law 541, § 7(a). With pre-reg-istration, “[a] person who is at least 16 *337 years of age but will not be 18 years of age by the date of the next election and who is otherwise qualified to register may preregister to vote and shall be automatically registered upon reaching the age of eligibility, following verification of the person’s qualifications and address in accordance with [§ ] 163-82.7.” Id. Session Law 2009-541 also mandated that CBOEs conduct pre-registration drives. Id. § 16(a).

B. Post-2011 Legislation

In 2011, Republicans gained majorities in both houses of the General Assembly, yet the Democrats continued to control the governorship. With that shift, however, efforts to alter several of the recently-enacted election laws began. Those included bills to reduce early voting and end SDR and pre-registration. See e.g., H.B. 658, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011) (reducing early voting by a week); 15 S.B. 714, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011) (requiring all satellite early-voting sites to remain open at least the same number of days per week and the same number of hours per day as the CBOE site); S.B. 657, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.G. 2011) (eliminating a week of early voting and any Sunday voting); S.B. 47, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011) (eliminating a week of early voting, SDR, and straight-ticket voting); S.B. 657, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011) (eliminating a week of early voting, Sunday voting, SDR, and pre-registration). Most prominent among those proposals was H.B. 351, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011), entitled “Restore Confidence in Government,” which introduced a photo-ID requirement. HB 351 was debated in and passed North Carolina’s House and Senate, but was vetoed by Governor Beverly Perdue. (PI. Ex. 46 at 35.) According to a Plaintiffs’ expert in this case, “All of the votes were almost pure partisan splits.” (Id.)

In 2012, Republicans gained control of the governorship and, in 2013, control of both houses. After more than a century since controlling all offices, they renewed attempts to change North Carolina’s election administration. In 2013, several bills were introduced to reduce the early-voting period, eliminate SDR, and alter other procedures. See, e.g., H.B. 913, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating SDR and enhancing observer rights); S.B. 428, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating a week of early voting and SDR); S.B. 666, 2013 Gen. As-semb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating a week of early voting, weekend voting hours, and SDR); S.B. 721, 2013 Gen. As-semb., Reg. Sess. (N.C, 2013) (implementing voter ID and reducing early voting to six days); H.B. 451, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating a week of early voting, Sunday voting, SDR, and straight-ticket voting).

1. Introduction of HB 589

On March 12, 2013, the legislative process for SL 2013-381 began, with the North Carolina House Committee on Elections, chaired by Republican Representative David R. Lewis, holding public hearings on voter ID. (See PI. Ex. 127.) Over seventy-five citizens from a wide variety of organizations spoke before the committee. (Id. at 2-5.) The next day, the committee met and considered the testimony of five individuals representing a wide variety of organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice and the Heritage Foundation. (See PI. Ex. 128.) One of the speakers was Allison Riggs, counsel of record for the League Plaintiffs in case 1:13CV660, *338 who appeared on behalf of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. (Id. at 4.) On April 3, the committee heard from Ion Sancho, the Supervisor of Elections for Leon County, Florida, who testified about Florida’s experience when it reduced early-voting days in advance of the 2012 general election. (PI. Ex. 129 at 61-62, 69-70, 78-79.) Those public hearings were not required by the North Carolina House’s internal rules. (Defendants’ Exhibit (Def. Ex.) 217 at 3); see H.R. 64, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013), http:// www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/ PDF/H54v3.pdf (last visited April 6, 2016) (hereinafter “H.R. 54”). 16

On April 4, HB 589 was introduced in the House. (PL Ex. 106.) The bill dealt mostly with the implementation of a voter-ID requirement beginning in 2016 in portions titled the “Voter Information Verification Act.” (Id. at 1-6, 11-12.) The remainder of the bill dealt with the procedure for obtaining and voting mail-in absentee ballots. (Id. at 6-11.)

Under House rules, legislation must pass three readings. 17 On April 8, the bill passed “first reading” and was referred to the House Committee on Elections. (PI. Ex. 121.) The committee subsequently held another public hearing on April 10, during which over seventy-five citizens from across the political spectrum had the opportunity to speak. (PI. Ex. 130.) That same day, the committee held another hearing during which the bill was discussed and additional public comments were received. (PI. Ex. 545.) The committee further debated the bill and added amendments at a meeting held on April 17. (PI. Ex. 546.) The bill was referred to the House Committees on Finance. (PI. Ex. 121.)

HB 589 advanced, as amended, from the various House committees and was debated on the House floor on April 24. (Id.; PI. Exs. 547, 548.) Three amendments were adopted, six others were rejected, and the bill passed “second reading” on a roll-call vote of 80-36. 18 (PI. Ex. 121; PI. Ex. 548 at 177.) The bill subsequently passed “third reading,” on a vote of 81-36, and was passed by the House. (PI. Ex. 548 at 178.) Five House Democrats joined all present Republicans in voting for the voter-ID bill, (PI. Ex. 122 (noting roll call vote on April 24 third reading); PI. Ex. 138 at 67-68, 77, 88), but none of the African American members of the House supported it, (PL Exs. 122, 154). Representative Rick Glazier, who strongly opposed the bill, nevertheless acknowledged that “[fjor a large bill,” HB 589 received up to this point “the best process possible” in the House, one he characterized as “excellent.” (Doc. 165 at 56-57; see also PL Ex. 25 at 6.)

HB 589 was received in the North Carolina Senate the next day, passed first reading, and was assigned to the Senate Rules Committee. (Pl. Ex. 121.) The committee took no immediate action on the bill. The parties do not dispute that the Senate believed at this stage that HB 589 would have to be submitted to the DOJ for “pre-clearance” under § 5 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973c), because many North Carolina counties were “covered jurisdictions” under that section. At that time, however, the *339 United States Supreme Court was considering a challenge to the DOJ’s ability to enforce § 5. So, the bill sat.

On June 25, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder,- — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2612 , 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013), declaring the formula used to determine the § 5 covered jurisdictions, 52 U.S.C. • § 10303(b) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b)), to be unconstitutional. The next day, Senator Thomas Apodaca, Republican Chairman of the Rules Committee, publicly stated, “I think we’ll have an omnibus bill coming out” and words to, the effect that the Senate would move ahead with the “full bill.” (PI. Exs. 81, 714.) The contents of the “omnibus bill” were not disclosed at the time. HB 589 remained in the Senate Rules Committee without legislative action until late July 2013. (PI. Ex. 121.)

2. Revision of HB 589

A meeting of the Rules Committed' was scheduled for July 23. (See PI. Exs. 121, 135, 202.) The night before the Rules Committee meeting, the revised version of HB 589, now fifty-seven pages in length, was posted for the members on the Rules Committee website. 19 (PI. Ex. 18A at 7-8 (declaration of Sen. Josh Stein); PI. Ex. 107; Doc. 164 at 111-12 (testimony of Sen. Dan Blue); Doc. 335 at 169-72.) The revised bill contained ■& number of changes and now focused more broadly on election law reform. (See PI. Ex. 107.) Plaintiffs have characterized the bill as a “monster voter suppression law,” focusing on. the fact that it emerged at- fifty-seven pages* However, in truth, most of HB 589’s changes—some forty-two of the fifty-seven pages (74%)— have gone unchallenged in this case. The changes were also highlighted for the convenience of the reader.

HB 589’s various unchallenged revisions, which claimed to “reform” North Carolina’s election law, included: (1) standardizing the process for requesting an absentee ballot through an absentee ballot request form created by the SBOE (Part 4); (2) expanding the public agencies offering voter registration to include senior centers and parks and recreation services (Part 5); (3) making it illegal to compensate persons collecting voter registrations based on the number of forms they submitted (Part' 14); (4) requiring biannual efforts by the SBOE to remove ineligible voters from North Carolina’s voter rolls (Part 18); (5) reducing the number of signatures required to become a candidate in a party primary (Part 22); (6) deleting obsolete provisions about the 2000 census (Part 27); (7) mandating that several matters be referred for further study, including requiring the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee to examine whether to maintain the State’s current runoff, system in party primaries (Part 28); (8) eliminating the option of straight-ticket voting (voting for an entire party rather than individual candidates) (Part 32); (9) moving the date of the North Carolina presidential primary earlier in the year (Part 35); (10) eliminating taxpayer funding for appellate judicial elections (Part 38); (11) allowing funeral homes to participate in canceling voter registrations of deceased persons (Part 39); and (12) requiring provisional ballots to be marked as such for later identification (Part 52). (PI. Ex. 107.) The bill also changed the ordering of North Carolina’s ballots. Prior to 2013, while the candidates’ names were listed in random order in primaries, Democratic candidates were always listed first in the general election ballots. (Doc. 341 at 165.) *340 HB 589 altered the listing for general elections. (PI. Ex. 107 at 43.)

The provisions challenged in the present lawsuit comprise approximately fifteen of HB 589’s fifty-seven pages. 20 (See id.) Of those, roughly nine pages contain the voter-ID requirement. 21 Many of the voter-ID provisions did not differ from those in the old, already debated version of the bill: The new changes principally included the removal of certain government, state university, and community college IDs from the acceptable list. (Compare PI. Ex. 105 at 2-3 (original bill filed in the House on April 4, 2013), with PL Ex. 107 at 2 (version approved by the Senate Rules Committee on July 23, 2013.) The bill proposed that the voter-ID requirement go into effect in 2016 but be implemented through a “soft roll out,” whereby voters at the polls in 2014 and 2015 would be advised of the law’s requirement that they will need a qualifying photo ID to vote beginning in 2016 and to permit them time to obtain a free ID from the State. (PI. Ex. 107 at 14.)

So, of the fifty-seven-page bill, nine pages related to the voter-ID requirement, much of which was in the original version of the bill, and approximately six pages contained the other challenged provisions in this case. Those are: (1) the reduction of the period of early voting from seventeen to ten days; (2) the elimination of SDR; (3) the prohibition on the counting of ballots cast outside a voter’s correct voting precinct on Election Day (“OOP voting”); (4) the allowance for up to ten at-large poll observers within each county; (5) the ability of any registered voter in the county, as opposed to precinct, to challenge a ballot; (6) the elimination of the discretion of CBOEs to keep the polls open an additional hour on Election Day in “extraordinary circumstances”; and (7) the elimination of “pre-registration” of sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds who will not be eighteen by the next general election.

Several legislators reported they had been caught off guard by these changes. (See, e.g., PI. Ex. 18A at 8 (Sen. Stein); PI. Ex. 21 at 7 (Sen. Blue).) In truth, many of these additions to HB 589 were drawn from or patterned after similar bills then pending in the General Assembly. See H.B. 913, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (SDR); S.B. 666, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (early voting and SDR); S.B. 721, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (early voting); H.B. 451, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (early voting and SDR). Moreover, and as discussed below, any assertions of surprise are weakened by the fact that Senator Stein appeared the next day with charts and statistics on early voting and SDR that likely could not have been tabulated overnight. (See PI. Ex. 18A at 18 & Ex. A.)

When the Senate Rules Committee met as scheduled on July 23, Senator Apodaca allowed members of the public in attendance to speak for two minutes. 22 (PI. Ex. 202 at 41-56.) Speakers included- the League Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Riggs, as well as Jamie Phillips, who represented the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. (Id. at 41-43, 53-54.) The majority of comments addressed the voter-ID requirement, although citizens also *341 spoke in opposition to the other challenged provisions, including the changes to SDR, pre-registration, and early voting. Several opponents characterized the bill as an effort at voter suppression. (See, e.g., id. at 41 (Riggs: “voter suppression at its very worst”); id. at 53 (Phillips: “The fewer young people and minorities who vote, the better it seems in your minds. We get it. No one is being fooled.”).) Proponents denied the charges. (See id. at 67-69, 74-75.)

The Senate Rules Committee debated the recent additions to HB 589. Senator Stein argued that a voter-ID requirement, the reduction in early voting, and the removal of SDR were unneeded changes that would burden voters. (Id. at 32, 37-40.) Senator Robert Rucho, a Republican supporter of HB 589, responded. As to early voting, Senator Rucho cited concerns about inconsistency in the administration of early voting, lack of optimal utilization of early voting during the seventeen-day period, and the then-exiting early-voting system’s potential for “gamesmanship and partisan advantage.” (Id. at 30-32, 74-75.) He also noted the potential for “savings in the sense that by going from seventeen to ten days you actually have more opportunity to open up more sites.” (Id. at 30.) Senator Rucho further cited “integrity and honesty” in North Carolina’s election administration as well as increased public confidence as reasons for the voter-ID provisions. (Id. at 37, 68.) He noted that other States have an ID-requirement but also expressed a belief that most people had one of the required forms of ID or, in combination with the two-year soft roll out, had ample opportunity to obtain a free photo ID, as provided through the bill. (Id. at 36, 39, 67-68.) Senator Rucho also observed that the bill eliminated college IDs from the list of acceptable IDs because of the inconsistency in the issuance of those IDs across the State. (Id. at 68-69.) The elimination of OOP voting was described—apparently by a legislative staffer introducing the bill—as “mov[ing] the law back to the way it was prior to 2005; conforming] to federal law”; no Senator spoke in opposition to its elimination. 23 (Id. at 12.) Senator Rucho defended thé removal of SDR as a way to verify voter registrations by “giv[ing] the Board of Elections an opportunity to do their job correctly, [to] validate those individuals.” (Id. at 41.) Finally, as to pre-registration, Senator Rucho stated that its elimination was'meant to “offer some clarity and some certainty 'as to when ... that young person is eligible to vote and registers to vote,” citing his son’s own confusion about when pre-registration authorized him to vote. (Id. at 22.) After debate, the bill passed the committee and proceeded to the floor for second reading. (Id. at 76.)

The following afternoon, on July 24, HB 589 was introduced on the floor of the full Senate. (PI. Ex. 549 at 1-2.) During several hours of debate after the bill’s second reading,. Democratic senators introduced and discussed several proposed amendments. Plaintiffs argue that amendments “designed to ameliorate burdens on African Americans [proposed during the debate] were defeated with little discussion.” (Doc. 346 at 52.) This is simply untrue. First, many such “amendments” were no more than proposals to remove the key provisions at issue. (See PI. Ex. 549 at. 32-33.) Moreover, the Senate did consider and adopt an early-voting aggregate-hours amendment by Senator Stein, which was substantive and significant. This came after Senator Stein argued that the reduction in early voting would disproportion *342 ately impact African Americans, and he introduced an amendment to require CBOEs to offer the same number of aggregate hours of early voting as were offered in the last comparable election (whether presidential or off-year). (Id. at 16-18, 43-44; see also PI. Ex. 115 (text of the amendment).) This could be accomplished, he proposed, by CBOEs offering more hours at present sites, or by opening more sites. (PI. Ex. 549 at 46.) Senator Stein argued that the amendment would “mitigate” the impact the reduction of early-voting days would have on all voters, including African Americans. (Id. at 28-29.) Responding, Senator Rucho urged the Senate to support Senator Stein’s amendment, (id. at 44), and it passed by a vote of forty-seven to one, (id. at 49). In all, ten amendments were raised; two were withdrawn, and three were adopted. (E.g., id. at 49-51; 64-65; PI. Ex. 121.)

During the more than four hours of debate, the Senators exchanged argument on many of the other challenged provisions, including voter ID, SDR, pre-regis-tration, and the increase in allowable poll observers, as well as several provisions not at issue here (including the elimination of straight-ticket voting and reduction of various campaign-finance restrictions). (See PI. Ex. 549 at 66-141.) Senator Stein' presented charts to support his arguments about HB 589’s disparate impact 24 with respect to early voting and SDR, (see PL Ex. 18A at 18 & Ex. A.), although it is not clear how many senators reviewed them, (Doc. 335 at 195-97). During this hearing, supporters of the bill offered the following reasons in support of its enactment: reestablishing confidence in the electoral process through voter ID, with noted skepticism about the number of voters lacking acceptable identification or the ability to obtain one in North Carolina, (PI. Ex. 549 at 2-3, 86-88, 90); the public support for voter ID, (id. at 3); concern over voter fraud, (id. at 78, 95); inconsistency in college IDs (which were previously permitted in the House version of the bill), (id. at 91-92); providing CBOEs with flexibility to expand early-voting hours and sites to ensure voter access, (id. at 4-5, 11); allowing for the verification of voters’ information, (id. at 5, 78); eliminating confusion stemming from pre-registration, (id. at 6-7); and a desire to align the State with the practices of othér States as to SDR, pre-régistration, and voter ID, (id. at 37, 76-77). At the end of the debate, Senator Martin Nesbitt (Democrat), although opposing the bill strongly and urging its defeat, described the debate as “heated,” “healthy,” and “good.” (Id. at 136.) He characterized two of the “unintended consequences” of the bill to have been “fixed” through the amendment process. (Id. at 137.) After the bill passed the second reading, Senator Apodaca objected to a third reading that day, which extended its consideration by mandating that the debate of the bül be carried over into the next day. (Id. at 142.)

On July 25, the Senate began its session with the third reading of amended HB 589, (PI. Ex. 550 at 1-2.) Senator Rucho offered a bipartisan amendment to clarify Senator *343 Stein’s aggregate-hours amendment to permit a county to obtain a waiver from the aggregate-hours requirement upon unanimous approval of both the CBOE and the SBOE; it passed forty-six to zero. (Id. at 7, 16; see also Pl. Ex. 119 (text of amendment).) Proponents and opponents of the bill debated both its provisions and the merits of various amendments over the next four-plus hours, and the Senate accepted an amendment dealing with electioneering from Senator Dan Blue (Democrat). (Pl. Ex. 550 at 82-83.) Points made in favor of the bill at this time included the increased integrity of elections furthered by requiring voter ID, (id. at 44, 99); public support for a voter ID requirement, (id. at 44, 52, 98, 100); concerns of voter fraud, (id. at 76); increased time for verification of voter registrations (SDR), (id. at 45-46); bolstering public confidence in the election process, (id. at 53); increased early-voting hours for voters who worked full-time jobs, (id. at 55-56); and statewide uniformity in early voting, (id. at 56-57). Several Democratic senators characterized the bill as voter suppression of minorities.. (E.g„ id. at 26-35 (Sen. Stein), 57-67 (Sen. Blue), 68-74 (Sen. Gladys Robinson).) Others characterized the bill as partisan. (Id. at 42 (“I can’t help but wonder if the goal is simply to maintain political power.”); id. at 66 (contending that the intent of the law is incumbency protection).) ' Proponents strongly denied such claims and claimed the bill reversed past practices Democrats passed to favor themselves. See, e.g., id. at 50-53 (Sen. Thom Goolsby (Republican) alleging Democrat-partisan influence in past election administration); id. at 74 (Sen. Andrew Brock (Republican) expressing desire to correct Democrat-influence in the placement of early-voting sites).)

By the close of debate, a total of fourteen amendments had been raised in the Senate, with five being adopted, and the Senate voted in favor of HB 589 along party lines; the bill then returned to the House for concurrence, as amended. (Id. at 100; Pl. Ex. 121; Pl. Ex. 124.) Senator Nesbitt (Democrat), although a vocal opponent of the bill, noted that “we’ve had a good and thorough debate on this bill over two’ days” and “reviewed the bill in great detail.” (Pl. Ex. 550 at 90-91.)

With the end of the legislative session approaching, the House received the Senate’s version of HB, 589 that night. (Pl. Ex. 121.) At the beginning of a two-hour floor session starting at 7:45 p.m., Representative Henry M. Michaux, Jr. (African American, Democrat) moved that the House form a Committee of the Whole 25 to consider the bill. (Pl. Ex. 138 at 1-3.) Representative Michaux testified at trial that forming a Committee of the Whole was not customary, and he could not recall the House ever before having done so. (Doc. 336 at 38.) Representative Tim Moore (Republican) . opposed the motion on the grounds that “it is simply a waste of time” because such a committee “is the same as the full House,” which the bill was properly before at the moment. (Pl. Ex. 138 at 5 (“I can’t think of the last time the House has met as the Committee of the Whole.”).) The motion appears to have been a tactic to slow or stop the bill, and it failed by a vote of forty-one to sixty-nine. (Id. at 6-7.)

Two amendments offered by opponents (Sen. Blue’s amendment of the date for electioneering; amendments by Senators Rucho and Stein altering several items, including “expand[ing] and “better de-fin[ing]” the type and number of IDs that can be presented for voting, and requiring *344 the same number of hours of early voting) were adopted 109 to 0. (Id. at 7-11.) The provisions of the new full bill were then reviewed. (Id. at 12-27.) Each member of the House Democratic caucus present— including four of the five members who voted for the House version in April—were granted time to speak in opposition to the bill. (Id. at 67-69, 76-79, 88-89; Doc. 165 at 64-65 (testimony of Rep. .Glazier).) Some opponents characterized the measure as voter suppression, partisan, and disproportionately affecting African Americans, young voters, and the elderly. (E.g., PI. Ex. 138 at 57 (“[0]ur anger tonight is palpable. Passage of this bill is a political call to arms.”); id. at 59 (“This is the most pointedly, obviously politically partisan bill I’ve ever seen.”); id. at 64 (“voter suppression”). On the Republican side, Representative Lewis, a House supporter of the bill, spoke in support of the amended bill. 26 (Id. at 116-20.) He pointed out, among other things, that the bill does not bar Sunday voting, maintains'the same overall hours of early voting, provides for free photo ID, and, in his opinion, strengthens the requirements for absentee voting. 27 (Id.) Subsequently, the House voted—again along party lines—to concur in the Senate’s version óf HB 589 at 10:39 p.m. (Id. at 120; PI. Ex. 122 (noting July 25 roll call vote in House).)

In total, there are over 430 pages of transcript representing several hours of debate on HB 589 after its amended version was introduced in July 2013. There is no evidence that any House or Senate Rule was disregarded or violated at any time during the bill’s legislative process. (Def. Ex. 217 at 3; Doc. 335 at 193.)

The bill was ratified the next day and presented to Governor McCrory on July 29. (PI. Ex. 121.) The governor signed the bill into law on August 12, 2013, over the recommendation of the Attorney General (an elected Democrat), who nevertheless appears in this lawsuit to defend it. (Id.)

3. Enactment of HB 836

On June 18, 2015, less than a month before trial was set to begin in these cases, the General Assembly passed House Bill 836, and the governor signed it into law as SL 2015-103 on June 22, 2015. 28 The law modified the photo-ID scheme created by SL 2013-381 in three primary ways.

First, it expands the category of acceptable photo IDs by permitting driver’s licenses, permits, provisional licenses, and non-operator IDs that have been expired *345 for up to four years. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163—166.13(e)(1)—(2). Moreover, any voter seventy years of age or older is permitted to vote using any of the acceptable identifications that expired at any point after the voter’s seventieth birthday. Id. § 163—166.13(f).

Second, the law requires poll workers to inform those without an acceptable ID. that they can complete a written request for an absentee ballot at an early-voting site until 5:00 p.m. on the Tuesday before Election Day (i.e., the deadline for requesting absentee ballots). Id. §§ 163—166.13(c)(3), 163-227.2(bl), 163-230.1.

Third, and most importantly, it creates an additional exception that permits in-person voters who do not have an acceptable photo ID to -cast a provisional ballot so long as they complete a declaration stating a reasonable impediment prevented them from acquiring qualifying photo ID. Id. §§ 163—166.13(c)(2), 163-166.15(a)-(b). Such voters must present alternate identification, which can consist of “the voter registration card issued to the voter by the' county board of elections” or “a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document” 29 that shows the name and address of the voter. 30 Id. §§ 163-166.15(c), 163-166.12(a)(2). Alternatively, voters may provide their date of birth and the last four digits of their SSN (“SSN4”). Id. § 163-166.15(c).

Session Law 2015-103 expressly addresses the scope of the reasonable impediment exception. At a minimum, all reasonable impediment declaration forms are required to include separate boxes listing the following reasonable impediments to acquiring a photo ID: (1) “Lack of transportation;' (2) “Disability or illness”; (3) “Lack of birth certificate or other documents needed to obtain photo identification”; (4) “Work Schedule”; (5) “Family responsibilities”; (6) “Lost or stolen photo identification”; and (7) “Photo identification applied for but not received by.the voter voting in person.” Id. § 163— 166.15(e). In addition, the form must list a box for “[o]ther reasonable impediment,” which the voter -can check and provide a “brief written - identification of the reasonable impediment.” 31 Id. § 163-166.15(e)(l)h.

Although a reasonable impediment voter casts a provisional ballot, the ballot must be counted unless one of the following is true: the impediment described in the declaration is “factually false, merely denigrate[s] the photo identification requirement, or [is an] obviously nonsensical statement ]”; the voter fails to provide one of the alternate forms of identification discussed above; the CBOE could not confirm the voter’s registration using the alternate form of identification provided; or the “voter is disqualified for some other reason provided by law.” Id. § 163-182.1B(a). Significantly, if a voter’s reasonable impediment declaration is challenged, the CBOE is required to “construe all evidence presented in the light most favorable to the voter submitting the reasonable impediment declaration” and cannot reject the. impediment on the ground that it is not reasonable. See id. § 163-182.1B(b)(5)-(6).

*346 House Bill 836 was proposed with little notice and considered as an amendment to a pending conference report, which is unusual, (PL Ex. 895.) The legislative record contains thirty pages of debate and indicates an intent for a broad application of the exception. (Id.) Democrats questioned the process but consented to fast-track consideration, thus enabling the law to receive immediate consideration and passage by a wide margin (103 to 4). (Id. at 30; see also id. at 29 (Representative Hall: “This conference report does contain some things that will help get us back to where we are [sic] where we did not have unnecessary restrictions on voters and where we didn’t have any real measurable voter fraud,”).)

In summary, as to the major components challenged herein, SL 2013-381 and SL 2015-103 had the following effect: Voter ID:

Beginning in 2016, in-person voters who have a qualifying photo ID “bearing any reasonable resemblance to that voter” must' present it to vote, either at the polling place or at the CBOE after casting a provisional ballot. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163— 166.13, 163-182.1A; 2013 N.C. Sess. Law 381, § 6.2. Acceptable photo IDs are (1) a North Carolina driver’s license, learner’s permit, or provisional license (expired up to four years); (2) a special non-operator’s identification card (expired up to four years); (3) a United States passport; (4) a United States military identification card; (5) a Veterans Identification Card issued by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; (6) a tribal enrollment card issued by a federally recognized tribe; (7) a tribal enrollment card issued by a tribe recognized by North Carolina, so long as it is signed by an elected official of the tribe and the requirements for obtaining it are equivalent to the requirements for obtaining a special identification card from the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”); and (8) a driver’s license or non-operator’s identification card issued by another State or the District of Columbia so long as the voter registered to vote within ninety days of Election Day. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-166.13 (e). Those who do not have a qualifying photo ID and who can list a reasonable impediment to getting one, can vote in person without photo ID so long as they provide alternative identification and complete a reasonable impediment declaration. Id. §§ 163-166.13(c)(2), 163-166.15. Because the reasonableness of the impediment given cannot be challenged, in practice the reasonable impediment exception is better characterized as an impediment exception. See id. •§ 163-182.1B(b)(6). Only the voter’s subjective belief is relevant to the reasonableness inquiry. See id. In addition, curbside voters, those with religious objections to being photographed, certain victims of natural disasters, and absentee mail voters are exempt from the photo-ID requirement. Id. § 163-166.13(a). Early Voting:

Early voting must now begin “[n]ot earlier than the second Thursday before an election,” a reduction of seven days of permissible early voting. H. § 163-227.2(b). Early voting must end by 1:00 p.m. on the final Saturday before Election Day, eliminating CBOE discretion to keep early-voting sites open until 5:00 p.m. Id. Under the Stein amendment, the decrease in permissible days, however, is coupled with a requirement that the aggregate voting hours offered remain the same. Thus, the law requires that, “[f]or elections which do not include a presidential candidate on the ballot,” CBOEs must “calculate the cumulative total number of scheduled voting hours at all sites during the 2010 ... elections” and “ensure that, at least the same number of hours offered in 2010 is offered for [early voting] ... through a combination of hours and num *347 bers of [early-voting] sites during [those] election^]Id. § 163-227.2(g2)(2). In other words, counties must offer the same number of aggregate hours of early voting in non-presidential elections as they did in November 2010. CBOEs must make the same calculation with- respect to presidential elections: e.g„ the same hours in 2016 elections as in 2012, Id. § 163-227.2(g2)(l), The CBOEs can meet these requirements either by opening more early-voting sites or keeping the existing sites open for more hours, including expanding weekend, voting hours. See id. § 163—227.2(f) (“A county board may conduct [early] voting during evenings or on weekends, as long as the hours are part of a plan submitted and approved according to subsection (g) of this section.”). The law also requires that, except for CBOE offices, any early-voting site within a county maintain the same hours of operation as every other site in that county. Id. § 163-227.2(g).

' If a county determinés that it cannot meet the aggregate-hours requirement or that additional hours are unnecessary, it may obtain a waiver only “by unanimous vote of the board, with all members present and voting.” Id. § 163-227.2(g3). The waiver request must also be approved by a unanimous vote of the SBOE. Id. Absent a waiver, counties must either open more early-voting sites or keep existing sites open longer to satisfy SL 2013-381’s aggregate-hours requirement.

SDR:

Session Law 2013-381 repealed SDR. To be eligible to vote in any primary or general election, a voter must comply with preexisting law that requires the registration application to be postmarked or delivered in person at least twenty-five days before Election Day. Id. § 163-82.6(c). 32 Under existing federal law, those who move to the' State after the registration cut-off date nevertheless remain able to vote for president and vice president. 52 U.S.C. § 10502 (e).

OOP:

Session Law 2013-381 prohibits the counting of OOP provisional ballots, thereby reinstating the North Carolina Supreme Court’s interpretation of State law in James. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-55 (a) now provides,

Every person born in the United States, and every person who has been naturalized, arid who shall have resided in the State of North Carolina and in the precinct in which the person offers to vote for 30 days next preceding an election, shall, if otherwise qualified as prescribed in this Chapter, be qualified to vote in the precinct in which the person resides.

Thus, as a general matter, if a voter appears at the wrong precinct on Election Day, he or she will have to go to the proper precinct before the close of the polls in order to cast a valid vote. 33

*348 Pre-registration:

Session Law 2013-381 ends the practice of pre-registration. Voter registration applications now ask only one question regarding the applicant’s age: “Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.4 (d)(2). Thus, those who are seventeen but will be eighteen before Election Day may still register to vote in that election and in any primary before that election under SL 2013-381,

Under SL 2013-381, the repeal of preregistration took effect in September 2013; the revisions to early voting and the elimination of SDR and OOP voting became effective in January 2014; and the voter-ID requirement took effect in January 2016. 2013 N.C. Sess. Law 381, §§ 6.2, 12.1(3), 60.2.

C. Procedural History

On the same day that Governor McCro-ry signed HB 589 into law, two groups sued to enjoin it. The NAACP filed its complaint in case l:13cv658, later amended, alleging that the voter-ID requirement, elimination of SDR, reduction of early-voting days, prohibition on counting OOP provisional ballots, elimination of pre-reg-istration, and the expansion of poll observers and ballot challenges discriminates against African Americans and Hispanics in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as § 2 of the VRA. The League Plaintiffs filed their complaint in case l:13cv660, alleging that the elimination of SDR, reduction of early-voting days, prohibition on counting OOP provisional ballots, and elimination of CBOE discretion to extend poll hours one hour on Election Day discriminates against African Americans and imposes an unjustified burden on all North Carolinians, in violation of § 2 of the VRA and the Fourteenth Amendment. On September 30, 2013, the United States filed its complaint in case l:13cv861, alleging that the law’s early voting, SDR, OOP voting, and voter-ID provisions discriminate against African Americans in violation of § 2 of the VRA. These cases were consolidated for discovery and were later consolidated for trial at the parties’ request. (Doc. 252.)

On January 27, 2014, the court permitted a group of “young voters” over the age of eighteen and others to intervene as Plaintiffs in case 1:13CV660 pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Intervenors allege that the elimination of pre-registration, reduction in early voting, repeal of SDR, prohibition on counting OOP ballots, elimination of CBOE discretion to keep the polls open an extra hour on Election Day, and implementation of a voter-ID requirement violate the. Fourteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments.

All Plaintiffs alleged.that the variously challenged provisions of SL 2013-381 have a discriminatory intent and effect, although the United States has since abandoned its discriminatory effect claim to the voter-ID law after passage of the reasonable impediment exception. As relief, they seek to permanently enjoin the challenged provisions. The United States seeks the appointment of federal observers under § 3(a) of the VRA and to subject North Carolina to a pre-clearance requirement under § 3(c).

Several elections have occurred during the pendency of these cases. The first occurred in the fall of 2013, when North Carolina held municipal elections. No plaintiff sought to enjoin enforcement of the law during this election.

In December 2013, after a hearing with all parties and at their request, the Magistrate Judge issued a scheduling order, setting May 5, 2014, as the deadline for the filing of a motion for preliminary injunction and dispositive motions. (Doc. 30.) The *349 parties later jointly moved to reset this deadline to May 19, 2014. (Doc. 91.) 34

On May 6, 2014, North Carolina held a midterm primary election. No plaintiff sought to enjoin enforcement of SL 2013-381 during this election. Compared to the previous comparable primary midterm election, 2010, turnout increased overall: among registered white voters, it increased from 15.8% to 17.4%; among registered African American voters, it increased from 11.4% to 13.4%; and among registered Hispanic voters, it increased from 2.9% to 3.3%. (Def. Ex. 309 at 66.) Thus, the greatest increase in turnout in the 2014 midterm primary was observed among African American voters, despite the implementation of SL 2013-381.

On May 19, 2014, Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 94.) That same day, Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary injunction and the United States sought the appointment of federal observers. (Docs. 96, 98.) Collectively, Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the elimination of SDR, OOP voting, pre-registration, CBOE discretion to keep the polls open an extra hour, the reduction of early voting, the expansion of poll observers and ballot challengers, and the “soft rollout” of the voter-ID law (in which voters would be advised that the photo-ID requirement would apply starting in 2016).

Beginning on July 7, 2014, this court held a four-day evidentiary hearing on all motions. On August 8, 2014, after considering the testimony of multiple fact and expert witnesses and a record with over 11,-000 pages of exhibits and materials, this court issued a 125-page opinion denying the motions for preliminary injunction but refusing to dismiss any claims. 997 F.Supp.2d 322 (M.D.N.C.2014).

On August 18, 2014, Plaintiffs—except for the United States—and Intervenors filed notice of appeal. (Docs. 172,174,175.) Plaintiffs were granted an expedited appeal, a limited briefing schedule was ordered, and on September 25, 2014, the court heard oral argument. Less than a week later, on October 1, 2014, a divided panel issued an opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding with instructions. League, 769 F.3d at 229 . The majority found that Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the claim that the repeal of SDR and OOP voting violated § 2 of the VRA. The court of appeals remanded the case with instructions to reinstitute the previous SDR and OOP voting provisions “in full force pending the conclusion of a full hearing on the merits.” Id. at 248-49. Judge Diana Grib-bon Motz dissented. .

On the same day the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion, it also issued its mandate. Defendants immediately requested that the mandate be recalled and stayed pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The next day, on October 2, the panel denied the motion, over Judge Motz’s dissent.

Later that day, Defendants applied to the Chief Justice for a stay and recall of the Fourth Circuit’s mandate pending the filing and disposition of a certiorari petition. The Chief Justice referred the application to the full Court. Yet, while the proceedings were pending in the Supreme Court, the League Plaintiffs filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus with *350 the Fourth Circuit, seeking to have the court of appeals order this court to enter the preliminary injunction. On October 3, this court entered the preliminary injunction mandated by the Fourth Circuit and set a hearing for October 7, to address the State’s plan for ensuring implementation of the preliminary injunction. (Doc. 189.)

The next day, the Supreme Court, over the dissent of two Justices, recalled and stayed the Fourth Circuit’s mandate and this court’s preliminary injunction, pending the filing and disposition of Defendants’ petition for a writ of certiorari. —- U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 6 , 190 L.Ed.2d '243 (2014). Two days later, on October 10, the Fourth Circuit implemented the stay and recall of mandate. After briefing in the Supreme Court, Defendants’ petition was denied on April 6, 2015. On May 5, 2015, the mandate of the Fourth Circuit issued, and this court’s preliminary injunction went back into effect, reinstituting SDR and OOP until a final resolution on the merits. .

Meanwhile, while the mandate and preliminary injunction were stayed by the Supreme Court, North Carolina held its 2014 general election, the third election under SL 2013-381. Compared to the last comparable midterm general election, 2010, voter participation increased: among registered white voters, it increased from 45.7% to 46.8%; among registered African American voters, it increased from 40.4% to 42.2%; and among registered Hispanic voters, it increased from 19.9% to 20.5%. (Def. Ex. 309 at 66.) Not only did African American turnout increase more than other groups in 2014 with SL 2013-381 in place, but that general election saw the smallest white-African American turnout disparity in any midterm election from 2002 to 2014. (Id. at 62; PL Ex. 229 at 7.)

Trial was set for July 13, 2015. But as a result of the General Assembly’s June 18, 2015 passage of House Bill 836, the court immediately held a status conference to address how this change in law might affect the pending cases. Plaintiffs pushed for additional time to assess the new law but opposed delaying trial on the remaining claims; Defendants argued that the amendment rendered the challenge to the voter-ID portion of the law moot. The court proposed continuing the trial to September 2015 but, at Plaintiffs’ urging, ultimately carved out the challenge to the voter-ID law from the July 13 trial setting and agreed to proceed to trial on the balance of the consolidated claims. (Doc. 282.) Thereafter, Defendants moved to dismiss the voter-ID challenge as moot (Doc. 299); the court denied the motion, setting trial on those claims for January 25, 2016.

Beginning July 13, 2015, this court held a trial on the merits of all claims except those challenging the voter-ID provisions. Over the course of three weeks, the court took the testimony of over 100 witnesses, both live and through deposition. Following trial, the parties submitted almost 300 pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Docs. 346, 347.)

On November 24, 2015, five months after SL 2015-103 and eight weeks before trial, NAACP Plaintiffs moved to preliminarily enjoin the implementation of the photo-ID provision of SL 2013-381, as amended by the reasonable impediment provision. (Doc. 371.) The United States did not join this motion. Briefing was completed on December 21, 2015. (Doc. 375.) On January 15, 2016, the court issued a fifty-four page memorandum opinion and order denying NAACP Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 383.)

' On January 25, 2016, this court held a trial on the merits of Plaintiffs’ .claims challenging the voter-ID law. 35 The court *351 took the testimony of five expert and nineteen fact witnesses over the course of six days. The parties have since submitted 138 additional pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court also granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed request to supplement the record post-trial with materials relating to SBOE training efforts occurring in early February 2016.

Including the evidence from the preliminary injunction hearing, which the parties have stipulated to be considered part of the trial record pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2), the record therefore consists of over 25,000 pages of exhibits, reports, and deposition transcripts. 36 Despite Plaintiffs’ insistence on trying the claims separately, which invited this court’s piecemeal adjudication, the court has remained faithful to the Fourth Circuit’s direction in League, 769 Fi3d at 242, to “consider the sum of those parts and their cumulative effect on minority access to the ballot box.” Accordingly, this court has considered the issues from all evidentiary proceedings in reaching its decision.

D. Evidence of Voter Experience Under Current Law

Plaintiffs argue that the addition of voter ID and the removal of the challenged provisions of SL 2013-381 creates inequality of opportunity, unlawfully burdens all voters, and results in a disparate, negative burden on African American, Hispanic, and “young”' voters. The evidence as to each of the challenged provisions is addressed below.

1. Voter ID

Due to the soft rollout, a photo ID was not required until the March 2016 primary. Thus, unlike the other provisions at issue in this case, no data were presented from an election where the ID requirement was in place.

a. Voter Education about the Voter-ID Requirement Prior to the Reasonable Impediment Exception

Defendants have engaged in substantial efforts to educate voters about the State’s photo-ID requirement. Three elections were held during the educational effort: municipal elections in November 2013, midterm primary elections in May 2014, and midterm general elections in November 2014.

Session Law 2013-381 contains a mandate to inform and educate voters about the new law. See 2013 N.C. Sess. Law 381, § 5.3. The General Assembly appropriated approximately $2 million to implement this requirement. 37 (Def. Ex. 535 at 2.) To accomplish these efforts, the SBOE hired election specialists “to create a mechanism to inform and provide education to the public on the requirements for [SL 2013-381], and to assist voters who do not have a photo ID for the purpose of voting in obtaining a photo ID.” (PI. Ex. 815 at 16-Í7.)

One of the SBOE’s efforts was to educate voters at the polls. For the. 2014 general election, the SBOE developed a color poster that depicted the photo IDs that would be accepted in 2016 and advised that voters would need a photo ID to vote beginning in 2016. (Id. at 28.) To accompany the poster, the SBOE developed a “two- *352 sided color card that [would be handed out] to people who want[ed] information about photo ID and how to obtain it.” (Id.) In order to avoid confusion that photo ID was needed prior to 2016, the SBOE also developed a large sign to be displayed at the entrance of voting sites stating that voters did not need photo ID to vote in the current election. (Id. at 29.) A similar sign facing voters exiting the voting site stated that voters would need a photo ID to vote in 2016 and encouraged them to ask poll workers for more information. (Id.) In addition, at least by the 2014 primary, poll workers were directed to tell voters they would need a photo ID to vote in 2016, show the color poster illustrating qualifying IDs, and ask voters, whether they had access to one of the approved forms of ID. (Id. at 71-72.) Voters who said they had a qualifying ID were asked to sign the poll book; if they said they did not, they were asked to sign the poll book with a line that said, “I do not have a photo ID” and were told that they would need one starting in 2016. (Id.) Poll workers gave' voters without qualifying ID the two-sided color push card noted above with instructions on how to get a free ID. (Id. at’ 72-73; Doc. 414 at 167; Def. Ex. 478.) The State kept track of those who claimed they did not have access to an acceptable photo ID. (PI. Ex. 815 at 72-73.) '

In addition to efforts to educate voters at polling sites, the SBOE created a special website dedicated to the photo-ID requirement and contacted specific voters who potentially lacked qualifying ID. This mailing effort targeted two groups. First, the SBOE- sent a mailing to 10,675 registered voters who claimed they did not have acceptable photo ID while voting in the 2014 elections. (Def. Ex. 535 at 7.) Second, it sent mailings to those who could not be matched to a government database of persons with acceptable IDs. (Id. at 8-11.)

In the lead up to the enactment of North Carolina’s voter-ID law, the SBOE engaged in a series of database matching efforts designed to gauge how many North Carolina registered voters lack qualifying ID. Those registrants who could not be matched to a list of persons with North Carolina DMV-issued ID appeared on a “no-match list.” (See, e.g., PI. Ex. 891 at 3.) The SBOE’s no-match list contained 1,005,581 registrants as of a February 9, 2011 report, 612,955 registrants as of a January 7, 2013 report, 481,109 registrants as of a March 5, 2013 report, and 318,643 registrants as of an April 17, 2013 report. (Id. (tbl. 1).) The SBOE refined the matching criteria in each report. Although none of the SBOE’s reports was “intended to be a comprehensive study on the number of voters who may not have any photo ID, regardless of source,” the SBOE indicated that its April 2013 report was, at that time, the “most accurate estimate on the number of voters for whom [it] c[ould not] determine to have a photo ID issued by the [DMV].” (PL Ex. 534 at 1.) The SBOE’s most recent no-match analysis took place in February 2015 and was based on a November 4, 2014 snapshot of the data. (PI. Ex. 535 at 8.) It identified 254,-391 registered voters who could not be matched to a qualifying ID in the DMVs database. (Id.) Further, as part of this litigation, Plaintiffs’ expert Charles Stewart, Ph.D., Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 38 engaged in a matching analysis based on a July 16, 2014 snapshot of the data. (PI. Ex. 242 at 11, 38 (tbl. 7).) Dr. Stewart concluded that 397,971 registrants could not be *353 matched to having a qualifying ID in the DMV and certain federal databases. (Id.)

The SBOE followed up on both its February 2015 report and Dr. Stewart’s report. Specifically, it contacted 218,097 39 registered voters on the basis of the SBOE’s February 2015 no-match list and 209,253 40 registered voters on the basis of Dr. Stewart’s no-match list. (Def. Ex. 535 at 8-10.) The mailing stated that photo ID would be needed to vote in 2016, listed resources for obtaining free photo ID, and provided a postage pre-paid response card where recipients were asked to “confirm[ ] whether they had acceptable photo ID, and indicate] whether, if they did not, they would like assistance in obtaining one.” (Id. at 9.) The SBOE went through the same mailing process for voters who claimed they did not have a qualifying photo ID while voting in 2014. (Id. at 7-8.) At trial, Dr. Stewart testified that these mailings were a very good idea and an appropriate way to educate voters about the new law. (Doc. 408 at 49-50.)

In sum, for nearly two years North Carolina frequently notified voters that, unless they met an exception, they would need photo ID to vote in 2016.

b. Voter Education After Enactment of the Reasonable Impediment Exception

With the advent of SL 2015-103’s reasonable impediment exception on June 22, 2015, the prior information provided to voters was rendered incomplete. Session Law 2015-103 requires the SBOE to educate voters on the availability of the reasonable impediment exception, 2015 N.C. Sess. Law 103, § 8.(g), and the SBOE has engaged in substantial efforts to do so.

Creation and Distribution of Updated Materials

SBOE Executive Director Kim Strach, whom the' court found credible, testified that “[ijmmediately after the enactment of S.L. 2015-103 in June 2015, SBOE staff developed new materials which would inform the public of modifications to the photo identification requirements and the availability of the reasonable impediment declaration option.” (Def. Ex. 535 at 16.)

These new materials “were delivered to every county board of elections for posting and distribution at early voting and Election Day polling locations during the 2015 municipal elections”; “have been distributed. to groups and associations by the SBOE Outreach Team”; “have been made available to candidates filing for the 2016 election contests”; and can be “download[ed] from the SBOE’s dedicated ‘Voter ID’ website.” (Id at 16-17.) As of December 11, 2015, the “SBOE ha[d] distributed over 105,000 copies of these materials,’including Spanish-language materials.” (Id. at 17.) In December 2015, the SBOE received an additional “300,000 flyers and 13,000 full-size posters” and as of that time planned to distribute these materials to CBOEs for

posting in public buildings throughout the State, such as county courthouses and offices, municipal government offices, town or city halls, health departments, public assistance agencies, vo.ca- *354 tional rehabilitation and mental health centers, hospitals, schools, police stations, libraries, chambers of commerce, public transit and bus stations, senior centers, community centers, shelters and temporary/emergency housing, and other facilities open to the public.

(Id.) The SBOE’s plans included dissemination of these materials through outside partners 41 posting them at targeted locations, “includ[ing] educational institutions, food banks and pantries, retail and business establishments, churches, and other locations open to the public.” (Id. at 17-18.) Pursuant to agreements reached with the University of North Carolina system, the ■ North Carolina Community College system, and the North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities, the State seeks to further disseminate print materials to the campuses of “every institution of higher learning in the State.” (Id. at 18.)

Further, on or about November 2, 2015, the State mailed a letter to those organizations who received a prior version of educational materials not including the reasonable impediment provision directing “that recipients should provide updated current information to any individuals to whom they disseminated the original materials or information.” (Id. at 17.) The letter also offered the assistance of SBOE staff and included a form to order new materials. (Id.)

Statewide Media Campaign

The State has also implemented a substantial media outreach program for the current version of the photo-ID law. 42 The State’s initial ad was entitled “Be Seen. Be Heard,” (PI. Ex. 956), and began airing on television and radio stations across the State in December 2015, (Doc. 414 at 168). The ad informed voters that “[i]f you don’t have an ID, or if you are unable to obtain one, voting options are available. For more information on exceptions, or for help getting a free ID, visit VoterID.nc.gov or call 866-522-4723.” (PL Ex. 956.) The State’s most recent television and radio ad is entitled “Be Recognized.” (Def. Ex. 473.) The sixty second version of the advertisement provides:

This election, voters will be asked to show a photo ID at the polls. For most voters, you can simply bring your North Carolina Drivers License or ID card, passport, military or Veterans Affairs ID or certain tribal IDs. And, if there’s something preventing you from getting one, no worries—you’ll still be able to vote. Just come to the polls and we’ll help you cast your ballot.

(Id. at 2-3.) The thirty second version of the ad is substantially the same. (Def. Ex. 472 at 2.) Both versions of the “Be Recognized” ad began airing on television and radio in early. February 2015. (Doc. 414 at 170-72.)

*355 The State also intends to implement “an expansive outdoor advertising campaign to promote general awareness of the photo-ID requirements and exceptions,” (Def. Ex, 535 at 14.) Director Strach testified that its “message will be displayed throughout North Carolina in rural, suburban, and urban areas on 40 vinyl billboards through November 2016, and 100 printed billboards through roughly August 2016.” (Id.; Doc. 414 at 175.) Forty digital electronic billboards across the State also displayed the message from January through March 2016. (Def. Ex. 535 at 14.) Overall, the State estimates that 16.5 million passersby viewed its billboard messages -on fifty-two billboards over a five-week period leading up to the 2014 general election. (⅛)

Information Provided on SBOE and CBOE Websites

The State has also used the SBOE’s primary website, CBOE websites, and the SBOE’s stand-alone website dedicated to the photo-ID requirement to educate voters about the reasonable impediment exception, (Id. at 13.) The SBOE’s dedicated photo-ID website appears as the first result of a search on Google® for “North Carolina voter ID.” At the top of that site is the statement, “Most Voters Will Need to Show Acceptable Photo ID at the Polls.” See N.C. State Bd. of Elections, www; voterid.nc.gov (last visited April 4, 2016). To the right of that statement is an image of acceptable forms of photo ID. Id. Below the statement is the sixty second video version of the “Be Recognized” ad, and below the video, in bold, pink letters is the statement, “Reasonable Impediment: .Can’t Get a Photo ID? Click Here.” Id. Clicking on the accompanying link produces the following prominently-displayed statement:

Declaration of Reasonable Impediment Voters who are unable to obtain an acceptable photo ID due to a reasonable impediment may still vote a provisional ballot at the polls. (Examples of a reasonable impediment include but are not limited to the lack of proper documents, family obligations, transportation problems, work schedule, illness or disability, among other reasonable impediments faced by the voter.)

Voters must also:

1. Sign a declaration describing their impediment; and

2. Provide their date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number, or present their current voter registration card or a copy of an acceptable document bearing their name and address. (Acceptable documents include a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government-issued document.)

The provisional ballot will be counted when the information on the declaration is verified and all other eligibility requirements are met.

Id.The website has a “button” at -the top labeled “Español” that allows users to receive voter-ID related information in Spanish. Id.

Judicial Voter Guide

The SBOE also included voter ID-related information as part of the State’s Judicial Voter Guide, which is required by statute to be mailed to “every household in North Carolina not more than twenty-five days prior to the start of early voting in each election in which there is a statewide judicial contest.” (Def. Ex. 535 at 14.) The front of the guide features a prominent statement informing voters that important information about the voter-ID requirement is contained inside. (Def. Ex. 537 at 1.) The -statement also directs those who “can’t obtain an acceptable photo ID” to the page of the guide where the reasonable impediment exception is described. (Id.) *356 Pages four through six of the guide contain information on the voter-ID requirement. (Id.) Page four lists the acceptable forms of ID, page five describes the reasonable impediment exception, and page six lists other exceptions to the ID requirement. (Id. at 4-6.)

Targeted Mailing of Those Previously Contacted

Most pertinently, the SBOE has taken specific steps to reeducate those individuals that it previously contacted regarding the photo-ID requirement. As noted above, individuals who signed the “Acknowledgment of no Photo ID” form while voting and individuals appearing on no-match lists were mailed information about the need for photo ID in 2016 and how to acquire it. (Def. Ex. 535 at 7-10.) These mailings predated SL 2015-103. (Id. at 11.) After the fall elections in November 2015, the SBOE sent every individual who received a prior mailing (315,755 voters)— except those who had reported they already possess acceptable photo ID and those for whom prior mailings were returned to the SBOE as undeliverable—an additional mailing describing the reasonable impediment exception and other exceptions to the photo-ID requirement. (Id.) In December 2015, the SBOE sent a similar mailing to the 823 voters who indicated they lacked qualifying ID while voting during the 2015 municipal elections. (Id. at 8; Doc. 414 at 163-64; Def. Ex. 484.)

Election Official Training

The SBOE has provided CBOEs with substantial training on implementing the voter-ID requirement and the reasonable impediment exception. According to Director Strach, CBOEs “are responsible for providing in-person training to the local election workers and officials who will staff polling places,” while the SBOE’s role is to “provide[ ] oversight and resources to the counties’ training efforts, including developing training materials and programs for use by [CBOEs].” (Def. Ex. 535 at 5; accord Doc. 414 at 139.) CBOE training of election workers has “historically [been] conducted in the months immediately preceding an election,” and, Director Strach says, there is “no precedent for county boards of elections to train elections workers on new elections procedures before the training they will receive for the 2016 elections.” (Def. Ex. 535 at 5-6.) According to Strach, “[t]raining election officials immediately in advance of an election is preferable to conducting the training at any earlier time ... [as it] allows the training to be fresh in the minds of election workers.” (Id. at 6.) In addition, given that election workers “typically work only a few days each year, ... they receive training only on the procedures which will be in effect during the election for which they are being trained.” (Id.)

As noted above, the SBOE began to develop and disseminate information on the reasonable impediment provision soon after it was enacted. In August 2015, the SBOE began to provide training to CBOE officials on the reasonable impediment exception at the statewide conference for CBOE members and staff. See N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 156 F.Supp.3d 683 , 697-98 n. 17, No. 1:13CV658, 2016 WL 204481 , at *10 n. 17 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2016) (describing the mandatory nature of the meeting). On the first day of training, attendees received a presentation entitled “Duties and Responsibilities: Directors and Board Members.” (Def. Exs. 480, 483; Doc. 414 at 151-52.) The presentation provided a non-exhaustive list of acceptable impediments, described the alternative documentation requirement, and provided guidance on counting provisional ballots cast under the reasonable impediment exception. (Def. Ex. 483.) On the second day of training, attendees received a presentation entitled “preparing for voter ID in 2016.” (Def. *357 Exs. 480, 482; Doc. 414 at 149-50.) The presentation contained information on acceptable photo IDs and exceptions to'the photo-ID requirement, including the reasonable impediment exception. (See Déf. Ex. 482.) Another presentation on the second day also featured information on the reasonable impediment exception. (Def. Exs. 465, 480; Doc. 414 at 147-48.)

In January 2016, the SBOE conducted regional training sessions for the CBOE elections personnel who would conduct the poll worker and election official training for the March 2016 primary. (Def. Ex. 535 at 5.) The SBOE encouraged CBOEs to invite poll workers and election officials to attend regional training. (Doc. 414 at 145.) Training sessions were held in Greenville, Buies Creek, Charlotte, Graham, Asheville, and Raleigh. (Def. Ex. 532.) The SBOE also made its presentation available via webinar so that additional election officials could receive training. (Doc. 414 at 146.) In total, 1,400 election officials and poll workers participated. (Id.)

A primary purpose of regional training was to provide training on how to use the SBOE’s “Station Guide.” (Id. at 145.) The Station Guide is a 123-page document that is placed “on every table or station at each polling site.” (Id. at 183-84; Def. Ex. 531.) It is designed to provide election workers with “step-by-step instructions” for processing voters both with and without acceptable photo ID. (Doc. 414 at 183.) The January 2016 regional training presentation described the purpose and organization of the Station Guide; acceptable photo ID, along with pictures and expiration requirements; check-in procedures and the process for referring those without acceptable ID to the Help Station; the standard for applying the reasonable resemblance requirement; the reasonable impediment exception and the process for implementing it; and the parts of the reasonable impediment paperwork that must be completed by the voter and the parts that must be completed by the election worker, (Def. Ex. 532.)

Although the regional training presentation’s primary reference material was the Station Guide, it also referenced and provided links to on-demand training videos that the SBOE made available to CBOEs in December 2015. (Id.; Def. Ex. 476.) The training videos consist of eleven modules for use by CBOEs in training their election workers. (Doc. 414 at 140.) The tenth module covers the reasonable impediment exception and provides the election worker with a hands-on demonstration of how to process a reasonable impediment voter. (Id. at 140-41; Def. Ex. 476 at 17-20.)

■ Although the Station Guide and training modules are designed to be detailed, the more comprehensive guide to election administration is the Election Official Handbook (“Handbook”). (Doc. 414 at 183-84; see Def. Ex. 475.) The Handbook provides guidance on “every aspect of the voting experience [and] ... step-by-step instructions and scripted language to deal with any potential scenario that an election official may encounter.” 43 (Doc. 414 at 141; see Def. Ex.' 475.) A copy of the Handbook will be available at every early-voting and Election Day polling' place in 2016. (Doc. 414 at 142.)

On February 1-2, 2016, the SBOE conducted a statewide educational conference for CBOE elections personnel. (let at 146.) Director Strach gave a presentation dedicated exclusively to voter-ID requirements and exceptions. (Def. Ex. 551.) The presentation described various training tools, including the video modules discussed above, *358 the Station Guide, and webinars, (id. at 6); the roles of various election workers in applying the ID requirement, including greeters, check-in workers, curbside attendants, Help Station workers, judges of election, the county office, and the CBOE, (id. at 8-15); acceptable forms of photo ID and expiration requirements, (id. at 17-22); the options for voting when the voter lacks qualifying ID, (id. at 24); the process for evaluating reasonable resemblance, including a reasonable resemblance flowchart, (id. at 28-42); the reasonable impediment declaration process and when voters qualify to use it, (id at 45-47); the challenge process for reasonable impediment declarations, including burdens of proof and standard of review, (id. at 52-58); and the alternative documentation requirement of the reasonable impediment exception, (id. at 49). The SBOE’s Veronica Degraffen-reid presented on voting site uniformity and provided substantial training on voter-ID requirements and exceptions. (Def. Ex. 553.) The uniformity presentation described election worker training resources for CBOEs, (id. at 3-6 (Part I)); the role of the various voting stations in processing voters, both with and without qualifying ID, (id. at 12-16); required signage, including voter ID related signage, (id. at 17-19); materials to be handed out to voters, including the voter-ID push cards described above, (id. at 20); the Station Guide’s organization and purpose, (id. at 27-30); acceptable ID and expiration requirements, (id. at 31-39; id, at 1-2 (Part II)); step-by-step check-in procedures for voters with and without acceptable ID, (id. at 5-16); the reasonable resemblance requirement and the applicable standards to apply, (id. at 14-15); and the provisional voting options available to voters without acceptable ID and how to implement them at the Help Station, including the reasonable impediment exception, (id. at 6-15 (Part III); id. at 1-19 (Part IV)). Both presentations were detailed and extensive. (See Def. Exs. 551, 553.) A final presentation, entitled “What Will you Do?,” quizzed attendees on their knowledge. (Def. Ex. 554.) The presentation displayed various types of photo ID for hypothetical voters and asked attendees whether the ID was acceptable for-voting. (Id. at 5-18.) The presentation also quizzed attendees on how to process voters, (id. at 21-29), how to apply the reasonable resemblance requirement, (id. at 51-58), and how to apply the reasonable impediment exception, (id. at 64, 70).

In sum, the SBOE has engaged in substantial efforts to educate voters and election officials about the requirements of and exceptions to the voter-ID requirement.

c. Voters’ Experience in Acquiring Qualifying ID

To acquire a free voter ID, voters must present at a DMV location providing North Carolina DMV services. Testimony at trial indicated that this process, at least for some, has not been as easy as one might expect.

To acquire a free voter ID, an applicant must do the following: (1) be a registered voter or complete a voter registration application- at the time of applying for a voter ID; (2) sign a declaration stating that the registrant does not have an acceptable ID to vote; (3) provide proof of North Carolina residency, or, in the alternative, sign an affidavit of residency (there is no cost for this. affidavit when applying for free voter ID); (4) provide a valid SSN; and (5) prove age and identity by providing two supporting documents. (Def. Ex. 533 at 2 (tbl. 4).)

There has been some inconsistency within the DMV about which supporting documents are sufficient to prove age and identity. (See Doc. 410 at 180-81.) Historically, the “officially acceptable” list of documents has been published in “Table (1)” of the DMV’s required-documents form, “DL-231”, which appears on its website. (See id. *359 at 180-81,187.) Documents in Table (1) are more traditional forms of supporting identification and include (1) a driver’s license or State-issued ID card from-North Carolina, another State, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, or a Canadian province (expired less than two years); (2) a certified birth certificate 44 issued by a government agency in the United States, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, or Canada or U.S. Report of Consular Birth Abroad; (3) an original social security card; (4) tax forms that reflect the applicants full name and full SSN; (5) a Motor Vehicle Driver’s Record; (6) a North Carolina school transcript or registration signed by a school official, or a diploma or GED.from a North Carolina school, community college, or North Carolina university; (7) a valid and unexpired U.S. military ID; (8) a valid, unexpired passport from any nation; (9) a certified document from a Register of Deeds or government agency in the United States, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, or Canada; (10) a limited driving privilege issued by a North Carolina Court (expired not more" than one year); valid, unexpired documents issued by the Department of Homeland-Security or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; or (11) a court document from a U.S. jurisdiction, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, or Canada. (Def. Ex. 533 at 1 (tbl. 1).)

As a practice, however, DMV examiners did not always limit themselves to documents in Table (1). (Doc. 410 at 181.) Over time this took the form of an alternate document list, which benefitted applicants. (Id.) This list was not publicly available, and it does not appear to have been uniformly followed by examiners. (See id.) But it was used by at least some examiners from January to August 2014. (Id.) In any event, in January 2016, the DMV officially incorporated documents on the alternate list into the list of acceptable supporting documentation and made that list available on its website. (Id at 186-87.) Voters are still encouraged to bring a document from Table (l),.but the DMV will consider the following unexpired forms of alternate identification in an application for a free voter-ID: (1) certificate of adoption; (2) college or student ID; (3) concealed handgun permit; (4) Department of Revenue tax document; (5) employee or Government ID; (6) extended health care facility record; (7) hunting or fishing license; (8) license to carry firearms; (9) life insurance- poliey; (10) Medicaid/Medicare card; (11) medical, clinic, or hospital record; (12) military dependent’s ID card; (13) military draft record; (14) passport card; (15) payment statement or check stub; (16) prison ID or inmate record; (17) retirement benefits record; (18) traffic citation or court record; (19) U.S. Coast Guard merchant ID card; (20) U.S. vital statistics official notification of birth registration. (Def. Ex. 533 at 2 (tbl. 4).) Because this list is not exhaustive, the DMV will review any documents that an applicant has in his possession. (Id.)

Once a voter has all the necessary materials to acquire a free voter ID, he must travel to a DMV office providing driver’s license services. (PI. Ex. 1044 at 142.) The evidence indicated that as of the beginning of January 2016, approximately 2,172 applicants had sought no-fee voter-ID cards across the State, and '2,139 had been' issued. (Doc. 410 at 177-79; Def. Ex. 494.) The DMV currently has 114 brick and mortar sites that provide driver’s license services. (Doc. 410 at 164.) Some have *360 limited hours. For example, in Allegany County, the location is only open on “Wednesday and Thursday 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.” (Pl. Ex. 1044 at 166-167.)

■ Sixteen of North Carolina’s 100 counties do not have a brick and mortar site. (Pl. Ex. 241 at 13.) Eleven of these counties are serviced by five DMV mobile units, which currently appear at twenty-four mobile sites. (Id.; Doc. 410 at 198-99.) No mobile site offers services more than three .days per month. (Doc. 410 at 204; Pl. Ex. 241 at 13 n.3.) Nevertheless, the DMV estimates that 98% of the its “market population” (those age 15 and older) lives within a thirty-minute drive of a DMV license service station, whether a brick and mortar or mobile site. (Doc. 410 at 168-69.) A December 2013 customer survey indicated that wait time, not DMV accessibility, was a top concern for respondents. (Pl. Ex. 1044 at 82-83; Doc. 410 at 156-57.) While the current DMV sites may be adequate for those-with access to a vehicle, the court has substantial questions about the accessibility of free voter ID for those who lack transportation, especially in rural communities that lack public transportation.

At trial, Plaintiffs presented the video depositions of several witnesses who experienced difficulty in acquiring certain qualifying licenses from the DMV. Their depositions were taken prior to SL 2015-103’s enactment of the reasonable impediment exception.

Alonzo Phillips is a sixty-one year old African American male who lives with his mother in Halifax County, North Carolina. (Pl. Ex. 1048 at 5.) Ten years ago, Mr. Phillips attempted to acquire a non-operator ID card (not a license) from the DMV, available for a nominal fee. (Jd. at 14.) He presented his social security card and birth certificate, but the DMV refused to issue him an ID because his birth certificate listed “Alonz,” while his social security card displayed his correct name, Alonzo. (Id. at 15.) To the extent Mr. Phillips seeks to use his birth certificate as a supporting document in the future, federal law requires him to correct the document. 45 Under federal law, “a driver’s license cannot be issued unless there is an exact match of your name, SSN, and birthdate with the Social Security Administration.” (Doc. 410 at 183.) 46 Moreover, because Mr. Phillips was born in New York, correcting his birth certificate would be logistically difficult for him. (Pl. Ex. 1048 at 17-18.) However, his aunt, who provides him with support, has offered to help him get a court order to update his birth certificate. (Id. at 46-47.) Most importantly, there is no indication that Mr. Phillips will have difficulty voting under the reasonable impediment exception. In fact, he testified that he can walk to his voting location, which is close by, and that he has a cellphone and would feel comfortable calling the SBOE for help. (Id. at 46, 52.)

Rosanell Eaton is a ninety-three year old African American and a lead plaintiff in this case. She is, in every respect the court can imagine, a remarkable person. In January 2015, Ms. Eaton presented to the DMV to renew her driver’s license. (Pl. Ex. 1045 at 18-19, 25.) It is not clear from her testimony, but it appears that she was concerned whether her current license *361 would comply with the new law. Because the name on her birth certificate (Rosanell Johnson) did not match the name on her social security card, federal law prohibited the DMV from issuing her a driver’s license. (See id. at 19-20.) 47 Ms. Eaton testified that the DMV told her she needed to get her SSN changed. (Id. at 20.) Presumably, she was actually told to get the name on her social security card changed so it matched the name she sought to use at the DMV, but here, too, the record is not clear. (See id. at 19-20.) In any event, Ms. Eaton says the DMV refused to take further action until she made changes at the social security office. (Id.). It took her ten trips (and two tanks of gas) back-and-forth between the DMV and the social security office before she got her license on January 26, 2015. (Id. at 20-21, 24, 51, 55.) Ms. Eaton is confident now that she will be able to vote using her new license. (Id. at 29.)

Ms. Eaton’s testimony does not make clear why her ordeal was so involved, but it is troubling that any individual could be subjected to such a bureaucratic hassle. Here, too, the problems delaying her license renewal stem from a federal law requirement. It is unclear why she did not encounter this problem previously, as her last renewal was in April 2010. (PI. Ex. 300.) But most importantly, the voter-ID law did not require Ms. Eaton to endure this hassle. To the extent Ms. Eaton wanted to continue to drive, which appears to have been the case, she had to renew her license. (PI. Ex. 1045 at 49-50.) Driver’s licenses required renewal long before SL 2013-381. But, to the extent she simply wished to comply with the ID requirement, her expiring license would have been compliant for voting. As a voter over seventy, she can use an expired license indefinitely so long as it expired after her seventieth birthday, which hers did. 48 See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163—166.13(f); (PI. Ex. 300). Also, under the law’s “reasonable resemblance” requirement—which Plaintiffs do not challenge—a photo ID is acceptable as long as the name appearing on it is “the same or substantially equivalent to the name contained in the registration record.” 08 N.C.A.C. 17.0101(c). Ms. Eaton’s previous license meets this test. (“Rosa Johnson Eaton” on her former license, (PI. Ex.' 300), compared to her voter registration card of “Rosanell Eaton,” (PI. Ex. 302)). 49

Silvia Kent is a caretaker for her three disabled sisters, Katherine, Ester, and Faydeen. (PI. Ex. 1049 at 12-13.) Ms. Kent’s sisters are registered to vote ánd vote regularly. (Id. at 15-16.) While taking her sisters to vote in the November 2014 election, Ms. Kent was informed that voter ID would be required beginning in 2016. (Id. at 16-17.) Ms. Kent then took her sisters to the DMV to acquire ID. (Id. at 19.) Katherine was issued an ID, but Esther and Faydeen were not. (Id.) The birth date on Esther’s supporting ID was incorrect. (Id. at 22-23.) The DMV examiner told Ms. Kent that she would need to go to *362 the Register of Deeds to remedy the problem. (Id. at 23.) But when Ms. Kent did, she discovered another problem: the spelling of Esther’s name on her birth certificate and the date of birth listed were incorrect. ■ (Id. at 26-27.) Ms. Kent claims she was told that the Register of Deeds could do nothing about the error. (Id. at 27.) A similar' problem blocked Faydeen from acquiring an acceptable ID. (Id. at 29-30.) Ms. Kent attributes her sisters’ problems to the fact that, despite being born in the 1940s, their birth certificates were not filed until 1962. (Id at 36-36.) Notwithstanding having sought legal assistance and spending “lots of hours” attempting to get ID for her sisters, as of June 6, 2015, neither Esther nor Faydeen had acquired acceptable ID. (Id. at 34, 38-39.) Nothing in Ms. Kent’s testimony indicates that Ester or Faydeen would have difficulty voting under the reasonable impediment exception.

. Maria Del Carmen Sanchez is a fifty-eight year-old United States citizen born in Cuba. (PI. Ex. 1051 at 9-11.) She took the name Thorpe when she married her husband. (Id. at 25.) She has lived in North Carolina since 1990 and is registered to vote under the name Maria Sanchez Thorpe. (Id. at 11-12.) Her unexpired passport lists her name as Maria Del Carmen Sanchez.- (PI. Ex. 836.) In 2007, six years before SL 2013-381, Ms. Sanchez went to .the DMV to renew her expiring license, which bore the name (consistent with her voter registration) Maria Sanchez Thorpe. (PI. Ex. 1051 at 23; PI. Ex. 839.) She attempted to use her passport as a supporting document to establish her age and identity. (PL Ex. 1051 at 23.) But, because the name did not match the name listed with the DMV, it would not issue her a license. 50 (Id. at 24-25.) According to her, the DMV told her that the only way she could cure her problem and use her passport to establish identity was to drop Thorpe from her name by “get[ting] a divorce or ... go[ing] to [the] Social Security Administration.” (Id. at 34.) After some research, Ms. Sanchez learned she could file an affidavit for name change at the DMV. (Id. at 35-36; PL Ex. 840.) She and her husband returned to the DMV, where she instructed DMV workers as to the location of the affidavit, completed it, had it notarized, and received a new license. (Pl. Ex. 1051 at 36-37.)

While Ms. Sanchez’s testimony demonstrates the ineptitude of government bureaucracy, her difficulty arose from her failure to update her documents after getting married and changing her name. (Id. at 25-26.) Had she updated her passport as she did her other legal documents, she could have used it to renew her license without issue.-The DMV should be faulted for being unaware of the name change affidavit option, but it cannot be faulted for finding Ms. Sanchez’s passport bearing a different name to be insufficient to establish her identity. In any event, Ms. Sanchez’s testimony is not especially probative of the current state of affairs at the DMV, as her incident occurred almost six years before SL 2013-381 and over eight years before trial.

Balanced against these testimonials was evidence of significant improvements at the DMV since the passage of SL 2013-381. In October 2013, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Kelly J. Thomas took over as the Commissioner of Motor Vehi *363 cles for the State of North Carolina.- (Doe.' 410 at 153-54.) Commissioner Thomas was given a broad mandate to be the “lead change agent” for the DMV. (Id. at 154-55.) His first task was to “analyze the problems at DMV.” (Id. at 155.) To do so, he commissioned a “Voice of the Customer” survey in December 2013 that identified eighteen things that DMV customers wanted fixed. (Id. at 156.) Respondents were brutally frank: ,

The survey said that our DMV employees and our process was not helpful. They said that we were very ugly to customers. They thought that we didn’t like our jobs—our employees didn’t like their jobs. They thought the process was cumbersome. They wanted online access to more DMV access, practices and functions. They wanted credit card and debit card access.

(Id. at 157.) At trial, Commissioner Thomas testified credibly that DMV has addressed sixteen of the eighteen issues identified. (Id. at 156-57.) The two remaining are fingerprinting of customers and electronic identification, which are in study. (W. at 157.)

To address customer service, Commissioner Thomas partnered with Wake Technical Community College to create “customer 101” training for DMV employees. (Id. at 162.) In addition, recognizing that DMV examiners did not have any form of continuing education, he implemented a continuing education program for all 550 examiners. (Id. at 163.) The DMV is also in the process of implementing an online training program for examiners, which is intended to educate examiners on changes as they happen. (Id. at 164.)

The DMV has also implemented several strategies to address customer wait times. It has implemented online license renewal, used by 219,000 North Carolinians since June 2015 and saving over 60,000 wait hours, (id. at 165-66); significantly updated examiner stations to provide each examiner with a “customer-facing computer screen,” vision and sign tester, credit card/debit card machine, and camera for taking ID ■ pictures, (id. at 166-67); and rolled out an extended-hours project (keeping offices open until 6 p.m. at twenty-one sites and every Saturday until noon at eleven others) to “offer hours that citizens didn’t have to take off work,” (id. at 168; PI. Ex. 664 ¶¶ 80-83). When the extended-hours program was offered at nineteen locations (now twenty-one), eighty-six percent of DMVs market population lived within a thirty-minute drive of an extended-hours office. (Doe. 410 at 168.) As a result of these and other changes at the DMV, -the. average customer wait time across the State since April of 2015 has been reduced to nineteen minutes and forty-two seconds. (Id. at 170.)

In an effort to bring DMV locations closer to customers, the DMV has made substantial efforts to expand its mobile unit fleet. When Commissioner Thomas took over, there were five Winnebago mobile units, yet only one was operational. (Id.) Recognizing that the aging and maintenance-prone mobile units were not a productive option, the DMV has developed a “footlocker” mobile unit. (Id. at 170-71, 173.) These approximately 100-pound footlockers are basically a single examiner station in. a box. (Id. at 173-74.) They can be hauled in the back of a truck and can plug into a standard electrical outlet. (Id.) The DMV has a patent pending on the units, and Commissioner Thomas says that other States are interested in them. (Id at 174.) The State plans to have fourteen footlocker units operating across North Carolina. (Id. at 175.) Commissioner Thomas projects that the footlockers will allow the DMV to go from the twenty-four mobile sites it has today to “45 by the end of April ... .[and] 70 by the.summer of 2016.” (Id. at 211.) He sees this development as a key *364 part of his goal to put a DMV brick and mortar or mobile site within a twenty-minute drive of 98% of the DMVs market population. (Id. at 175-76.) That said, at the time of trial the DMV only had one footlocker mobile unit in operation, along with four Winnebago units. (Id. at 198-99.)

All told, the DMV was an obvious choice to issue voter IDs, given its experience in issuing driver’s licenses, but it is undisputed that the agency had significant flaws in 2013. There is little persuasive evidence the legislature was aware of them, and the law did contemplate a two-and-one-half-year rollout. The evidence showed that the DMV has made substantial improvements under Commissioner Thomas during this time period. Nevertheless, the DMV has room for continued improvement, and Commissioner Thomas had to concede as much. For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel identified substantive inaccuracies in an April 10, 2015 training presentation on the voter-ID requirement that mistakenly advised, without qualification, that another State’s license was an acceptable photo ID. (See id. at 207-09.) 51 Moreover,- the evidence demonstrated that, for some voters, personal circumstances, including mismatched or error-riddled documents, made acquiring even a free voter ID more complicated than one might expect. No doubt, the experience of individuals like Mr. Phillips, Ms. Eaton, and Ms. Thorpe highlighted these problems and were likely instrumental in the legislature’s adoption of a reasonable impediment exception.

d. Evidence of North Carolina Voters Without ID

Plaintiffs claim that hundreds of thousands of registered North Carolina voters lack qualifying ID and that African Americans are disproportionately likely to be among them. In light of the adoption of the reasonable impediment exception, the focus of this contention is redirected to include the adequacy of the exception as a legal matter and the burden of its use.

Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Stewart, testified as to results of his attempts to match North Carolina registered voters’ names to names in various databases of acceptable IDs. 52 Dr. Stewart describes database matching as “the technique of allowing the computer to take unique information about an entity in one database and find the information related to that entity in another database using some form of variables to link.” (Doc. 408 at 8.) Database matching is commonly used in the social sciences. (Id.) In some databases, the entities have a unique identifier that can be matched. (Id. at 27, 29.) North Carolina’s voter registration database does not contain a unique identifier for registrants. (Id. at 26-27.) In an attempt to compensate for this shortcoming, Dr. Stewart designed a series of iterative “sweeps” intended to match voters on the basis of non-unique identifiers. (Id. at 27.)

Dr. Stewart’s first no-match list was based on a July 16, 2014 snapshot of the voter registration files. (PI. Ex. 242 at 11.) He found that at least 397,971 (6.1%) regis *365 tered voters could not be matched to a qualifying ID. (Id. at 50 (tbl. 11).) By race, he found that 147,111 (10.1%) African Americans could not be matched to a qualifying ID, compared to 212,656 (4.6%) whites. (Id. at 38 (tbl. 7).)

Dr. Stewart updated his no-match analysis in December 2015, after SL 2015-108, to account for its expansion of acceptable IDs, but he continued to rely on his July 16, 2014 snapshot of data. (PI. Ex. 891 at 14 n.26.) Thus, despite relying on data that is over a year and a half old during a period of rolling out notice of the photo-ID requirement, he proffers it as the “best estimate” of current conditions. (Doc. 408 at 52.) Dr. Stewart incorporated at least some of Defendants’ critiques from his pri- or no-match list, which he characterizes as his “refined matching criteria.” (Id, at 19 (tbl. II).) 53 Based on this updated criteria, he found that 224,863 (3.5%) registered North Carolina voters could not be matched to having an acceptable ID. (Id.) Thus, SL 2015-103’s expansion of acceptable IDs (driver’s licenses and non-operator’s IDs that have been expired for less than four years) and Dr. Stewart’s refinement of his matching criteria reduced the size of the no-match list by 173,108 voters. (Id. at 14 n. 26, 19 (tbl. 11); PL Ex. 242 at 50 (tbl. 11).) By race, Dr. Stewart found that 83,470 (5.7%) African Americans could not be matched to a qualifying ID, compared to 116,344 (2.5%) whites. 54 (PI. Ex. 891 at 19 (tbl. 11).)

In sum, Dr. Stewart was able to match 94.3% of African American registrants, 97.5% of white registrants, and 96.5% of all registrants to a qualifying ID. (Id.)

Dr. Stewart’s matching analysis in this case differs materially from his analysis in the DOJ’s attempt to block preclearance of South Carolina’s voter photo-ID law, which also includes a.reasonable impediment exception. (Doc. 408 at 60-61.) First, because South Carolina’s voter registration database contained a unique identifier—the voter’s full ' SSN (“SSN9”)—his results were more precise and were not based on the multiple “sweeps” of the lists that were necessary here. (Id. at 28-29.) Second, he did not include “inactive” voters in his South Carolina no-match analysis because, in his view, they were less “likely to vote in the future” and more likely to “soon ... be moved to ‘archived’ status,” (id. at 21-22), but he did here. 55 This significantly in *366 creased the size of the no-match list in this case. 56

Despite breaking his results down by-active and inactive voters in his first no-match list, Dr. Stewart omitted it from his December 2015 report even though he had apparently done the analysis. (PI. Ex. 891; Doc. 408 at 138.) However, after cross-examination at trial, he produced an additional exhibit with the no-match results. (PI. Ex. 1063.) Dr. Stewart found that 151,-005 (2.6%) active voters could not be matched to a qualifying ID. (Id.) By race, 60,312 (4.8%) African American active voters could not be matched to a qualifying ID, compared to 73,143 (1.8%) whites. (Id.) Thus, Dr. Stewart was able to match 95.2% of African American active voters, 98.2% of white active voters, and 97.4% of all active voters.

The comparison between Dr. Stewart’s North Carolina and South Carolina analy-ses is telling. As noted above, even though Dr. Stewart had a unique identifier in South Carolina, he matched a higher percentage of active and inactive voters in North Carolina than he did active voters in South Carolina (96.5% in NC vs. 93.3% in SC). (PI. Ex. 891 at 19 (tbl. 11); Def. Ex. 504 at 36 (tbl. 4).) 57 This is true when broken down by race (94.3% of African Americans in NC vs. 90.5% in SC; 97.5% of whites in NC vs. 94.5% in SC). (Id.) The magnitude of the difference only becomes more pronounced when the percentage of active voters matched in North Carolina is compared to the percentage of active voters matched in South Carolina, which is the more apples-to-apples comparison (97.4% in NC vs. 93.3% in SC.). (PL Ex. 1063; Def. Ex. 504 at 36 (tbl. 4).) This, too, is true when broken down by race (95.2% of African Americans in NC vs. 90.5% in SC; 98.2% of whites in NC vs. 94,5% in SC). (Id.) Notably, the percentage of matched voters in North Carolina exceeds the data relied upon by the.three judge panel that upheld the South Carolina law. 58

*367 To be sure, Dr, Stewart’s no-match list purports only to note the lack of a match; it does not equate to lack of a qualifying ID. Even if this court were to assume that everyone on Dr. Stewart’s December 2015 no-match list lacks a qualifying ID, however, the data suggest that the number who would wish to vote, and thus use the reasonable impediment exception, will be very low. As noted aboye, the SBOE removed 52,765 individuals from Dr. Stewart’s list of 224,863 voters as part of its list maintenance and address validation process and sent the 172,098 remaining individuals a mailing asking whether or not they have qualifying ID. (Def. Ex. 511 at 16-17.) Defendants’ expert, Janet Thornton, Ph. D., á labor economist and applied statistician, 59 performed an analysis of the voting history of those 172,098 individuals. (Id. at 18 (tbl. 6).) She found that 69.8% had not voted in 2012 or 2014 and that 39.5% had never voted. (Id.) Broken down by election, 92.6% did not vote in the 2012 primary, 72.1% did not vote in the 2012 presidential election, 96.3% did not vote in the 2014 primary, and 87.8% did not vote in the 2014 midterm. (Id. (tbl. 7).)

As of December 30, 2015, 45,692 of the SBOE’s mailings had been returned to the SBOE; 38,815 of those were undeliverable, (id. at 17), and 4,992 stated they already had a qualifying ID, (id. at 18 (tbl. 6)). Although these respondents do not reveal how many of the “undeliverable” or “non-responses” lack qualifying ID, the data show that these respondents behave much more like normal voters than the no-match list as a whole. For example, only 30.1% of those who said they have qualifying ID did not vote in the 2012 presidential election. (Id. (tbl. 7).) This is consistent with the turnout of that election, where 67.2% of registered African Americans, 60.4% of registered whites, and 60.9% of all registered voters voted. (PI. Ex. 242 at 161 (App’xU).)

Defendants’ expert, M.V. Hood, III; Ph. D., Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia, 60 provided a glimpse ’ into the likely prevalence' of reasonable impediment voting by providing data from South Carolina, ■ the only other State to offer that option. In the 2014 general election, of 1,195,741 votes cast, 131 reasonable impediment affidavits were completed. 61 That constitutes 1.1 reasonable impediment affiants for every 10,000 voters. (Def. Ex. 500 at 2.) Of course, the 2014 election was not a presidential election, and North Carolina has substantially more voters than South Carolina. (PL Ex. 242 at 161 (App’x U).) However, there is simply no evidence in this case to suggest that more than a fraction of a percent of voters will *368 rely upon the reasonable impediment exception.

Further, the characteristics of individuals on Dr. Stewart’s no-match list raise serious questions about its reliability. For example, those on Dr. Stewart’s no-match list were far moré likely not'to have included the last four digits of théir SSN (“SSN4”) on their registration: 59.4% of those on the no-match list were missing their SSN4, compared to 14.6% of registered voters. (Def. Ex. 511 at 12 (tbl. 1).) It may be that those who do not include their SSN4 are less likely to have an ID. But another at least equally plausible explanation is that North, Carolina’s voter registration form did .not ask for a registrant’s SSN4 prior to 2004, and even today the information is not required. (Doc. 408 at 116.) Half of Dr. Stewart’s no-match list registered before 2004. (Doc. 416 at 40.) As Dr. Thornton testified, “the fewer types of information there are to compare, the less likely it is to find potential matches.” (Def. Ex. 511 at 11.) At least nine of Dr. Stewart’s sweeps used SSN4 as a data field. (PI. Ex. 242 at 29 (tbl. 3).)

Dr. Thornton credibly identified several problems affecting the reliability of Dr. Stewart’s methodology. This court will not set forth' every criticism herein, but here are the more significant ones. Most relevant, Dr. Thornton questioned whether Dr. Stewart had done sufficient manual review of his results to ensure accuracy. (Doc. 416 at 64, 86.) Dr. Thornton has done database matching of DMV records for private sector clients in the past and asserted that she and her staff spend hundreds of hours on manual review. (Id. at 64.) Dr. Stewart did not perform a manual review of his December 2015 no-match report, but he did perform an “informal review” of his initial no-match list. (Doc. 408 at 103, 105.) Of the 397,971 individuals on the no-match list, Dr. Stewart extracted fifty for manual review. (Id. at 104.) As part of this review, he looked for common typographical errors and mistakes. (Id. at 103-04.) He identified 10-15% false negatives—where the computer did not match an individual but the voter nevertheless has .an acceptable ID in the databases. (Id. at 27,104.) Dr. Stewart considered this to be an acceptable degree of error. (Id. at 104.) By contrast, in looking for false positives—the computer makes a match even though a voter did not have an acceptable ID in the databases— Dr. Stewart and his research assistant manually reviewed 100 individuals for each sweep. (Id. at 137, 153; PI. Ex. 254 at 15-17.) As a result, Dr. Stewart manually .reviewed 3,600 individuals for false positives, but only fifty individuals for false negatives. (Id. at 153-54.)

Dr. Thornton also criticized the fact that Dr. Stewart did not have actual access to the federal databases he used for matching. (Doc. 416 at 97.) Rather, he was forced to give instructions to the federal agencies and let them run the sweeps. (Doc. 408 at 21.) The federal databases included information on the possession of passports and veteran IDs. (Id.) The problem, according to Dr. Thornton, is that database matching is an iterative process in which you identify criteria for sweeps by working with the database. (Doc. 416 at 96-97.) Without access to the database, she claims, it is difficult to determine what number and type of sweeps should be conducted. (Id.)

In sum, Dr. Stewart’s no-match list is itself only an estimate of how many voters lack qualifying ID in North Carolina. 62 *369 (See Doc. 408 at 44.) There is reason'to believe that that it substantially overestimates the number of registrants who-lack-qualifying ID. (Id. at 117 (Dr. Stewart, stating that “it’s possible that there is -an overestimate” in the no-match list).) But even under Dr. Stewart’s estimate,' the percentage of North Carolinians who could not be matched to a qualifying ID is less than in South Carolina. In addition, the voting history of those on the no-match list ■ and the evidence of reasonable impediment voting in South Carolina suggest that only a fraction of the small fraction of individuals who lack qualifying ID will cast a ballot under the reasonable impediment exception. This is not because these voters will be deterred by the ID requirement; it is because they did not vote at a significant rate before the requirement existed, even in high turnout elections. As noted below, this has important implications for the feasibility of administering the reasonable impediment provision, as the data suggest that poll workers are not likely to encounter an overwhelming number of such voters. .

e. Availability of the Reasonable Impediment Exception

Voters who do not have a qualifying ID retain the opportunity to vote through the reasonable impediment exception. Those so voting must complete the following process.

When voters present to vote, the first election worker they will encounter is the greeter. The greeter’s job is to “[pjrovide preliminary guidance to voters on voting *370 procedures, [pjrovide information on acceptable photo ID, [ajsk voters to remove their ID from their wallets or purses prior to presenting to the check-in station ... [ajnd provide confidence and reassurance that all voters will be given the opportunity to cast a ballot.” 63 (Def. Ex. 551 at 9.)

Voters will next move to the check-in station. The first question election workers will ask the voter at the check-in station is whether the voter has acceptable photo ID. (Doc. 412-2 at 7.) If the voter does not, the election worker completes a “Help Referral Form” and refers the voter to the Help Station. (Id. at 8.) The Help Referral form contains the voter’s name, registration number, address, and reason for referral. (Id.) This permits the person at the Help Desk to understand why the voter is being referred to them. (Id.) The Help Station existed long before the reasonable impediment exception was created, and it serves to assist any voter who has an issue that may prevent him from casting a regular ballot. All provisional voters, including OOP voters, are referred to the Help Station. (See hi.)

Once at the Help Station, the voter lacking photo ID must be informed of all alternative voting options available. (Doc. 412-8 at 12.) Voters who have a qualifying photo ID but forgot it or those who do not have ID but wish to acquire it prior to the canvass can cast a provisional ballot that will be counted so long as the voters present a qualifying ID at their OBOE by noon on the day before the county canvass. (Id.; Doc. 412-4 at 2.) Voters who choose this option do not complete a reasonable impediment declaration. Voters who subjectively believe a reasonable impediment prevented them from acquiring ID are entitled to vote under the reasonable impediment exception. (Doc. 424-4 at 2.) Both of these options are available throughout early voting and on Election Day. (Doc. 412-3 at 14.) Finally, voters can request an absentee ballot at the early-voting site up until the deadline for doing so (a week before Election Day). (Id. at 18-14.)

Voters who elect to vote' under the reasonable impediment exception must complete a two-step process at the Help Station. First, they must complete a provisional voting application (“PVA”). (Def. Ex. 546 at 3.) This form is not unique to reasonable impediment voters and must be completed by all voters casting a provisional ballot. (Id. (Ex. 1).) The top of the PVA is labeled “Voter Registration/Update Form” and in substance asks for the information the voter would have provided when they registered. (Id.) At polling places with electronic poll books (i.e., all early-voting sites), this part of the form will be pre-populated automatically by the electronic equipment and will not need to be completed by the voter. (Id. at 3.) The middle part of the PVA is labeled “Voter’s Affirmation of Eligibility to Vote.” (Id. (Ex. 1).) This section contains in substance the same attestation to vote that every voter casting a ballot, including those casting regular ballots, must complete. (Id. at 3; see, PI. Ex. 1056.) Reasonable impediment voters, like all other voters, will need to sign the attestation that they are otherwise authorized to vote. (Def. Ex. 546 at 3.) The bottom portion of the PVA asks voters to indicate the reason they,are voting provisionally. (Id. (Ex. 1).) For those without photo ID, this part of the PVA will pre-populate “to indicate the provisional voting reason is ‘No Acceptable ID.’” (Id. at 3.) In addition to checking an acknowledgment that they were provided alternative voting options, (Doc. 412-4 at 9), the voter will “only [need] to sign the appli *371 cation,” (Def. Ex. 546 at 3). The election official will need to sign the form at the bottom of this box. (Id. (Ex. 1).) Voters can receive assistance from election officials at the Help Station in completing the PVA. (Id. at 3.)

Second, reasonable impediment voters must complete a reasonable impediment declaration* (“RID”), The RID comes in two forms: the “pre-printed” version and the “SEIMS-gerierated” version. (Id. at 3.) As the names would suggest, the SEIMS-generated form is printed at the Help Desk after certain information from the SBOE’s registration database (“SEIMS”) is pre-populated into the form, whereas the “pre-printed” version is printed before the voter presents. '

With regard to the pre-printed version, the top of the form is to be completed by the election official and includes information such as “[l]ocation voted.” (Id. (Ex. 2).) Moving down the form, the next box is to be completed by the voter and asks for the voter's name, email address, phone number, date of birth, and SSN4. (Id.) The next box is labeled “Voter’s Declaration of Reasonable Impediment.” (Id.) Voters must declare that they “suffer from a reasonable impediment that prevents [them] from obtaining acceptable photo identification.” (Id.) The form then asks the voter to list the impediment(s) he suffers. (Id.) The form contains template boxes for the following impediments: “Lack of transportation”; “Lack of birth certificate or other documents needed to obtain photo ID”; “Work schedule”; “Lost or stolen photo ID”; "Disability or illness”; “Family responsibilities”; “Photo ID applied for but not received”; and “State or federal law prohibits ... listing [the] impediment.” (Id.) If any one of these applies, the voter need only check the appropriate box, although a- voter may check all that apply. (Id. (“My reasonable impediment is due to the following reason(s).”).) No further explanation is required. (Id.) If none of these reasons applies or the voter wishes to be more specific, there is also a box for “other reasonable impediment” followed by a line where the voter can explain the impediment. (Id.)

Below the statement of impediment, the voter is asked to check one of three options indicating which alternative identification document or information he is providing. (Id.) The first box is to be checked if the voter has provided his SSN4 and date of birth, (Id.) If the voter already provided this information in the top of the RID, he need only check the box. (Id.) The second box is to be checked if the voter is presenting a HAVA document showing his name and address. (Id.) The HAVA documents that qualify are. listed, and the voter need only check which applies. (Id.) They include “a current utility bill; bank statement; government check; paycheck; or other government document.” (Id.) The “other government document” option provides a line where the voter can write in the applicable document. (Id.) The third box.is to be checked if the voter has provided his voter registration card. (Id.) Finally, if the voter fails to “provide any alternative identification document or information,” there is a box for the election official to check. (Id.) The final portion of the pre-printed RID requires the voter to attest that it has not been completed “fraudulently or falsely.” (¾)

The SEIMS-generated version of the RID is substantively the same as the pre-printed form, but differs in the following ways. (Id. (Ex. 3).) First, instead of only asking for the voter’s name, email address, phone number, date of birth, and SSN4, the form contains the “Voter Registration/Update Form” box that appeared on the PVA. (Id.) This form contains more voter information than is required on the pre-printed form, but the information is *372 pre-populated by the .computer so the voter does not need to complete it. (Id. (Exs. 2, 3).) Second, the portion addressing the statement of reasonable impediment (where the voter checks which impediment applies) and proof of identity (where an alternative identification document or information is provided) contains smaller typeface. (Id. (Ex. 3).) As with the pre-printed version, the voter must attest that the form has not been “fraudulently or falsely” completed. (Id.) In sum, the SEIMS form offers the benefit of pre-population, while the pre-printed form offers the benefit of larger print. (Id.! (Exs. 2, 3).) To compensate for the absence of pre-population, the pre-printed form requires less voter information than the SEIMS-generated form. Voters can receive assistance from election officials at the Help Station in completing either version of the RID. (Id at 3.)

The final document the voter will receive from the poll worker is the provisional voter instructions. This form, which is provided to all provisional voters, gives the voter the information necessary to determine whether his vote was counted. (Doc. 412-4 at 13.)

Plaintiffs concede, as they must, that the reasonable impediment exception ameliorates the burden of the photo-ID requirement for some voters. Plaintiffs nevertheless claim that the reasonable impediment process places a discriminatory burden upon African Americans and Hispanics. They claim that members of these groups are (1) more likely to lack qualifying photo ID (and thus need the reasonable impediment exception) and (2) more likely to struggle in completing the RID..

African Americans are more likely to lack qualifying ID and thus elect to use the reasonable impediment exception. As noted above, Dr. Stewart’s no-match results do not establish how many North Carolin-ians lack qualifying photo ID. However, regardless of the actual number, it is more likely than not that racial disparities exist in the population that lacks qualifying photo ID. In each of the SBOE’s four no-match analyses, African Americans were less likely to be matched to a qualifying ID. (PI. Ex. 891 at 4, 6.) In addition, African Americans have disproportionately been on the no-match list in each of Dr. Stewart’s no-match analyses. (Id. at 13 (tbl. 7), 19 (tbl. 11).) In fact, the evidence shows that racial disparities grow as the no-match list becomes smaller. (Id.) Similar disparities have been found in Georgia and South Carolina. (Id. at 8-9.) Further corroborating the, results in North Carolina, Dr. Stewart has presented studies showing racial disparities in ID possession nationwide. (Id. at 9.) Dr. Stewart claims that he has yet to find a combination of acceptable IDs that will eliminate the disparities in photo-ID possession. (Doc. 408 at 159-60.) Accordingly, this court finds that, whatever the true number of individuals without qualifying IDs, African Americans are more likely to be among this group than whites.

The second part of Plaintiffs’ argument is less clear and turns on whether the reasonable impediment exception sufficiently ameliorates any alleged burden arising from disparities in photo ID possession. Plaintiffs make several arguments for why this is not the case.

Plaintiffs first express concern over the fact that reasonable impediment declarants will be provided provisional ballots. As Plaintiffs indicate, although HAVA requires provisional ballots to be given to voters in certain circumstances, it only requires those ballots to be counted “in accordance with State law.” 52 U.S.C. § 21082 (a)(4). But the problem with Plaintiffs’ argument is two-fold. First, it is in conflict with Plaintiffs’ position at trial in July 2015, where they advocated for OOP provisional ballots on the grounds that *373 they ameliorate burdens. (Doc. 346 at 90-94); see South Carolina v. United States, 898 F.Supp.2d 30, 42 (D.D.C.2012) (“[T]he Supreme Court characterized provisional ballots as curing problems and alleviating burdens, not as creating problems and imposing burdens.”). Second, with regard to reasonable impediment declarants, North Carolina law provides for counting their ballots. Despite the provisional label, North Carolina law provides that ballots cast under the reasonable impediment exception must be counted so long as (1) ah acceptable alternate form of identification can be verified (SSN4 and date of birth, etc.) and (2) the stated reason is not factually false, merely denigrating to the ID requirement, or obviously nonsensical. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182 .1B(a).

Plaintiffs next claim the State’s educational efforts have not been sufficient to make voters, especially minority voters, aware of its availability. This court addressed the sufficiency of the State’s educational efforts in its denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin implementation of the ID requirement in the March 2016 primary. (Doc. 383.) Defendants have updated those efforts, as noted above, and the State’s educational efforts have continued and increased since the preliminary injunction decision was issued.

Plaintiffs’ primary witness on the sufficiency of the State’s educational efforts was Barry Burden, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 64 Dr. Burden opined that the public is not sufficiently informed about the reasonable impediment exception. (PI. Ex. 889 at 4.) Dr. Burden has done no study of North Carolinians’ knowledge of the exception. (Doc. 407 at 82.) Instead, he relies upon surveys from other States, including Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, none of which has a reasonable impediment exception or experienced North Carolina’s education effort. (Id.) These studies are plainly unhelpful. Dr. Burden also cites the nationwide Survey on the Performance of American Elections, which in 2014 found that 8% of whites and 14% of African Americans and Hispanics cited not having “the right kind of ID” as a factor in why they did not vote. (PL Ex. 889 at 6.) But only one State in that survey—South Carolina—had á reasonable impediment exception. (Ddc. 407 at 83-84.) If such data exist, Dr. Burden has not broken them down for South Carolina. (Id.; PI. Ex. 889 at 6.) This court thus lacks any data on voter knowledge of the reasonable impedi-mént exception in South Carolina. (Doc. 407 at 83-84.) Further, Dr. Burden did not perform any study comparing North Carolina’s education and training efforts to the education and training efforts in the States studied. (Id. at 81.) In short, there is no reliable evidence on which to credit Dr. Burden’s opinion that North Carolinians are unaware of the reasonable impediment exception. What is apparent, as described more fully above, is that North Carolina’s voter outreach and education efforts pertaining to the voter-ID requirement and its reasonable impediment exception have been substantial.

Plaintiffs next argue that the reasonable impediment process requires a high degree of literacy and is intimidating. Dr. Burden concluded that, even as amended, “the photo ID provision remains burdensome on voters in North Carolina, more so for African Americans and Latinos than for whites.” (Doc. 407 at 42-43.) To reach this conclusion, Dr. Burden relied on what he calls the calculus of voting. 65 (Id. at 44.) *374 This framework centers on the idea that there are costs and benefits to voting. (Id.) The State controls some costs, such as the ease of using certain voting mechanisms; (Id. at 45.) In Dr. Burden’s view, however, the State does not control any of the benefits of voting. (Id.) Because Dr. Burden does not consider the benefits of voting, he consequently fails to meaningfully engage the voter’s propensity to vote. Although it speaks of costs and benefits, Dr. Burden’s analysis is in effect reduced to the following two questions: (1) did the State increase the cost of voting and, if so, (2) was the increased cost justified? (See id. at 53 .) For example, Dr. Burden cites a State’s imposition of a registration requirement— found in virtually all States—as. a burden on voters, but sustains it because of its “compelling State interest,” (Id., (“Mandating voter registration at one point became sort of obvious reform for many states, That was a new restriction, but it had a strong motivation behind it.”).)

Dr. Burden’s conclusion that the reasonable impediment exception does not sufficiently ameliorate the alleged burden from SL 2013-381 is in part based on his belief that the paperwork and process for the exception will deter low literacy individuals, who are disproportionately African American and Latino. (PI. Ex. 889 at 3, 6.) This opinion is without support. Dr. Burden is not an expert in literacy. Accordingly, he has not offered a review of the applicable forms or an opinion as to what level of literacy would be required to complete the reasonable impediment process. In sum, Dr. Burden’s testimony was of limited practical assistance to the court, as it was heavy on theory- and light on facts.

Plaintiffs also offered the testimony of several fact witnesses who work with low literacy individuals.

Ashley Lasher is the Executive Director of the Literacy Counsel of Buncombe County, North Carolina. (PI. Ex. 1050 at 8.) The Literacy Counsel’s mission is to “increase comprehensive literacy and English language skills through specialized instruction by trained tutors and access to literacy resources.” (Id. at 11.) The group offers two , adult literacy programs to adults in western North Carolina: an English-as-a-second-language course serving about 250 students per year, 85-90% of whom are Spanish-speaking; and an adult education class for low literacy individuals whose first language is English, which serves about fifty students per year split equally between African Americans and whites. (⅞ at 44-46.) Ms. Lasher is not a literacy expert, nor does she work directly with students. (Id. at 11, 14.) Instead, her role is to manage the organization, provide oversight, and participate in fundraising efforts. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiffs sought to have her opine on the ability of the group’s students to navigate a draft of the SEIMS-generated version of the RID. (Id. at 62-65.) Plaintiffs did not tender or qualify Ms. Lasher as an expert, nor did they lay adequate foundation for Ms. Lasher to provide lay opinion testimony based upon her personal knowledge and perception. Fed. R. Evid. 701. In fact, her testimony made clear that her opinions were not based on her personal knowledge and perceptions, but on the personal knowledge and perceptions of her organization’s program directors, who were not available for cross examination. 66 Consequently, Ms. *375 Lasher’s opinions are not admissible, but, even if they were, this court would not find them helpful.

Michelle Kennedy is the Executive Director of the Interactive Resource Center (“IRC”) in Greensboro, North Carolina. (Doc. 409 at 82.) The IRC provides a series of services to the homeless or likely-to-be-homeless population. (Id. at 82-88.) One such service involves assisting the homeless in document recovery and acquiring ID. (Id. at 83-84.) Ms. Kenney testified that ID is critical to the ability for homeless individuals to transition back to self-sufficiency. (Id. at 85.) Unfortunately, due to the nature of their living circumstances, homeless individuals are more likely to lose their ID once it is acquired. (Id.) Ms. Kennedy estimates that 90% of the individuals the IRC serves are African American. (Id. at 84.) With regard to the RID, Ms. Kennedy was concerned about the form’s request for residential address and its warning that fraudulently or falsely completing it is a felony. (Id. at 100-01.) Even though the IRC’s “guests” use the IRC’s address in applying for ID and in registering to vote, (id. at 109-11), she was concerned that a “vett[ing]” of that address “would, show ... that [it’s] a commercial address and, therefore, not a residence,” (id. at 100). Ms. Kennedy was also concerned that many of the IRC’s guests would not know their SSN4. (Id. at 99.)

Maria Unger Palmer is a plaintiff in this case and has extensive experience in get out the vote (“GOTV”) efforts, .including efforts targeting Hispanics. (Doc. 410 at 7-8.) In her future outreach efforts, Ms. Palmer does not plan to use the reasonable impediment exception because she believes it is intimidating and “requires a high level of literacy.” (Id. at 12.) She is not a literacy expert but “was a schoolteacher and a school principal and trained [individuals] in testing.” (Id. at 25.) Although Ms. Palmer has volunteered as a translator at the polls in the past, she says State-provided interpreters are not available. (Id. at 14.) Without an interpreter, she believes, many low literacy Hispanic voters will not have the literacy skills to complete the reasonable impediment process. (Id. at 14-15.)

Examination of the reasonable impediment voting process and the process of other voting mechanisms reveals that the concerns of these fact witnesses are not well-founded. Every North Carolina county uses electronic poll books during early voting. (Id. at 90; Doc. 414 at 128.) Many, but not all, also use electronic poll books on Election Day. (Doc. 410 at 90.) Where electronic poll books are used, the PVA (step 1) and the SEIMS-generated version of the RID (step 2) will pre-populate with the voter’s registration information, including residential address. (See Doc. 546 at 3.) This means that if an IRC guest were to use the IRC’s address when registering to vote, that address will pre-populate into the residential address field on both forms. (See id.) Those who present at one of the voting locations without electronic poll books can complete the pre-printed version discussed above. (See id. (Ex, 2).) This version features larger print and requires less information from the voter. (See id.) Further, in completing either form, voters can receive assistance from any person of *376 their choosing, 67 except “their employer or their union representative.” (Doc. 414 at 138-39.) If the voter does not have' anyone to assist, him, he can seek assistance from poll workers in completing both forms. (Id at 189.) Poll workers are instructed to assist voters in completing the provisional process without inquiring into whether the voter is illiterate. (Id.) For example, if the voter tells the poll worker that she does not understand the form, “the precinct official is supposed to do everything they can to try to provide as much explanation to [the voter] as possible until they do understand it.” (Id. at 211.) This type of assistance predates North Carolina’s voter-ID law. For example, in implementing SDR, poll workers were trained to inspect the voter registration form to ensure it was properly completed. (Id.) This is in part why Plaintiffs claim it is a valuable fail-safe. Director Straeh testified that poll workers will provide the same review function for reasonable impediment voters. (Id. at 212 (“The person at the help station is to ensure that [the reasonable impediment declaration] is complete before ... they provide [the voter] the ballot in order to vote the provisional ballot.”).) If an administrative defect in the declaration, such as a failure to list an impediment or provide other necessary information, nevertheless remains, the CBOE has the ability to reach out to the voter to acquire the missing information. (Id. at 212-13.) Accordingly, the reasonable impediment voting process is designed to permit and provide significant assistance.

Further, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the reasonable impediment voting process is more difficult than other voting mechanisms that Plaintiffs either advocate for or have not challenged.

First, the PVA stage of the reasonable impediment process (step 1) must be completed by all provisional voters, including OOP voters. All such voters must report to the Help Station and complete the PVA, which requires the voter to pi’ovide the same voter registration-related information as required by the RID and attest that it is not provided “fraudulently or falsely.” (Def. Ex. 546 (Ex. 1).) As with most voter-related forms, the PVA contains phrases, such as “attest,” “provisionally,” ■ “affirmation,” and “fraudulently.” (Id.) Residential address is also a required field. (Id.) Nevertheless, as noted below, a disproportionate share of African Americans and Hispanics cast OOP ballots, and thus necessarily completed the provisional voting application, when OOP was in place.

Second, all voters are required to complete a voter registration form. (See PI. Ex. 212A.) Those wishing to use SDR were required to complete a voter registration form at the polling place. Residential address is a required field on the voter registration application. (Id.) In bold, red print next to the signature line, the registrant is warned that “fraudulently or falsely completing” the registration application is a felony. (Id.) Nevertheless, as noted above, African American registration rates exceed *377 those of whites in North Carolina. (PL Ex. 684.)

Third, every voter is required to complete an ATV (authorization to vote) form. (Doc. 410 at 91-93.) This was true both before and after the voter-ID law. (Id.) Accordingly, as Plaintiffs’ counsel pointed out, if over 4.3 million North Carolinians voted in the 2008 Presidential election,then over 4.3 million North Carolinians completed an ATV form. (Id. at 93.) To complete the ATV form, the voter must attest that the address he provided is correct and that he has not voted in the election. (PI. Ex. 1056.) Here, too, the voter is warned that “fraudulently or falsely completing” the ATV is a felony. (Id.) Thus, to the extent that the IRC’s guests are concerned about attesting that the IRC’s address is their residential address, this concern predates the voter-ID law and will remain regardless of the method of voting employed. (Id.) In addition, as with many voting related forms, there are phrases such as “fraudulently,” “hereby certify,” and “violation of NC law.” (Id.)

The fact that so many minority voters have successfully navigated these forms over the years strongly suggests that their experience with the RID will not be different. The SEIMS-generated version may have slightly smaller print, (Def. Ex. 546 (Ex. 3)), but the same is true of the forms discussed above. The pre-printed version appears to have larger print than any of these forms. (Id (Ex. 1).) The RID only requires two pieces of information from the voter that are not redundant of other forms. First, the voter must provide alternative identification. (Id. (Ex. 3).) Even assuming Ms, Kennedy is correct that many of the IRC’s guests do not know their SSN4, (Doc. 409 at 99), the SSN4 is just one form of acceptable alternative identification, (Def. Ex. 546 (Ex. 3)). Voters also can provide an acceptable HAVA document or their voter registration card. (Id.) All registered voters receive a voter registration card, and all SDR voters had to present a HAVA document in order to vote. The second piece of non-redundant information is the section where the voter states his impediment to acquiring acceptable ID. (Id.) But even this part of the form is designed for ease of use. Rather than require the voter to write in his own impediment, the form contains a non-exhaustive list of eight qualifying impediments, and the voter need only check one or more that , apply. As noted above, the voter can receive whatever assistance is necessary to make this determination.

Plaintiffs , next argue that the reasonable impediment challenge process is likely to be implemented in a discriminatory and intimidating fashion. As noted above, a provisional ballot cast under the reasonable impediment exception must be counted and can only be rejected on the basis of the impediment provided if the listed impediment is “factually false, merely denigrate[s]” the ID requirement, or is “obviously nonsensical.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163— 182.1B(a)(l). A voter’s reasonable impediment declaration can become subject to scrutiny through either a voter’s evidentia-ry challenge or the CBOE’s review of provisional ballots. (See Def. Ex. 547.)

CBOEs are required to “make redacted copies of all Reasonable Impediment Declaration forms available to the public upon request,” (id. at 1), and any voter registered in the same county as the reasonable impediment voter may make an “evidentia-ry challenge” to the reasonable impediment declaration, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182 .1B(b)(l). There are significant procedural limitations on the reasonable impediment challenger. Challenges may only be made on the SBOE’s Evidentiary Challenge form, (Def. Ex. 547 at 7), and must be “submitted no later than 5:00 P.M. on the third business day following the elec *378 tion”, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182 .1B(b)(2). In addition, the scope of the challenge is “strictly limited” to the facts the challenger alleges in the written challenge form. (Def. Ex. 547 at 7.) To deter unwarranted or improper challenges, the challenge form clearly provides that “fraudulently or falsely” completing it is a felony. (Id.)

Once a challenge has been made to the factual veracity of the reasonable impediment, the CBOE office is instructed to closely inspect the evidentiary' challenge form to “ensure the form has been completed fully, including a signature and contact information for the challenger.” (Id. at 2.) To be complete, the challenge form must be notarized. (Id. at 7.) If the CBOE determines that the challenge form is complete and timely presented, the CBOE must send written notice of the challenge to the voter and the challenger by mail. (Id. at 3.) At a minimum, the notice must contain the following:

Name and address for the voter and the challenger; A statement indicating that an evidentiary challenge has been entered ... disputing the factual truthfulness of the reasonable impediment claimed by the voter; A statement that the county board of elections will hold a hearing at [date, time, and location] during which it will decide whether the challenger has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the claimed impediment merely ■ denigrates the photo identification requirement, is obviously nonsensical, or is factually ' false; A statement that the voter may appear in person or through an authorized representative to present evidence supporting the factual veracity of the impediment; [and] Copies of the Reasonable Impediment Declaration form (redacted) and the completed Evidentiary Challenge Form.

(Id.) CBOEs are directed to provide the “maximum notice possible to the voter,” and in addition to written notice “should make every effort to contact the voter via phone, email, and any other available means of contact.” (Id.) The CBOE office is also directed to notify CBOE board members, the county attorney, and the SBOE of the challenge. (Id.) All Evidentia-ry Challenge forms must be forwarded to the SBOE. (Id.) The SBOE plans to use its legal team to provide oversight of challenges and ensure CBOEs are following proper procedure. (Doc. 414 at 215-16.)

On the day of the canvass, the CBOE “is required to conduct a hearing on the challenge in an open meeting and render 'a determination on the provisional ballot.” (Def. Ex! 547 at 3.) The county attorney’s role at the evidentiary hearing is to provide CBOE board members with guidance on the standard of review. (Id. at 4.) The standard of review to be applied by the CBOE is “[w]hether, having considered all facts in the light most favorable to the voter, the challenger has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the stated impediment (1) merely denigrates the photo identification requirement, (2) is obviously nonsensical, or (3) is factually false.” (Id. (emphasis added).) CBOEs have been trained that “[l]ight most favorable to the voter” means “[i]f you can view a fact in a, way that helps the voter, you must view it that way.” (Def. Ex. 551 at 55.) They have also been trained that “[c]lear and convincing evidence” “is greater than ‘more likely than not’” and means “[e]vidence which should fully convince you.” (Id.) “The challenger bears the burden of proof and persuasion at the hearing.” (Def. Ex. 547 at 4.)

At the challenge hearing, the CBOE is to first provide the challenger the opportunity to speak and present evidence. (Id. at 5.) The challenger’s presentation is to be limited to “substantiating facts already alleged in the Evidentiary Challenge form.” *379 (Id.) CBOEs are reminded “that the statute sets an intentionally high bar for a challenger.” (Id.) If the voter is present, the board must next provide the voter an opportunity to speak and present evidence, (Id.) A voter’s absence cannot be held against the voter. (See id. (“[A]ll evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the voter, even if the voter is not present at the hearing.”).) In addition, the CBOE is directed to “[k]eep in mind that a voter who has claimed a reasonable impediment may face material constraints different from those experienced by members of the [CBOE].” (Id.) The CBOE is not permitted to “second-guess the voter’s priorities or scheduling constraints.” (Id at 2, 5.)

After giving the parties an opportunity to speak and present evidence, the CBOE must deliberate in open session. (Id. at 5.) Each CBOE is comprised of three members, no more than two of which can be from the same party as the governor. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-30 . A CBOE cannot “find a challenge valid if it provides only evidence regarding the reasonableness of the impediment.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163— 182.1B(b)(6). For example, CBOEs have been trained that if a voter checks the box for “photo ID applied for but not received,” a challenge could not be sustained on the ground that the voter “ ^waited until the last minute’ to apply for a photo ID.” (Def. Ex.. 547 at 2.) If the SBOE has reason to believe that a CBOE has rejected a RID on the basis of the reasonableness of the impediment provided, the SBOE intends to use its supervisory powers to correct this problem. (Doc, 414, at 216.) In sum, the CBOE must reject the challenge unless two of its three méníbers find that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the voter, the challenger has carried his burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the stated impediment is either factually false, merely denigrates the photo-ID requirement, or is obviously nonsensical. (Def. Ex. 547 at 5.)

The second way a RID may become subject to scrutiny is through the CBOE’s review of provisional ballots. (Id. at 6.) The CBOE’s ability to reject a RID on the basis of the impediment provided is very limited. First, the CBOE “may not question the factual veracity of a claimed impediment” without completing the formal hearing process described above. (Id.) Second, if the voter cheeked one of the “template impediments,” such as “lack of transportation” or “work schedule,” the CBOE cannot reject

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.