A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | July 24, 2013 | Chamber | Session Part 2

Full MP3 Audio File

Senate will come back to order. We were discussing House Bill 417. Amendment 1 had been passed, Amendment 2 was offered and we went into recess. Senator Brock, if you're ready to introduce the second Amendment, we're ready for it. Let us read in your Amendment and then we will, you can debate your Amendment. [speaker changes] Senator Brock moves to amend the Bill. [speaker changes] Senator Brock you're recognized to explain the Amendment. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. President. This is a little bit more than a technical correction. This is a request by the State Board of Education to add them as a part of the agency head, as requested by the State Board of Education as ?? of DPI. They're made aware of it. I urge your support of the Amendment. [speaker changes] Further discussion or debate on the Amendment as offered by Senator Brock? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of Amendment 2. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no, five seconds will be allowed for voting and the clerk will record the vote. Stein no. Davis aye. Curtis aye. Brunstetter aye. Berger aye. Rucho aye. Hise [speaker changes] Mr. President may I be recorded as no? [speaker changes] Stand by one second. Hise, Hise your vote is aye or no? Aye. Graham no. [speaker changes] Mr. President? [speaker changes] Senator Bryant? [speaker changes] No. [speaker changes] No. Senator Parmon? [speaker changes] No. [speaker changes] No. Senator Robinson? [speaker changes] No. [speaker changes] No. Final tally - [speaker changes] Mr. President? [speaker changes] Senator Nesbitt no. Senator Clark no. Anyone else wanna change their vote? Senator Ford no. Senator Kinnaird - where's Senator Kinnaird? She's a little woman, she voted no. [speaker changes] Please! [speaker changes] Kinnaird no? Is that correct? Senator Kinnaird? Would someone in her vicinity ask her how she wants to vote? I take that as a no. Thank you. The final tally. 39 having voted in the affirmative and 10 in the negative, the Amendment 2 is adopted. We're back to the Bill, House Bill 417. Senator Brock, further discussion? Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of House Bill 417 on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no, five seconds will be allowed for voting and the clerk will record the vote. Senator Nesbitt no. Senator Kinnaird no. Senator Hise aye. Senator Clark no. Senator Berger aye. Senator Davis from Macon, aye. Final tally. 38 having voted in the affirmative and 11 in the negative, House Bill 417 passes second reading and will without objection be read a third

death of a process that's the end of a vestige of house bill 4777 Wilson find time, as the data center hospital for 17 passes is timing and the senate-house for concurrence and senate amendments that is the times and the overview-size of the movement and a three-is-house has 77,000 receivers and Sellers five days, a city with the masters of the day's, I'm so house bills of those of us are the fashion center as president, as well as today, house bill designed for one of these actions, we reported that only the city of force, and some rough -and-than-life and it was a second 15 times for the as-needed all-time of Data Resources-RPM so that everyone who reads the snow so you have announced that has a business-and-sight, smell of incense own parents-in-arms to the land, as well as administrative hearing courses at the top of the time-out of the process and the women have a definite answer on now with that assessment of all straight person out tile of the end of the opposition from the jazz-digit percentage are in-the-seizure for by the state-Laughlin: (SPEAKER CHANGES) unless your support national part ??in the discussion of events tile centers before he runs high-speed of a service for items that meant was that this is a law lighting model for me this action the city of it and is that the only a industry analysts activity war and everything else and the women of invalid and that mail Martinez for ??procession of events that question before the senate is the message of sending out of commission house bill a 34.7 rating of the IE: those with the defense service medal of honor and driving record the sender mind that ?? and added a new 5-0 negative sentiment for a time as is the second halves of section one of the other side of that stuff, and special events and, as inventor of the passage of the house bill later before Mr. Reagan's if I was inside the ??has happened house bill-four and Mrs. Hartman will be sent back to the house for concurrence and senate committees of the two numbers and ??????some custom 747 are only time all-seven-member state of Irvine satisfy the senate and the essence of the insert of members of the set ??????....

Senator Rabin: House Bill 727 is necessary because automobile insurers process thousands of total loss claims in North Carolina each year, the vast majority of these claims after the total loss settlement is made to the vehicle owner or to the lien holder. The title is then, or certificate is then passed on to the insurer. Sometimes these titles are lost, misplaced, or destroyed, and this bill allows, puts a method in place for these salvaged titles to be obtained. Having said that, Mr. President, I'd like to send forward an amendment. The President Pro Tempore: You may send forward your amendment. Clerk: Number 10[?); it's on the dashboard. The President Pro Tempore: Thank you; the Clerk will read. Clerk: Senator Rabin of Brunswick moves to amend the bill. The President Pro Tempore: Senator Rabin, you're recognized to explain the amendment. Sen. Rabin: Thank you, Mr. President. The bill unamended gaved the DMV pretty much a blanket immunity, and what this amendment does is it provides protection for the Department of Motor Vehicles when acting in good faith upon information obtained. And if that information is not correct, then the Department is held harmless; however, for any routine problems the Department is responsible for, they can be held liable. I recommend the amendment. The President Pro Tempore: Discussion or debate on the amendment? Hearing none, all those in favor of adopting the amendment will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for voting, and the Clerk will record the vote. 49 having voted in the affirmative and zero in the negative, oh, there it is. House Bill 727, the amendment is adopted. House Bill 727 has amendments before you for third reading. Any further discussion? Senator Rabin. Senator Rabin: Thank you, Mr. President. I just request your vote, please. The President Pro Tempore: Further discussion, further debate. The question before the Senate is the passage of House Bill 727 on its third reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for voting. The Clerk will record the vote. Why don't we play roundup. Senator Apodaca, your vote? Senator Apodaca votes aye, Senator Berger votes aye, Senator Wade votes aye, Senator Bryant votes aye, Senator Rucho votes aye. House Bill 727, having passed its third reading, will be sent back to the House for concurrence with the committee substitute, for the amendments. House Bill 589. The Clerk will read. Clerk: House Bill 589, [??] election reform. Mr. President. The President Pro Tempore: Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? Sen. Apodaca: Motion, please. The President Pro Tempore: State your motion, sir. Sen. Apodaca: Mr. President, I move that the rules be suspended to the end that staff may join Senator Rucho on the floor. The President Pro Tempore: Without objection, so ordered. Senator Rucho, you are cleared to speak on the motion. Sen. Rucho: Thank you, sir, and Members of the Senate. This election reform bill is something that is going to work to bring up to date an outdated, archaic state election code.

Mild if Denny’s has a minivan of repairs to improve leave the Russian leader's statements came on line to the development of the White House using this as a level of confidence in the lifelong process time they also interesting comments on the electoral process, their operations as to one of his fairness and honesty in Ojai and what we have been redesigned the view of this bill actually has reestablished at the currency and certainty, finance ministers transparency election process creates clear-eyed as the head of time and easy opportunities were infected blood donation by any, any money from -the-sexes in mind during the fight is the time of the questions were asked of them between the endless money questions that may come about, and by E-it is a caller ID process any percent of people in North Carolina actually woven at odds for the fact is: why you some people to live on the selection process and land that NT 69,001 student will have the opportunity to about his status as a modest amount of additional ideas include a five-cent non operating IDs onto the mid-nineties, when his past was which will be presented at the ballot in all the time of the E and at a time line to the division the transition is known for the next here have a loss of entries issued in 2014 of 21 am already will buy you the denial of time into the life of me, it might be necessary in 2016 so that begin at eight of them and that he process in place, and the fact that half of those, variably to honor, I'm very stations, and that he, too high for the last of these differences out on the issue of why is he in fact in-process and women- some time, it's packed in evolution of citizens on ?? has set a date is running for a living wage, as the lives of any time to process of 10 days, 17 upper hand, is the facts ability to increase you and me that the hours ensuring that will tie-aided 26-story is also has a question only for the blues legend dry loss to explain the number of available sites in his ad that makes I'm a small access to the Israeli army said that sites and reducing the long lines by extending the locations and the city, Helen harmonists said the timing 10 days from 17 even a single-sex, and I've read about saving of lives so that works department official aid in providing access times to be able to call off of made the statement is in a somewhat sexy and says that many hours of classroom and how does anyone have been treated the same way a lack of consistency has been a problem people stay alive by not only for a mind-set, but he wants to secede rocking fire on the Times' instinct to do so in the salons of that site for onto the five-day and not by repealing send a register as an individual should have received at the status of the aisle for the delay action is not too be able to identify and, as everyone that case, the Rodney his time when the registration and what this does his interest rates in some parts are also asking has he also had a situation where he taught about campaign finance time, it's probably not, these opportunities, according to the use of times a lot of 69 and one in nine months in fact that if one that is how the time, we have another question is just as one of the knowledge that the threshold in the campaign finance reform and one-time high in supporting of honey ?? ……….......

There is also a provision now mention the fact it was reported that there would be an increase from four thousand dollar to five thousand dollar maximum I believe 1982 that four thousand dollar maximum was established and if you just do the cut on the cpi from then to now that 4,000 would be 16,000 But what we're trying to say that it will be a 5.000 limit. It will be adjusted I think every 2 yrs by using the cpi index I know everybody in this room fully understands that the money less but the cost of campaigning whether you use TV, media or direct mail or whatever constantly goes up. And so what this does is is help eliminate some of those problems We have a situation, lets see where the bill reduces the opportunity to gain ship in the timing the candid of the withdrawal and what that does is it insures that all parties will have an fair notice on open seats We eliminate all straight ticket voting allowing voters to choose the person not the party and it also allows those and helps each of the voter to pay close attention to the non-partisan elections which at this point of judicial elections out of other elections. Some counties commissioned elections and those down ballots racist and initiatives do deserve the scrutiny of the vote of the individuals that are voting It also provides that the earliest someone can register is on the 18th birthday. There is a lot of confusion in my own son's situation he had pre-registered and then got a letter wasn't quite 18 thought he was suppose to vote the bottom line is everyone that turns 18 will know its time to go vote and therefore will register will get registered appropriately, and finally the bill restores NC's voice in a presidential election by moving up the date of the NC primaries that will be a primary election for our presidential preference. Many times having an election in May primary election we in NC don't have very much say in the selection of a presidential candidate parties This just gives us an opportunity to become active in that process and allow our citizens to act accordingly I will comment about one report that was in WRAL they comment about the fact that the when someone is at the polls at the time let say, 7:30 when the polls close anybody in line at the same way the law exists today at 7:30 if that line goes well beyond that everybody votes WRAL should be sure their facts are accurate before they make a ?? statement like that Mr. President I believe I gone over the list I'll be delighted to attempt to answer any questions on this and I would urge anyone to take advantage of this election to reform and give us an opportunity to pass this good election and put some confidence, honesty and integrity back into the electoral process. Thank you. Speaker change further discussion further debate speaker change Mr President speaker change Senator ?? what purpose do you

to the reaction of the year but, some of the act would be well as all at the time we have a lot of the settlements of a lively am a significant increase in resources, the area that has the resources they need a seven-busting the accounts , mission time and best bet that the CIA has had a down-and-a-half standings and status at a time in the set design- them as best actress the sentiment for viewers as the time-cent-a a test session adjourned the cemetery documented anywhere, each having the confines of their own money and the drive that have been shorn not as wondering is there some provision in the band that when the size of the number of signs because the incident as many major -of-the inside and I'll say it said that the non-decision is at least 1/2 million dollars signing a homemaker, too, is recalling the seventies he will be less the seventies as you can use the same amount of money to expand the number of locations have an access through time intact, and his only believe that will solve the problem has been questioned about the owners made me that the county's act as many nights the open-use maximum three outlets only would not have an option of not only enjoy the same time, Smith Yosemite and that's not the position that his back to the county the services and that if I have a site within the trial preparation of the status of the eighties and having them is meanings of SMS intent of the dominance of the citizens of active citizens Romanians have won a ??is presents end of the U.S.-built in Manhattan, as best I leave the service of a presentation, in which will be in 20 16th man was that is, the idea that survey of injury and 2008, Indiana, and the standard $64,000,000 to the state of that was over 16 and that (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mason -Andrew - and-as-a-half and added the stock market with that and wanted the money-and campaigns that area that in his honesty Monday in the west bank and the seventies, this is an active in the market that has never sent to the head-and that medicines facts and the San Diego, action warehouse that as a single-a-1.2 billion people, and the presence of a hostile and have an answer in having to leave the table speed rivalry with an eighth-August 8 with a massive movement in half of the seventies in Amman-valuations on this issue format, animations of all civilization or sing-on issues of national same time the fence in happens the $17,000,000,000 economic impact of the things ??having a numbers eyes of the honesty, the essence of the hand-in-house and tanning creams and, as a Justice Charles , 71 he was out on the nominated for five with a candidacy, your time about his war machine so many scuds he has blossomed easing the city that has events coming into areas time on -one, people made the point that may visit the canvassing the night this one time as a banner ad, adding that he and the repeal of the honesty and the thing ????...................

The experience of those people in New Hampshire. In Iowa, and now Soouth Carolina. And we get a chance to talk to the president, presidential candidates, one on one. To talk to them when they come to our small towns. And I'll say this, North Carolina is a lot better place to visit in any other state in the union. I urge you to vote for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President and the ladies and gentlemen of the senate. As a freshman in the minority party, when I came to Raleigh, I came up here with an open mind. Everything that I am learning about the state legislative process, I am learning from you. Voter ID has been very unpopular among many. I am one of three democrats in this chamber that put their name on a voter identification bill, a bill that would have guaranteed that no registered voter is denied the right to vote and to prevent the unauthorized use of a registered voter's voting privilege through the fraudulent misuse of a voter's registered voter's identity, senate bill 235. I believe that we should protect the integrity of the voting process, and I understand the arguments against that. However, for me, whether it is one person or 10,000, one is one too many. But this bill goes beyond protecting Senator Rucho, the integrity of the process, but it restricts access to voting. To me, this is un-American, and it does a disservice to North Carolinians. I cannot support a bill that restricts democracy. Number one, it eliminates same day voting registration. Number two, it eliminates preregistration for teens. In 2012, nearly 50,000 teenagers preregistered, most as unaffiliated with any particular party. And last, it reduces early voting. Folks, we should be expanding the voting process for all while protecting the integrity of the voting process. This is not voter reform, this is voter suppression. I cannot support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Set forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may send forth his amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President, members of the senate. I'd like to follow up on this point on early voting that senator Ford just raised. This bill shrinks from 17 days to 10 days the number of early voting days. In the 2012 election, general election presidential year, general election, 900,000 people voted in that first week of early voting. 900,000, nearly a million people. 2 1/2 million people voted early. In fact, a majority of North Carolinian voters, 56%, voted early in 2012. This is one of the most wildly popular, pro citizen initiatives this state government has ever taken. In fact, there was a poll - 85% of the people of this state support early voting. That's because, 75 percent of the people have early voted. You all are reducing the number of days, you're reducing the availability of early voting. Senator Bryan asked Senator Rucho, well how do we know that we're not going to lose the number of hours of early voting that's available to the people? There's nothing in the bill that will ensure that the people have access the same number of hours of early voting over tat ten day window as they do in the 17 day window. The amendment that I send forward addresses that point. It's pretty straightforward. All it says is, however many hours you as a county have early voting in the primary over 17 days, have the same number of hours available over 10 days. And if you need more sites to get to the total number of aggregate

our city that the data and that is that it has a citizen of the action was your people, as innocent, and the two of them has a message and some of the sexy and has been the sensual or acetaminophen has shown as it is evidence that as well, and of shaking the event of the time that sending an estimation where it says in the state at the same access to relieve the DNA with 10 days than the 17 days U.S. support isn't half-decent -of the investments and interesting is the chart for the start of China as business sense, just in case one is just how many people have only child and you can see a seven-setting committee is that it is a den of time for state and also of the hands that says something else with the seed is often has been one of the people to one estimate we have as the homicide and that is the importance of the women message that share-issue has the fed's and then to see this that in the seven days in North Carolina the series that it happened here is the sign of slowing them on the first seven days, that which coincidentally-days the men were sending out a few of the process of that time the men on the dashboard is standing near the center of a nightmare and a high state of its assets of an event for the shadow of the 1755 trial is not the Syrians and size of the form in the making child in seven straight that happened before his shows in the right way and says it, and it's making made this change you have the shots in a disaster happens is I mean and younger infamous five others that disproportionately affected the production of the unsigned that was shocked of the reality identities for the CIA (speaker chages)and time this has been a seven-overseas honesty, and the rest of the idea that I might satisfy and rebels of the charts and cox-things with the realities of the seventies and early 1980s; on my timing about whether happened at the white media whenever not the greatest at the set is a very good possibility that we have no statewide he says he's cocky more hyphens west at a time trying by the state level actions and that there is a common set of meanings have already passed by the time to set a team that this has been as the early morning portion of this and that has taken care of by the state would like to be sure that everybody's been treated the same treated fairly , actually hiring more opportunity for allocations as a matter of sexism at 19, and you have to suck in spite of the titles of us in the sense that will help alleviate many of those props sometime in the decent, he added, that the office of the issues but to no one wants even started running and season, the other 18 percent of the life of the finest in¢ of 1990 to 1987 the first downs has run on the citizens as a 9-7 and office of more than on hand in this out and we must offer some options because we just let me see if we were up 40 denials of strong support in the nightly if possible evacuation the trade the tax and went on, as you shouldn't be any special privileges a special teams in the batting an original, some end of this as an 71406 of them haven't you ever filed ????...........

Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. I’m concerned about this bill as much from the standpoint of its fiscal impact as many of the other issues that are raised. My question to Senator Rucho was a legitimate one about the additional cost to counties for having a system of duplicate, multiple primaries. Let me tell you a quick story about Wake County. Wake County has a woman named Cherie Poucher as our Supervisor of Elections. She’s a Republican. She worked here in the General Assembly for the Republican Minority Leader in the House. I respect her as much as you can respect any individual and she is respected by most of the elected officials in this county because she runs fair elections. But if you were to ask Cherie about this bill and this amendment, she would tell you that in Wake County where we have over 600,000 registered voters, where we have somewhere approaching 200 precincts or polling places, that early voting and having the number of hours we’ve basically had has saved Wake County tremendous dollars because we haven’t had to open new polling places. My precinct has over 6,000 people in it and yet we don’t have lines on Election Day. My precinct is a precinct that looks like Wake County. We don’t have lines on Election Day because of early voting. It has saved the County Commissioners and the Board of Elections at least two or three extra polling places because of the number of hours that are available. Now if you start restricting hours, we’re going to have to have new polling sites to accommodate these 6,000-plus voters, I said “people,” 6,000-plus voters. If we had 200 precincts in Wake County each precinct would have upwards to 3,000 people in it to vote on the same day. So, we can’t go back, Senator Rucho is absolutely right, to where we were in 1997. But in these rapidly-growing counties, if you start cutting back on the number of hours for early voting, not only are you creating requirements for more polling places and they’re tougher to find now. You can’t use schools when they’re in session because you’re interrupting the kids. You’re not using churches and stuff as much as you used to. You’re not using rec centers. They’re tougher places to find. We ought to sort of get with it with the new technology and the ability to determine whether somebody who says they are who they are should show up early to vote and that’s what early voting does, it moves us from the 20th century I think reasonably into the 21st. Senator Stein’s amendment that there would be the same number of hours as we already have at least serves as a finger in the dike. At least as a finger in the dike. The fact of the matter is that in these rapidly growing counties you need more hours of early voting to keep from spending more money to open more polling places having to buy more voting machines. These machines are used once a year, twice a year, on however many days we’re voting. We ought to be aimed at buying as few of them as possible. We can’t create more days. We don’t have to pay for the extra days. There are 365 in a year, we don’t buy new days. But we have to buy new machines when you start compressing this voting time. So, not only the cost of the new machines, the cost of the new polling places. You’re adding additional costs for the election process. So I would urge that you support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if the distinguished Senator Rucho would yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can you explain to me at the end who would bear the costs of these expanded voting sites? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The voting sites would be borne by the County Boards. Let me just clarify that too, so that we understand. When Senator Blue was talking about the precincts and he’s got 6,000 members in his precinct, this also as part of Section 24, also requires a study so that we evaluate the mega-precincts like in Cumberland County or like in his county with 6,000…

...voters and the General Assembly will come back with recommendations on size, border population and the like, to help eliminate some of his concerns regarding the size of the precincts. And also, you're not buying new equipment. The Board of Elections is using the same equipment that's on general election day, moving it to the location. So it's not purchasing new equipment. It's utilizing more efficiently. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Go ahead, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Would you consider this to be an unfunded mandate from the State to the counties? [SPEAKER CHANGES] From what Senator Brock said, I'd probably, you would say not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Senator Tucker, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me, to debate the amendment. I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, may I ask Senator Rucho a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, in the new tax plan, are there not unencumbered dollars that will be coming to the counties in the new tax plan? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. The way the tax plan and the county, and the municipal tax returns, they will be greater than they presently are now. Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. Thank you, sir. Just a comment, Mr. President, if I may? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. On page J-6, in the budget, the Help America Vote Act, which is commonly known as HAVA funds, we appropriate in general government about $400,000. And for that $400,000 that we appropriated, these additional funds will allow the State to access $4 million of HAVA Federal funds for information technology in State elections. So there is some money so that, I don't think, Senator Ford, that it's justified to say it's an unfunded mandate. They do have dollars coming their way. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Meredith, for what reason do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Senator Stein would yield to a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Stein, I had one question about eliminating the first seven...the days we were eliminating were disenfranchising certain voting demographics. The first day of early voting is the first day of early voting, so I'm a little confused how we're eliminating the first seven days being eliminated when the first day of early voting is the first day of early voting. Can you explain that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd be happy to. If we got rid of early voting all together, then the first day of early voting would be election day. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And what has proven to be the case, is that if we had everybody come out on election day, we would have to have massive expansion of the number of precincts, which would entail having more money on the county's part. You'd have to train many more people. Buy more machines. So every day you compress the schedule, you are pushing to toward election day. What has happened historically, and I don't know why, but African-Americans have voted at the very beginning of the process. The fact that you would moving it back, yes there is always going to be a first day, but you are going to reduce the number of days in which people can vote. And furthermore, African-Americans vote disproportionately in the entire early voting process. So if you were restricting the opportunity to vote early voting, then you are reducing their opportunity to exercise the franchise in the way that they have factually, empirically have done. My amendment will mitigate the damage of reducing early voting by ensuring the same number of hours. My amendment will mitigate the damage by reducing the number of hours. The key is to make sure you have the same number of poll hours available to voters. I agree with you that if you do that, then the damage is going to be less so. But if you just shrink early voting without a guaranty that counties are going to offer voting to people, they're pushing people to election day, which is a work day, which can impact on people's ability to participate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, for what reason, for what purpose do you rise? Senator Hise, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Senator Stein will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, just to clarify from what I heard you say. If counties, under their choice, maintain the number of poll hours they currently have...

to a vicious estimate that the anti-poverty, ignorance, as it has a set date, time a lesson in that it has signed the impact will be last is the outset that we've seen in his mid-to-four with that I'm a seven-days- this-office continues to increase that the people of events also defended his site in Iraq and areas that matter, in fact I'll have the defense has been inundated at increasing to pass today I I'll either hands -on-the inconvenience and the people of North Carolina, head of the despite the loss of their representatives was made that it is convenient as last time a seven-has no-sender Sunday on 94, some time back hard information live site is replying that any of that actually time of the perceived of Canada and the positions accounts by his decision about the county's expand the ominous signs increase the miners in the division the bench as a time when the median expected in that this has tile, is one of the state office of senator jay Kim’s is excused for estimating center of the lighter sentences have been questioned police said a study of adaptive houses, a major event and timing of the seven leading them if we can address this question, so we can, and indeed made this one party that has met with some of the Afghanistan bills that before the season president of sometime for our students say that it has some convincing mesa fourth amendment that operated that, that ?? equipment as common as in the white house's following the amendment for your hands-on a ?? higher than the status of the people headed for-17 is a privilege in-a-plate, said the downhill and we have $6.6 million 6.6 million ??(SPEAKER CHANGES) in the back to the U.N. has made we're waiting to happen this time, the only that, as an actress and one we ate 705 and 781 people exercise that right tomorrow when anti-years later we hand-to-the-three people chanted in the first week of relief that was intense movie-house and roll that the lessons of the region has been sitting here and in the first week in Dayton, Cindy today because it's a finding that the summit attendees have is a disease that the exercise at the nine of them to pass the right thing to do was a native of your insight and then we have a vestigial actions to me for years time that flouting the detail of the party that it has not had the only people and that the media here , the beloved likelihood for him, that he suggested, is the man they are republicans and democrats have been day interactive means we want to light, and that is alleging time ideas in-hand into having matters of public or submit his name and the 10:00 PM and as people aboard a nighttime any and all weekend long as the city's main-matter of these lasting, 3 hours because the data into with 3 hours ago in the CNN, time reading, seemingly the maxima city's one possible idea and team today and even take a survey of the time limit is $2.00 as if that doesn't have the needed to construct a theory but we ask that ????..........

Buy an additional week, I guarantee you that overwhelmingly and they'd want to see that timeframe expanded. And the only thing I'm asking us to do is every four years, when this presidential election cycles com, that we go back to the type of voting that we're doing right now, that resulted in roughly 1/6 of registered voters carrying out the vote, over 900,000 people. That something we should all be in favor of. So I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, Senator Mitch is sick is absolutely correct about the fact that we will try to do everything we can to reduce the lines so that everyone will have a good opportunity to go to the polls. If we work with senator stein on this issue, we're not just interested in the presidential years, were interested in a tall. And if there's an expansion and if you go from IE's mike county, we have 10 locations to 20 locations, that gives a better opportunity without having to travel across Ocounty to be able to go vote. That being said, if we work with senator sign on this issue, this amendment will not be needed, and I urge you to vote no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McLaurin, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you so much, Mr. President, members of the senate. I'm thinking about this from my perspective as a businessperson, employing about 30 people in my community and business people all over North Carolina, small business people who want their employees to get to the polls and vote. And what senator stein has put forth is I think a very pro business friendly, fro employee amendment that will enable us as employers to encourage people to get out and vote early. And I think that's positive, it's something that we should all be able to fill that about and it will be positive for our work force. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let us see if I have my order right. Senator stein has in amendments that has been displaced, and we are now discussing senator make his sixth amendment. Any further discussion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Mayto sick, you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But I will do in the interest of trying to see if we can work something out on these issues relating to early voting, I will ask that the displays temporarily as well, since they address in many respects the same issue. But this is uniquely different because we're asking about doing this on presidential election years. So I really do believe that in presidential election years the two approaches and play that allows people to vote as freely and openly as possible, notwithstanding only Mayto on the other off years. So I don't mind displacing it temporarily to see if we can address some issues in their totality, but I do believe it addresses something that feels uniquely with what occurs in presidential election years.

it's occurring, we would anticipate that this will solve all of the problems will be addressed and I think they will prove to be a non-issue. That being said, Mr. President, I'd like to send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman may send forth his amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, is this bill on the dashboard? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're clear to debate your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. This amendment makes a number of various technical and clarifying changes after yesterday's meeting regarding absentee ballots and timing for special elections and we also move to study the issue of defining political committees that prove to be a question as to what it really constitutes. There are other parts of the bill, clarifying the process for a County to confirm voter registration for a voter who requests an absentee ballot, clarifying the absentee ballots must be received by the Board of Elections. If the ballots are not received by the election date, the absentee ballot must be postmarked by election date, received within three days of that date, technical changes to correct statutory placement of provisions authorizing voter legislation, applies changes requiring special elections to be held at the time of a primary or general election, to special elections for bond referendums. On September 10th of 2013, removes new language regarding pole observers and instead requires election oversight to study the bill that was brought up yesterday as to questions about the observers, and we tried to address that and we'll continue doing so. Clarifying changes to language allowing registered voters to update registration information at one-stop sites. Mr. President, there are a lot of technical changes in there. I'll do my best to respond to any of the questions, but that I urge you to move forward. This was a result of yesterday's discussion during the Rules Committee and also a number of questions that were brought up by members trying to get some clarifying language and that's exactly what this tries to address. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Evans. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, we're going to get you over here yet. Would you yield to a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, I'm sorry because we don't have a split screen, so I don't see exactly what's being changed with the amendment, but I do think that we sort of adjusting some of the most fundamental rights, if not the most, in a free society. So I'm just trying to figure out -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] What you alluding to so I can try to identify the spot that you're -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm trying to figure out what we're really changing. I've read the Amendment and in certain places it says that you're repealing sections, and I'm just trying to follow it since I don't have the bill and before it goes to a vote I want to understand it. And so, if you would, bear with me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You describe three or four things that this Amendment does and I was trying to follow it in the bill. If you have in some synopsized form the five or six things that this amendment does, I'll try to follow it. I simply didn't follow you when you were explaining it. I was trying to match it to the bill and I couldn't do it because I don't have a split screen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. I will share that with you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Are we still on the amendment or are we back to the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're on Senator Rucho's Amendment Number 3. Senator ??? for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President, and I don't know who to address this to. Let me ask Senator Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Opadaca, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, this is extremely difficult to try to digest and listen to the debate on this bill. Can we just displace this, and I'm thinking that in a little while, I know you all were working on something on this other thing

We can caucus for a little while and everybody can go over this and figure out how it fits. It's very hard on the dashboard to, to fit it into the bill and see where it is. And a lot of this just deletes things. [Speaker Change] About 4:30 Senator Nesbitt. That work? [Speaker Change] That would be fine. And if there are others I mean, we may wanna go ahead with the amendment process so we know what all is out there. But as some point I think it would do well for both of us to go look at some of this stuff. [Speaker Change] Fine but I don't of any others. I mean, I've got one, Senator Nesbitt. We have several. [Speaker Change] Good to know. Yes send em on over we'll look at em. I didn't wanna surprise you. [Speaker Change] OK [Speaker Change] But I'll give you mine too, OK? [Speaker Change] 30 minutes work? Or 4:30? [Speaker Change] We'll try that, see what we're doing. [Speaker Change] Mr. President [Speaker Change] Senator Rouch, the Senator Apodaca for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] You can call me anything but Rouch, I move that the Senate recess til 4:30. [Speaker Change] Would you stipulate that we would ask for all amendments that are prepared to come forward, and we'll put them on the dashboard. Then they'll be available to everyone. Is that OK with both gentleman? [Speaker Change] It's fine with me. [Speaker Change] I will send mine, if he'll send his. And we'll send our, we'll send ours up so the members of ??. I think they're already up there but if you haven't sent it, send it. [Speaker Change] Senate will stand in recess until 4:30 PM.

After listening for the full duration, the clip (PXXIAB) contains no speech.


[silence] **the 5:00 min length of this mp3 is silent**

No Audio found in this hit.

[silence] **this entire mp3 is silent**

Audio absent.

Senate will come back to order, members please take your seats. We will continue our discussions on house bill 589. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr president, Senator Apodaca may we rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If we could I think we want to go back to go back to amendment one. Was that correct senator Stein was that your amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yea, Its not quite ready were making one, minor tweak to it I believe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay alright, while were waiting for that Mr president I need to make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, I recognize your announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you,MR president due to non performance on senate bill 127, we need to remove senator Berger as a conferee, and just go with the ones we have. Thank you. Senator Berger removed all senate bill 127. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Announcements have consequences. Did we not have another amendment announced before us senator Apodaca has been been displaced now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We can do that but if i can make another announcement of conferees? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Berger appoints the following conferees for senate bill 182 limit appeals for superior court. Chair will be senator Brunstetter, senator Brown, as a member and senator Goolsby as a member. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr president additional announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On senate bill 122, excuse me 127, energy economic development and modification, not only does senator Burger not perform, senator Gun neglected in his performance also, needs to be removed as a conferee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr president, represent senator tillman for what purpose do you rise sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask senator Apodaca that question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Were putting in performance pay plans for everybody else, it seems like we got one in the senate now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you senator Tillman, speak to senator Tillmans comment [SPEAKER CHANGES] As little as we make, theres not much to take away. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr president it looks like were going to have to take another fifteen minute recess to get that ready. So lets come back and Mr president if we could about an hour at five after five. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The senate stands in recess until five o five pm. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Democrats will ?? us again during the recess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca ,we will, we will go into recess with, stipulations of preceding messages from the house. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All stipulations are included in your recess motion.

Message from the House. Mr. President, it is ordered that a message be sent to your humble body with the information that Rep. Burr, Dollar, and Hager have been added as conferees to Senate bill 10, conference committee substitute, a bill to be entitled an act establishing the Government Reduction and Efficiency Act of 2013. Respectfully, Denise Weeks, principal clerk. Mr. President, it is ordered that a message be sent to your humble body that the House has adopted the report of conferees on House bill 321, conference committee substitute. A bill to be entitled an act to repeal the requirement that local government develop, maintain a solid waste management plan. When appropriate action has been taken by both chambers, the bill will be ordered enrolled. Respectfully, Denise Weeks, principal clerk. Senate bill 18, House committee substitute, an act amending the locksmith licensing act, expanding the authority of the locksmith licensing board to regulate institutional locksmiths and raising the ceiling on certain fees. Received for concurrence, placed on the calendar July 25th.

After listening for the full duration, the clip (VIDJVV) contains no speech.

Message from the house. Senate bill 236. House Committee substitute. An act to allow a superior court judge of this state to perform marriage ceremonies. Receipt for concurrence, placed on calendar 725. Senate bill 470. Commerce committee substitute. An act to prohibit the consumption of malt beverages or unified wine on the premises of any business during a period of time where any on premise permit issued to the business authorizing the sale and consumption of malt beverages or unfortified wine is suspended or revoked by the alcoholic beverage control commission. Receipt for concurrence. Place on the calendar. 725.

Blank audio.

No Speech in this hit.

The house will come to order. I stand corrected. Yet you are ?? ?? as the house. The senate will come to order. Please take your seats. The chair understands that house bill 589 amendments number 1, number 2 and number 3 have been displaced and the bill is before us, house bill 589. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to withdraw amendment 1 and submit a new amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment 1 is withdrawn and you are recognized a new amendment which will be amendment 4, concur read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, you are recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Members, this amendment does three things. One, it says that whatever sites you open have to be open for all during early voting, you can't stagger them in and they have to be open for same number of hours although you can stagger the hours so that some could be open and some could be later, that's up to the County board. It also says that the County boards, if they can't find public facilities for early voting sites they can go to private facilities if necessary. And the more important part is as we discussed earlier is that there is a minimum that the counties have to offer the same number of hours to early voters that there were in 2010 if it's an off year election and in 2012 if it was a presidential election and I commend the amendment to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator ??, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, Senator Stein was so persuasive and convinced us that it was a good thing to do and we fully agree because we are all involved and interested in trying to make sure that we have access to our citizens to have their voice heard. I will ask that the Senate will support amendment number 4. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brock, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if senator Stein would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, this is a fair question to you or anyone no matter which side we are on. Election day voting but won't concern our ?? for a long time on this. Some of us are workers that we have our, on the election day from 5:30 until, they can't leave and with the people that are volunteering, that is a great civic service but I am just worrying about having these man of hours as the per loaned early voting cycle. We are gonna make it look tougher for people to commit 12-13 hours per day during early election cycle. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not believe we will. The number of hours are the same so that you have X number of hours being worked in 2012, you'll have the same number of hours. My understanding is there is no continuous work requirement of anyone who works on the poll so that for the early voting you can actually substitute people out during the day. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ok, so it's not accumulative follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So it's not accumulative hours of 2012, it's just same hours a day from 9 to 5. If not accumulative hours from 9 to 5 for the numerous states before but now since you assured shorter period, you are not trying to add starting early election voting, earlier into the day and extend it later into the afternoon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that a county board..

him what the problem a couple of different ways if they have fewer sites. have to leave them open longer is your losing seven days of early voting in all hours that were available to the people who live in the seven days are not available to people for their convenience. the event, so those hours need to be added in somewhere in the last ten days of early voting. if the county as more sites as our scan be applied to that site. if they keep the same number, size, they will have to extend the number of hours, but you can have different people work shifts during that period, early, but this is just [SPEAKER CHANGES] because amendment you have the person who brought a think it shows initiative, we have no matter if we have a longer period of time or a longer day of initiative, we have an estate is finding big the good people to work and becomes tougher and tougher burden on his people to work in a briefing and thanked us more than we have to look at somebody. science is not a partisan issue is really tough for the board of elections to find good people who work needs ours. we might want take a look at that in the interim, a some way to be able to spell are these people because we have a lot of senior citizens sometimes very tough to ask somebody to work at level fourteen hour day in an election cycle were we had a longer day longer cycle. the seven extra days as a long time to commit for election workers an hour looking additional hours, which makes for longer day so the one you it's a catch twenty two out of their nature would take a look at it in a fun way will dispel some of our election workers to make sure there are a widow of a worker best people thinking it's not computerized to essence down the question, chances are you are you… and looking at your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] tell me if I'm correct in the way it works that you will have each county to him hours. they provide an early voting in those respective years. TNR to whale by Bob Multi plan, the number of hours their site as well( the number of site to get a toll number of hours and began to create a floor or the number of a numerical floor for the number of hours and site they will have ongoing and they can apportion that I intend if they would deem appropriate sewage is create some found boundary as standard across the state is that what you're in is my understanding that at a major understanding is perfect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] it's precise. my hope is that county boards of election and recognize this is a floor because the percentage of people who are voting early has increased each and every election and the population of our state is increasing each and every year, and so my hope is that they will offer more sites, because the more sites that offer the people more convenience. their giving their citizens in a national religion be back here [SPEAKER CHANGES] for the discussion further debate on the amendment. the question for the city. it is the passage of the amendment to House Bill five eighty nine, amendment number four, all in favour were bow tie all opposing vote no five seconds bailout voting in the clerk will record the vote ice. I forty seven voting in the affirmative, and one him him him passes the bill 's micro forms. this writer that would outperform the rise. we send forth an amendment that was set forth earlier. I was probably number for you I guess. however, my memo I support Senator out of diaper. recognizes and forth is limited verbal read Zephaniah was amended bill famous resident members out swinging them. yes thank you all. this amendment was brought forth by various groups dealing with the disability folks and handicap of trying to get it as accommodating as we can at the polls. so what we have done has agreed to study their simmering it back to us next year so we can implement that

These folks get to the polls and accommodate them the best we can. I saw that this does present to the other regular session in 2014, make the final report and hopefully be ready by the major election in ‘16. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussions? Further debates? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is the one we’ve reviewed and it’s appropriate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? Hearing none. All those in favor of the passage of Amendment 5 to House Bill 589, please vote “Aye”. All those in favor. And all those opposed, “No”. Five seconds will be allowed for voting and the clerk will record the vote. Brock? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Newton? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Newton? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Forty-eight having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The amendment passes. The bill is back before you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to withdraw Amendment #3 and submit forward a new amendment, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment 3 is withdrawn and Senator Rucho may present his new amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho moved to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, you are recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this is pretty much the same as we discussed minus some clean up in this bill that took care of this language that Senator Stein managed so it wouldn’t be redundant and secondly, there was an issue dealing with the bond referendum dates that has been eliminated. I urge that you pass this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion and debate on the amendment? Senator Nesbitt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for Senator Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, I apologize to you. I thought we were going to do a perfecting amendment, but since it’s a new amendment, we need to review it. If we could have an opportunity to do that, just displace it for ten minutes and I’ll have our staff read it and just make sure we know what we’re doing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s fine to me. Ten minute recess, Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, we can move on with other amendments. If we can just displace this one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that alright, Senator Rucho? Let’s displace that amendment then. We’ll move forward on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment 6 is displaced. The bill is back before you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To bring back that displaced amendment form earlier. I believe it probably would have been wrapped Amendment #2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Number 2. I’m not sure that we had it displaced. I thought you were contemplating that, but at any rate, it’s back before us at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. As indicated earlier, what this particular amendment would do is separate and distinct from what Senator Stein had suggested. I think that in off years, what his recommendation is would certainly make sense after elections. But in presidential years, we have unprecedented turnouts. As indicated right now, we have over 6.4 million voters here in North Carolina. We know that we go back 2008, we had about 705,000 participating in voting in the first week of the early vote period. And that’s simply in the first week alone. We know that this past year in 2012, we had over 900,000. 903,000 to be exact who were participating in the early vote period during the very first week of the early voting. So what this amendment would do is that when we’re having those presidential elections, where there’s unprecedented turnout and we want to avoid those long lines on Election Days, we want to convenience voters as much as we can. We want to increase participation in the process, that we will restore the one week that would otherwise be cut simply in the years of presidential elections. So I ask for your support because I think all voters, regardless of their party affiliations, enjoy voting early. We see there was a 200-person increase simply in 2008 and 2012.

I feel certain if you would've asked today all of them who participated early before that first week of early voting would want to see that restored, certainly in our presidential election years for general elections [speaker change] Mr. President [speaker change] Yes [speaker change] Senator ?? for what purpose do you rise? [speaker change] To debate the amendment number 2. [speaker change] You have the floor. [speaker change} Mr. President and members of the Senate I thank Senator McKissick for his willingness to step forward and do something to help. I think based on Senator Stein's amendment, when we put a floor on there of the number of hours that existed in 12 and 08, this really is addressed and what it does is, is it doesn't prohibit the county boards and/or the state board from increasing the hours if the need arises, that gives them the flexibility, so I urge since we have already addressed this issue, we vote no on Amendment 2. [speaker change] Mr. President [speaker change] Senator Clark for what purpose do you rise? [speaker change] To speak to the amendment. [speaker change] Senator Clark you have the floor. [speaker change] Before I speak to the amendment, I ask Senator Brown to yield for a question if that's okay? [speaker change] Senator Brown do you yield? [speaker change] I will [speaker change] Senator Brown, if I remember correctly, you do have some military installations in your district, right? [speaker change] Yes [speaker change] is it Seymour and [speaker change] Camp Lejeune, New River Air Station [speaker change] So you have a very large military population, right? And it is probably not uncommon that throughout the year they have training activities, sometimes they go maybe a week, sometimes ten days where they are working 24/7? [speaker change] That is true. [speaker change] Thank you Sir. Okay, Mr. President I have a concern with our Veteran's. Because also I'm from Fort Bragg where we have a large military population and throughout the year they are engaged in training events, sometimes they go for a week, sometimes up to ten days, 24/7, so I'm concerned about making sure that we have a wide enough span of time so that we can accommodate out military members who might potentially be engaged in training activities. I mean when they are engaged in those 24/7 training activities, I mean when they are engaged in those 24/7 training activities they can't just up and go and run to a polling place and vote. So I think it is probably during those Presidential elections for our Veterans lets have an expanded time period so they can take advantage of the opportunity to vote as well. [speaker change] Mr. President [speaker change] Senator Tillman for what purpose do you rise? [speaker change] To ask Senator Clark a question. [speaker change] Senator Clark do you yield? [speaker change] Yes I do. [speaker change] We treasure the military vote very much as all of you do, especially those who represent them, we have absentee ballots that are available to the military including everyone else, and they are always going on training sessions and sometimes they are not convenient and they are around election time, but in anticipation of that, each and every one of them could do an absentee ballot without I don’t think, a lot of problem, they have been doing that in the past. [speaker change] Well actually, it is not that simple because I'm talking about for instance like at Ft. Bragg, where I work at the mission training complex, a lot of times the rank and file folks don't even know they are going to be engaged in training at any particular time so if all of a sudden we tell them they are going to have to participate in an MRX, they won't know that so they are not going to be submitting or requesting an absentee ballots in advance. [speaker change] Mr. President [speaker change] Mr. President, Senator Rabin for what purpose do you rise? [speaker change] I have a little bit of experience with the military, I think the amendment in the bill as they are stated right now, is just fine, it will work out fine. In my experience, it's never been an issue. They can get the absentee ballot if they work on it. If the system would work better. And I've never known a commander who would deny the soldiers the right to vote and give them part time off, it just doesn't happen, hasn't happened in my experience, I won't say it won't happen once in a while. But in general, just smoke and mirrors, thank you. [speaker change] Further discussion/further debate? Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [speaker change] To debate the amendment. [speaker change] You have the floor. [speaker change] Thank you. This isn't smoke and mirrors, this is about people being able to vote in the election they care about the most, more than any other. The general election on a Presidential election is the one where we have the greatest turnout because its what resonates with people the most. We all know that all elections are important and we wish people would participate in all elections. But in the last presidential election we had 900,000 people come in that first 7 days and yes we've mitigated the problem with the amendment and I appreciate your support of the amendment but Senator McKissick idea just says one one election, one time, every four years, let's keep it at 17 days. It is a

Absolutely sensible Amendment, I support it and encourage you to vote for it as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Clark, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the Amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have served in the military for 20 years as well and my experience, it has been a problem. As a matter of fact I can remember doing the last presidential election when I was actually at a polling site seeing a few troops show up there being escorted by one of their leaders, and I guess they felt pressured because they didn't, they needed to get back to their post and I can remember one say "Well Sarge, I would like to get a vote" and he says "Well, we have to get back to the post, we just don't have time. It doesn't matter as long as we have somebody to be president, you shouldn't be concerned with that." So time pressures can have an impact on out military troops and I'm certain that probably the Major or the Lieutenant Colonel or the Full-Bird Colonel certainly wouldn't ?? such, but when you have those troops down there, that make, are the rank of Sargent, Staff Sargent, something like that, they're tending to try to please their leadership, so sometimes they do things that they probably should not do, so I think it's probably in the best interests that we try to look out for those soldiers who may be lower down on the totem pole and make sure that they are given as much time as possible to go to vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. We set forth an election process and we work County Commissioners and others plan for elections that are coming each year, so that we elect everyone from ?? Water Conservation to president. It is not the purpose of our elections to provide a different system and a different timetable depending on which elections happen to be on the table that year. This is about consistency ,that we do our elections and provide people the equal opportunities when they are electing Country Commissioners as when they are electing president. This Amendment changes that. This Amendment says that when we are fortunate enough to choose the electorates for our president that we open the system in in different areas, differently then we do at other times. It is time that we put consistency, that is what this bill is about, across the state so that people can not continue to use the election policies to advantage themselves. So I ask that you oppose ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the Amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be completely and totally consistent it would be best not to change existing law, but that's not what this bill does. This bill radically changes existing law its a voters' oppression act. We don't even want the kids in high school in their civic classes to get ?? history to vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. McKissick, will you stick to the Amendment that is before us? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Absolutely, but I want to be very clear, based upon Senator Hise's comment, that we are doing something that's different, because what we are doing is changing existing law. I would be very happy if we were to allow the additional week in every election year, in every election cycle. I think that would be the right thing to do, but since this bill is proposing to decrease it, and because it is decreasing it, I'm simply asking that as a convenience to voters, those voters who came out en mass in 2008, those that came out en mass in 2012, those that will come out en masse again in 2016, that we respect the fact that they don't wanna wait in very long lines, that they don't want to sit there and have to wait for some court to enter an order, so that all the people waiting in line can possibly vote, because we have those two and three hour lines, a lot of people don't stay there, they don't get a chance to exercise that constitutional privilege. So this is simply, as an accommodation to voters, regardless of whether they are a Republican, Democrat or unaffiliated, but simply as an accommodation to voters, to give them that extra week. Yes, it would be better if it was consistent every year, but I'm taking for granted the fact that that my best wish will not be realised. So I'm simply saying, to be fair and reasonable, to those voters who we know will go back, those voters a sixth of whom in this state who came out and voted in the first week, this past year in 2012, that those voters will come out again at the next presidential general election, that they get that privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford, for what purpose do you rise?

...you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, to speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just briefly, and I want to be real consistent here. For me, is it about expanding the voting opportunity process. We just heard from one of our members talking about the military. Why would we not want to accommodate our military? We're talking about voting here, folks. Voting. Give people the opportunity to vote. Regardless of how they vote, I just want them to vote. I cannot believe that I'm listening to you talk about limiting a voting process. This is extremely disturbing to me. Can we please move on and support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Hearing none, all those, the question before the Senate is the passage of Amendment 2. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for voting and the Clerk will record the vote. Seventeen having voted in the affirmative, and thirty-one in the negative. The amendment fails. The bill is back before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think we're all set to take back the amendment that was put aside. I think it was Amendment No. 6. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment 6 is back before us. Senator Rucho, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. I think we've already explained it and I believe Senator Nesbitt has had a chance to review it. And I think we're ready for vote. I urge you to vote for this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. And in order to be reciprocal here, Senator Rucho was so persuasive, and he amended his amendment that we now support the amendment and I urge everyone to support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of Amendment No. 6. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed with vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for voting and the Clerk will record the vote. Forty-five having voted in the affirmative. I'm sorry, we have some more who haven't checked in just yet. Hise. Tillman. Forty-seven having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative. Amendment 6 passes and the bill is back before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho has quoted a poll that says that 70% of the population supports voter I.D. But, there is a great deal in this bill beyond voter I.D., the people simply do not support. Straight party voting, 500,000 more Democrats voted in the last election than Republicans. And now we're removing straight party voting. That's a little odd to my way of thinking. But what is really popular with the public is early voting. Well over 75% people very much like and participate in early voting. So it is very odd to me that we would limit the most popular part of voting. And in addition, I have a personal interest in this because like Senator Nesbitt and Senator Rucho, I introduced a bill on the behest of the students of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. They were looking for a place where they could vote on campus, all of them at once. And what we came up with, working with Senator Nesbitt, was actually early voting. So my students had asked me and I was very glad to introduce that and when it became early voting, everybody...

One. And we were all very pleased about that. And, this will have an impact, this bill, in addition to these other parts and the early voting. Because 29,200 UNC students just at Chapel Hill alone will be disadvantaged. And 12,500 in just my community college in Durham, in Chapel Hill, and Orange County, will be disadvantaged. And why we would want to disadvantage our young voters, those who are going to be sitting here someday, those who are going to be making the public policy that we are making. Why we would want to disadvantage them, by making it harder for them. So, to that end, Mr President, I'm sending forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, can I have you send forward your amendment? The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird you are recognized to debate the bill. Or, your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr President. What we are going to do is then restore this to where we were before. So that we're back to the second Tuesday, Thursday before an election. So that we have, again, enough time that my students, and all students across the state and the military, and everybody else has enough time, because we know that it has worked, and that over 75% of the population would like to have that advantage. So, I urge your support of this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate Amendment number 7. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We thank Senator Kinnaird for bringing forth her amendment. This issue has been addressed in providing additional hours under the Stein's amendment, in actually offering some additional time, based on the flexibility in the county. And on the state board of elections, to provide the opportunities for more satellite locations to meet the needs of everyone of the one hundred counties and the population within those counties. There is no need to change what we've already got. We've got a good plan in this bill, and I urge you to oppose Amendment 7. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time, because I wasn't clear what this does. When it scene sets, which we would say, well, let's find out what works in your bill, we're putting a scene set on it so that we can find how this would work, and then it goes back to where it was. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion and further debate. Hearing now before the Senate is the passage of Amendment 7. All in favor will vote Aye, all opposed will vote no. 5 seconds will be allowed for voting, and the clerk will record the vote. Sixteen having voted in the affirmative, and 32 in the negative, the amendment fails. The bill is back before the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Graham, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Voting is one of the most fundamental and cherished rights for all citizens. For me, it is intellectually dishonest to say that this bill is about election reform. It's not about restoring integrity to the voting places of North Carolina. Integrity has already been established. It's not about providing voting transparency, transparency has been established. It's not about making sure we don't have any political games being played, games are being played as we speak. It's not about providing confidence, honesty, integrity, and trust in government. Trust is being lost as we speak. It's not about what other states are doing across the country, they're.

doing the same thing we are doing. Deny access for people to vote. It's not about students, not knowing if they preregister at 16, they can't vote until 18. It's about hurting and taking away the right to vote, for the elderly across Carolina, for those who are poor, for the people of color, and students. It's about impacting urban communities throughout North Carolina, whether it is in Mecklenburg, or Gilford, or Forsyth. Awake a New Hanover county where a lot of people go to vote on election day. They will be severely impacted. For an example last year a Mecklenburg county 280,000 citizens or 62% of voters, early voted. On election day only 170,00 folks voted. To cut back early voting on election day will severely impact Mecklenburg county. It will cost money it will require additional voting sites and locations, and it will disrupt voting on that day. I predict it will happen in all urban counties across North Carolina. Many are home by coincidence, just happen to be democratic. Probably just a coincidence. It's not just about creating longer lines, buying new equipment, section 2 claims, and other things brought by this bill. Why in the world would we want to end straight party voting. By coincidence, maybe because democratic voters do that. Why would we want to cut down the length of time for people to vote. Senator Ford is correct, we should be expanding opportunities, for people to vote. Why in the world do we want to end same-day registering and voting, and why are we picking on the kids. Pages in this body come every week sense January, they are 15 and 16 years old. They are seeing government in action. They can get a drivers license, probational drivers license. We're graduating privileges but yet they can't preregister to vote because somehow it just gets confusing between 16 and 18. Why in the world would we not allow college students in North Carolina to show their college ID's. We're talking about credited university's, we are talking about White Forest, Duke, Johnson City Smith, Winston Sam State. Why can't these college students use their ID's to be eligible to vote. We're raising more money by this bill. Major companies can contribute more money but the people get less access. This bill goes against everything we should stand for. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brock for what purpose do you rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Graham are you open for question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] None at this time thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Graham does not yield. Senator Graham you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill goes against everything we should stand for, as Americans, as North Carolinians. The basic right to wake up whether it's two weeks before election day or on the election day and not have to worry about artificial barriers in my way to vote.

Now the supreme court recently made a decision and then move the speak around the way the source speaks around the way then you got the ocurant and the fifthyear a move in it. No speak in the ?? what you think. But how to take this. This party has talk a lot about greaty jobs in half and a ??.and you have for the week of the memory that’s the job there blows going the core. This bill here is another example. Another couple of students today and the first half is discussing this issue. Students are not govern that the ten are profit in private institutions. Many of them are form the pages and this building. Coming to this capital state and why you are doing this. Why is this bill punishing me and impairing why I to well. One student even say and one ask a question to send the board the budgets and to the law he can ask to the team that you wants to question the way you embed the core ?? and you vision of the mwcp why send the bearer to US to eliminate the registration for the 60 or 70 years who found the future percetaining suggestions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The axe may I,?? I did not know,?? The 3 axes and in install in the its to improve the avemon taken the poles with us we go both mangle and the kids were and go both another vocassion taken practice participating in democracy. The year we are eliminating that today. To understand one of the 50 states to understand that you know like a movie like you make a movie and you get a hit and all the 6 months lay work and someone has the same movie with the different title trying to get a hit too.to understand the offence of this law empower the past this law that was burden and the basically passing this bill to sure that warmly once expensive you see whats about the ?? I was on the stel and the government there was about winning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He lastedly[SPEAKER CHANGES] This is about winning. Today implies all official barrirers. The dying students to write about. How I it I these. Check user. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. ?? set fort the minute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] St. ?? for send for his minute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Currcury. St. maime Moves to around the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] St.maime you have the forth to explain your minute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr. presser.minutes of the senate. This minacry basic science. One that was scores 3 registration for has to this minute. it is that difficult it is that humbersome and infact I have an experience to my daughters it is the same thing to didn’t give any trouble getting in trouble and th carrier sayng both intellecting and there were eager to write a stone when they got them by sense and when they turn 80 in eager buffer their diary. This will minute also restores same day registration.

And it makes sure that if you are from an accredited college or university you can use your college idea. Duke, Wake Forest, Chapel Hill, Elizabeth City, Western Salem State, Livingstone. I think this is, if you really want election reform I, I think think this amendment at least moves us in the right direction. I hope you'll accept it. [Speaker Change] Mr. President. [Speaker Change] Senator Apodaca for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] Motion Please. [Speaker Change] Senator Apodaca you’re recognized for a motion. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. President. I move that amendment 8 do lay upon the table. [Speaker Change] Mr. President. [Speaker Change] Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] Second the motion. [Speaker Change] Motion is to table amendment 8. [Speaker Change] Mr. President. Oh I'm sorry. [Speaker Change] Mr. President this is a non-debate motion. [Speaker Change] Mr. President. [Speaker Change] All those in favor of the motion proposed by Senator Apordak will vote aye, all those opposed will vote no. 5 seconds will be, be timed and the clerk will open the vote. [Speaker Change] Mr. President. [Speaker Change] Sanderson, aye. 34 having voted in the affirmative and 14 in the negative. The amendment passes, the bill is back before Senator Tillman for. [Speaker Change] We're back on the bill. [Speaker Change] ?? [Speaker Change] No sir, Mr. President we're back on the bill. [Speaker Change] The amendment lies on the table. Now we're back on the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. President. Senators and Senator Graham you’re long on oratory, and short on facts. You need to take a look at what Georgia did when they passed their demographically a lot like North Carolina. Have a higher minority population then we do, nullifies the demographics are about the like. Right Senator Goolsby? Check what happened after that 2012 voter ID Law. See if it didn't go up, more so for minorities even then the whites, it's a fact. That's not rhetoric, that's not playing to the crowd and the TV cameras, that's a fact. A overwhelming majority of minority voters favor voter ID. That is a fact. A overwhelming majority of voters in general favor voter ID. Voter ID you are wanting to know why we are doing this bill. And the people that I talk to say why in the world haven't you done this bill. 35 other states have and they're getting good results. You name a couple of states that I just ask you to check the one closest to us with the, the demographics most like us. And see what results are. Voting increased in all sectors, all races, greatly ever since then. That's a fact. And if you, if anyone thinks that proving who you are is gonna disenfranchise anybody, and we're gonna give them an ID, so Sundra I won't yield. If someone is gonna give them an ID, and they still say they can't vote, that's foolishness. [Speaker Change] Mr. President. [Speaker Change] Senator ?? [Speaker Change] No sir, I, I will not yield for a question. [Speaker Change] He does not yield. [Speaker Change] I finish you can ask all you want to Senator Stein. I've heard about 15 minutes of it, and I'm a give you only 5. The people I hear from wanna know why in the world we haven't done this, to get voter integrity out there. And you say well there's only a couple of cases Senator Stein. If you don't check it you ain't gonna detect. We don't know how many thousands of cases, and one day registration you think it's such a great idea to have mobs, and mobs of people up there that have never bothered to register in a huge election. And they wanna come in on Election Day and register to vote, and then you gotta deal with that provisionally, and check all those out. That creates havoc, that greats the opportunity for fraud and everything else. If you don't think enough about voting to make sure you're registered, it used to be 30 days in advance Senators, until recently. This is good common sense voter integrity election law. And I'm proud that we can offer this bill and not a single soul will be disenfranchised. What it does

That’s disenfranchise fraud. And a lot of people don’t like it. But folks, the people I’ve talked to, minorities, as well as whites, say sure it’s common sense that we ought to be able to prove who we are. And anybody that would say that we shouldn’t have to do that, to me, don’t want election free and an elections with integrity. I think that’s what this bill does, and I’m proud that we could offer this legislation. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. President (SPEAKER CHANGES) Senator Parmon for what purpose do you rise? (SPEAKER CHANGES) Thank you Mr. President, to speak on the bill. (SPEAKER CHANGES) You have the floor. (SPEAKER CHANGES) As I sit here and listen at this debate, I reflect on the number of years as a young woman helping to prepare African Americans to vote. So, as I sit here this is very disheartening for me, and as I listen to us talk about photo ID, that’s no longer an issue in this bill. House Bill 589 is purely and simply a voter suppression bill. And as we celebrate it, I thought about Representative (??) today to celebrate on the House side the good deed, the good deed we thought, but us justly compensating victims we created in sterilization, I thought about how closely we are coming to doing that again today. As elected officials, officials and policy makers, we are taking it upon ourselves to pick winners and losers in this State, by creating barriers to voting and to the Constitutional Right of the citizens of this State. I’ve heard us compared to Georgia. I’ve heard us compared to Florida, Pennsylvania. But I want to remind everyone of us that we are North Carolinians. And one young lady sent me a text that say, I am not from Georgia. I’m not from Florida. I’m from North Carolina. And I want my Constitutional Right to be recognized. I do not want you all to give barriers and to put up barriers that will make it difficult for me to vote in the State of North Carolina. And I will tell you, as an African American, as a woman, I fit most of the categories that people talk about when we talk about the barriers. And I remember too many African Americans that I’ve had to work with to encourage. Elderly people, that have for years were afraid to vote. And now, we fear again, creating confusion and chaos, about a Constitutional Right. This is immoral. It’s evil. And it’s unnecessary. And I’ll tell you I am offended as a North Carolinian, and as an African American woman, to be discussing here today on this floor, barriers to suppress the vote. Thank you. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Further discussion and further debate. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. President (SPEAKER CHANGES) Senator Robinson, for what purpose do you rise? (SPEAKER CHANGES) To speak to the bill. (SPEAKER CHANGES) You have the floor. (SPEAKER CHANGES) Voting is a Constitutional Right. And anyone or anything that stands in the way of that suppresses that right. It is my position that House Bill 589 stands in the way of many who exercise, or want to exercise, their right to vote. Different from you Senator Tillman, a large majority of my constituents are African American. And I would say that 99.9% oppose this bill. I also came from Georgia 45 years ago. And I came out of a segregated South that denied my mother, my father, my grandparents and everyone else the opportunity to vote. That is a treasured and a precious Right, that in this bill you’re trying to take from people. I want all of you to get a copy of the recent biography of former Supreme Court Justice Henry Frye, the first African. (End)

American elected to the North Carolina House of Representatives in the 20th century. Who served in this Senate from 81 to 82 and then 1999 and became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in North Carolina, the first African-American. Justice Frye is one of my constituents, he’s one of my friends, and he’s a church member where I’ve been a member for 40 years or more. In Justice Frye’s own words, he talks of how he was denied the right to vote in Ellerbe, North Carolina. After graduating as a valedictorian from Mineral Springs High School, he moved to Greensboro to attend North Carolina A&T State University where he graduated summa cum laude. He was a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force and rose to the rank of Captain. When Frye returned to Ellerbe, North Carolina, to vote, he was required to pass a written test to register to vote. They did not approve his right to vote. He had to return, but his failure of the test motivated Justice Frye to become an attorney so that he could prevent others from enduring the same humiliation. Why, you say, do I recite this? First, so some of you understand some of the history, the bad history of this state in terms of voter suppression, and the struggle that many of my predecessors had in obtaining that right. Secondly, to extenuate the fact that voting rights had been denied for centuries in this country, and thirdly to say that years ago the right to vote, the right to deny anyone’s right to vote was based on the color of one’s skin under the guise of literacy. I want you to read Justice Frye’s biography so you, too, will learn and understand one of the ugly parts of history, one of the ugly parts of North Carolina’s history, but hopefully you’ll understand the mistakes that you’re repeating in this legislation. This legislative year becomes a new day in the history of North Carolina. House Bill 589 denies the right to vote based on a valid photo id, based on your acceptable standards. Probably one of the most appalling sections is Section 2.2. The reasonable resemblance to termination which says if the election official determines the voter’s photo id does not enter resemblance to the voter, the judges of the election precinct would be required to rule on the matter. Now, I’ve been a Chief Judge, one for about 10 years. Now, Senator Clark the other days showed me his acceptable photo id, and I would say as a previous Chief Judge that his former appearance, still dark skin, young, elongated face with the bit of black hair does not really look like him today. He has a bit of aging in his face and a little grey on that head. So an election person in his precinct might determine that Senator Clark is just another young black man in Fayetteville, perpetrating someone who desires to vote. As a matter of fact Senator Clark might say that my grey hair does not resemble my photo some years back at Bennett College. How appalling this is, you say, but how appalling is this legislation that takes this great state of North Carolina back to the days when voting was denied to my parents, grandparents, and many of your parents? And even when I fought for the rights of my people to vote and to register them, do you want to return to the Jim Crow South? Recent data shows that more than 318,000 registered voters in North Carolina lack a photo id. It is no surprise that the voter requirement disproportionately affects African-Americans. We’re 23 percent of all registered voters, but 34 percent of those without a North Carolina photo id. We, too, as women are disproportionately affected. We make up 54 percent of voters, but

percent of those without a state issued photo ID. Democrats, of course you know this, are nearly 3 times as likely not to have a photo ID as Republicans. Nowhere in this bill is a photo ID required for an absentee ballot, however. Mr. President, I’d like to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robison, you may send forth your amendment. Clerk read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson, you may explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Thank you Mr. President. This amendment would assure that anyone who shows up at the polls without one of the approved state photo IDs or whatever those requirements are, and have to leave to go downtown somewhere or to a DMV and get a photo ID. I know a lot of elderly people that I served as chief judge in my precinct who would have to do that because all they have is a bible with their names on it and birthdate. This would mean that they would have the same opportunity as anyone using an absentee ballot, the same opportunity. It means that they wouldn’t have to go down and try to come back again and vote. Instead they could use one of the same items that absentee ballots are able to use, and you see those listed here and I don’t have to recite those to you. If it’s good enough for people to use who are sending in absentee ballots to get counted, it ought to be good enough for people who come to voting sites without their photo IDs and they can vote that same day. I commend the amendment to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, purposely arise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson, yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. How many North Carolinians did you say are without IDs and would require them from the state? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The data that I received says 318,000 registered voters lack ID and that came from a Charlotte Observer article. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Ma’am. Would she yield for another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have it back in 2005 when Georgia went through the same exercise, the liberal newspapers said that there would be 600,000 that would be disenfranchised and require IDs. Are you aware of that, Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure I am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And are you aware also Ma’am, further question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When the facts came in, since 2007 when Georgia actually cleared this law through the courts, that 290,611 IDs over the last 7 years have actually been issued. Are you aware of that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, as a matter of fact Senator Goolsby, my sister is the manager of one of those precincts. And are you aware also, as I answer you, that a lot of those folks who actually do not vote are not being counted? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Ma’am. Would you agree with me that 600,000, which was originally alleged, versus the 29,611 is a far cry from the initial number put out by the liberal press? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, but are you aware also of what the current number of unregistered voters is in Georgia and registered voters as opposed to those who have photo IDS? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll yield for a question. Yes Ma’am, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I already asked you the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I’m not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re not. Ok. Do you have another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do, one more. Will she yield for one more question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can we go through the chair to ask and answer questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby do you have a question of Senator Robinson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you aware, Ma’am, that from 2006 before voter ID was implemented in Georgia through 2010 that black voter participation rose about 34%, and that Hispanic voter participation rose by 67% and white participation rose by only 12 once photo ID in Georgia was actually established, my home state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I am aware. May I ask him a question too? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby yields, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you aware that Georgia is Republican controlled and

…to the 2000 years, the majority of voters in Georgia were white Americans? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma’am, I’m aware. Yes, I am. Will you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ma’am the years I’m talking about are actually 2006, the year before voter ID was implemented in Georgia, through 2010. We’re talking both the 2008 and 2010 election. That is the first year that President Obama ran, and then the off year. The voter participation in Georgia, with minorities, blacks rose 44%, Hispanics rose 67%, white voter participation only went up 12%. Aren’t those good numbers for minorities? Would you at least agree with that, Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You know Senator Goolsby, I don’t agree with you. Because it ought to be 100%. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m answering, Mr. Chair. It really should be 100% participation by minorities because minorities are the ones who were denied the right to vote for centuries in this country. And their rights were suppressed. And you again are doing the very same thing so that you will not have the turnout of minorities in the next election. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Graham, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Senator Robinson a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you represent anybody in Georgia? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, my parents, my mother still lives there, but I represent North Carolinians. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Senate, we’ve heard a lot of numbers tossed out there today. I guess it’s a good start. Three hundred thousand individuals don’t have IDs issued in the state, particularly state issued IDs from the DMV. I think we’re missing out. The first fact is when you look at identification cards and driver’s licenses, first the DMV issues more than the adult population of the state of North Carolina. So there are more out there than the census say we have people over 16 in the state of North Carolina that exist. Now there is a question as to whether or not those match up with the state voter database. The state voter database would also indicate that in 2012, eight thousand two hundred and twelve people voted who are 112 years old. There is called legacy data in the system. Everyone who was registered to vote prior to my junior year of high school, 1993, is a legacy system, and were not required to have full data in order to be registered to vote. So therefore they out in blank data systems. Such as 1-1-1900 as their date of birth, when they upgraded the system. When those do not match with the DMV numbers now, i.e. the person was not born in 1900, it is showing that there is not a match in the database. That person doesn’t have an ID. That’s simply not the case. The numbers are vastly inflated. And we’ll talk about IDs. I know this has kind of been here. I brought my community college ID, where I teach. I just asked the first question for anyone else here. What does the Mayland Community College ID look like? What does a Western Carolina ID look like? What does East Carolina’s look like? Now if you were to add all that’s been proposed previously to 55 community colleges, 16 universities, 36 independent colleges. One hundred and seven IDs that you’re asking every precinct worker to be able to identify if they come through. That’s why we’ve limited this. The individuals know what a passport looks like, or a driver’s license in the state of North Carolina. I also say that this same ID says nothing… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure, I’ll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Senator Hise will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein you yield? Uh, Senator Hise do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Uh-huh. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein go ahead with your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does your community college ID…

day and evening gown, of China is then that has no fat-stress behind-the-job reason and that no fewer than 50 dryly with the university's colleges in community college buddies are valid for the 49yrs and interrupted a $9.00-operations or higher than the levels-a-half-dozen varsity system and the time of the sub-one, fall of you to pay a year has risen this disaster defended somebody this is a time a defendant in the recent meeting of the(SPEAKER CHANGES) Maya as it was in the final time that the madness of residences north, the some of the seven-cent-a--1/2 as the actually about 91, slices and times of activity as of mid-size are available on this that make it also enlisted sexually time of 7007 years working as operators of about nine and in-the-fly zones of a sudden addition house and the signings may have largely wonders why it's all on several occasions are willing to invest, the international conference of the city and the fear of AIDS-of-a seven- hop jazz-side as Sony shoving and in-house this indicates that has been identified as the end of the season has sent two of the end of a convicted it was the Spanish channel of those that do not have the station has all-time his action-dust on must decide that issue head-to say that all the evidence was the one that sent hot-line message-Klein has been one of the addition of clients and lacks one-something that has a conviction of the fall of these facts in handsome and the desert fire-protection and sat on time, areas that the spotlight, action-and-and many of the hot in the areas-half since the fifties and sixties and repression-the stand-Ins with the passes-10-7 times and has handed times-standard-David-as-honored as has a solid, and noted that I'll that suddenly changes in society that doesn't have a ??zone that 77 as a four-to-ceiling and a lot of genocide of the opposition's and more hyphens us that I'm -the bus, Saint Helena site , five- of-intent and Saturday of the season and then taking steps in knowing that a environment that, and this year and out of sight of messages of the tile insight, as sales manager , the food and medicine or tell us if there was one is the site server for the times has said it has the offer was seven-and-a senate-intensive systems that's when of the evidence is sufficient evidence of his activism, as does not time to the cause of the incitement-office all the forms the one- one to those ???? ………….

...text of the 2010. They implemented voter ID and the voter population, or at least the percentage of voting, by African-Americans went up, therefore one caused the other. So we can't really say that, right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I think that you have shown it is different to say there is a cause, but I have seen no other explanation for the correlation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll give you that, then. Georgia, the increase was 17%, from 2006 to 2008, I mean from 2006 to 2010, in terms of of African-Americans voting. In North Carolina, the same time frame, we didn't have voter ID; the percentage of African-Americans voting went up 40%. That's 23% more, so what's the cause for that? [SPEAKER CHANGE]There is a correlation when you look simply at the state of Georgia between the increased IDs and the time period they have passed voter ID. In the state of North Carolina, we had no such stimulus. So if there is an increase that is attributable to that, that 40% had we passed this at that time, could have been 60%, 65%. Correlations do have a direction and a positive correlation would indicate a positive correlation. [SPEAKER CHANGE]Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGE]Senator Clark, to what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE]To speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE]Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGE]We have just seen that in the state of North Carolina, voter participation by African-Americans from 2006 to 2010 went up by 23% more than it did in the state of Georgia because North Carolina did not have the voter id. So if we are going to say that correlation does imply causality, I would say that the reason it went up so much more in North Carolina, was because we did not have the voter ID. [SPEAKER CHANGE]Senator Davis from Greene, to what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE]To see if Senator Hise would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE]Senator Hise, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE]Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGE]Thanks, Senator Hise. What I want to do is just shine some light perhaps, and just get your response. Outside of serving here I've actually been in education, higher education for fifteen years, and actually as a sociologist. The first thing I would like to clearly clarify, in terms of methodology, in the past conversation, correlation and causations are two different methodologies. I would like to establish that correlation is the relationship, causation is cause and effect. Even though this has been part of the conversation that has come up a couple of times already in this chamber, and I've heard it before, when we look at the results in Georgia, I would concede,based on the facts as reported, a 44% increase amongst the minority community. However it would appear to be a loose use of the data to draw a conclusion of causation, the cause being in a lawless past and the effect being more minorities therefore voted. There is in the world of research what's called the Hawthorne Effect, when a subject may be aware they are actually being under investigation, they may perform differently-- [SPEAKER CHANGE]Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGE]Senator Apodoka, to what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE]Are we going to have a question sometime, or are we going to have a dissertation? [SPEAKER CHANGE]Senator Davis, please get to your question. [SPEAKER CHANGE]I will, Mr. President. Long story short, what we don't know in terms of the intensity, is were they responding because of their opposition to the law because advocacies rallied, were they opposition because they favored the law, and my question is, would you not agree, that more longitudinal study examining this over time would be a more concise way of drawing a conclusion of causation? [SPEAKER CHANGE]Excuse me. [SPEAKER CHANGE]Senator Hise, you are allowed to answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGE]There are some absolutes in studies. First of all, one of those is that more data, in a longitudinal study, always leads to better conclusions. That's the nature of it. Although at some point you get to

?? returns. Causality is not provable by data. You cannot prove causality, it's impossible. You can however prove that a correlation exists. In this study, to be reported as a correlation, you were in the probability that it's less than one in a thousand that it could not have occured. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Clark, you have your microphone on do you wish to speak? Senator Brian, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to send forward an amendment, Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have an amendment on the floor that we're gonna get around to in a little bit [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me, Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, for what reason do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We've had a lot of a great debate, it's probably a good time to vote on this amendment and I urge that you vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question is, is it for the discussion or the debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hearing them, the question before the senate, is the passage of amendment number 9 [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Senator Robinson will yield to a question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca [SPEAKER CHANGES] You were in the middle of calling the vote, please continue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, ?? point of order [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your point of order [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was recognized to ask a question and you recognized me. I would like to ask my question please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senators out of order. He shouldn't have stood up when you were calling to vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair rules that Senator Apodaca is correct. I was calling to vote and mistakenly recognized you. Forgive me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the senate is the [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator ??, for what reason do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of Order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. And just for the group in here, I'm as tired as everyone else is in here, but we're always interrupting the president when he's getting ready to do something else and the president always recognizes everybody. This thing is gonna be over shortly if we just have enough patience to get to the end of it, and I wanted to raise that because I hope we're not gonna be out of order forever if someone gets up and get your attention that we've missed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that. I'm going to stick with the decision that has been made that we are going to go ahead and vote on this amendment and then I'll recognize Senator Stein to speak after the amendment has been taken care of. The question before the senate is the passage of amendment number 9 to house bill 589. All in favor will vote Aye. All opposed will vote no. 5 seconds will be allowed for voting and the clerk will record the vote. Before we announce the vote, senator Walters and senator Curtis have both been excused for the rest of the session. 14 voting in the affirmative and 32 voting in the negative, the amendment fails. Senator Stein I will recognize you for your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, thank you. As my question concerned amendment 9 I no longer seek to be recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Barringer, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To change my vote on amendment 7, I should've voted no. I apologize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Barringer changes her vote on amendment 7. 15 to 33 is the final tally. Any other amendments that haven't been taken care of yet? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brian, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forward an amendment now at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now is the appropriate time. You may send your amendment forward, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk has ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brian, moves to amend a bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Colleagues, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brian has the floor to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Colleagues, this amendment would impact part 32, vote the person not the party, section 32.1. By deleting that section and maintaining for us the right to vote a straight party vote. Since 1925

North Carolina has had straight party voting and is one of 12 states to still do so. In 2012 1.4 million Democrats, 1.1 million Republicans and 25,000 Libertarians voted a straight party ticket. 56% of the voters voting in that election. 2.6 million almost of a 4.5 million turnout voted a straight party ticket. Contrary to the description of these voters as low information voters, these voters are often supporting the candidate slate of their respective parties. In addition this is a major convenience to our voters. 80% of black voters and 45% of white voters, approximately, vote, use straight party voting in 2012. In a local election year where there is a partisan election it will take the voters almost 7 times longer to mark, on average 7 races that would be on those ballots. And during state election years it will take these voters 17 times longer. North Carolina is amongst a third or fourth, 3 to 4 states with the longest ballots and the longest number of elected offices on our ballots. We are making it take longer to vote at the same time that we are cutting the early voting period and we have new election officials all over the state due to the changes in the party of the governor. And when we don’t really yet know how these early voting locations will be expanded and to what extent. There are two documents on the dashboard that will show the racial disparity involved in eliminating state party voting and the diversity involved in the use of state party voting. If we could have the first, the scatter shot graph on the dashboard please for the members. If you will look at this scatter shot graph, and you may have to scroll it up to see, the dots on the graph indicate the numbers of black voters turning out in the 2012 election. The left axis, is the, is the number of, is the percentage of black voters in each precinct. The horizontal axis at the bottom goes up to 100%. That would be the percent of straight party voting. You would see the significant trend of the graph to the right indicating the large number of black voters who vote a straight party ticket. And also it indicates some 40% on average, 40 to 45 percent of white voters who mark a straight party ticket. So both, there’s a racial disparity involved and also significant diversity involved at the same. The major thing to note is that this prop, eliminating straight party voting will result in longer lines and voting times in precincts across the board first of all. And aggressively so, egregiously so in predominately black precincts. Can we see the next chart please? The next chart on pages 1 through 3 and you can just scroll it. If you look at this chart first the first several pages are the high number, the top number of precincts, top 100 precincts with the highest percentage of straight party voting. If you look at the last two columns, it says percent SP, that’s the percent of straight party voting and then the final column is the percent of black turnout. Again correlation, you can see the high correlation between straight party voting and the percent of black turnout in the top 100 precincts. And that would be pages 1 through 3 I think it is. If you scroll through pages 1 through 3 those would be the top 100 precincts. You see the high correlation even at the end of the first 100 precincts you’re just getting to some 60 and 70 percent numbers. Mostly in the 80% range. Then pages 4 through 6 you see the precincts with the lowest, the low, the lowest 100 precincts where straight party voting occurs, those percentages. Again even those percentages in the 38% range and going down and then the low.

In some instances almost no percentage of black voter turnout in those precincts. So, there is a high correlation between straight party voting and the participation of black voters, and eliminating straight party voting will result in a significant racial disparity. Mr. President, may I ask Senator Rucho a question? [speaker changes] Senator Rucho do you yield? [speaker changes] Yes [speaker changes] Senator Rucho, my question is were you aware of the disproportionate use of straight party voting by black voters as you were considering this revision in the bill? [speaker changes] I was never aware of the chart that you have before you. I have confidence in every voter in the state of North Carolina to choose people that they believe are the ones they wish to vote for regardless of party, and also I'm very concerned about the fact that a lot of the non-partisan and down ballot candidates are ignored and that is really not the way we would like to have a democracy occur in North Carolina. [speaker changes] Follow up, Mr President? [speaker changes] Mr. Rucho, do you yield to another question? [speaker changes] Yes. [speaker changes] I was wondering given this information, and there is probably even more information available about this correlation, are you willing to reconsider the elimination of straight party voting as you see the significant negative racial impact it may have, and then the resulting longer voting times in these precincts where 80 some percent of the people in the precinct will be taking seventeen times longer in the state elections to vote than would currently be the case in our present voting situation? [speaker changes] I don't agree with your premise, and secondly I don't look at race as who's going to vote, what we're trying to do is make sure we have an equal opportunity for every single person to vote and it's not designed on race in any manner, and that's not even what we are even talking about here. What we're saying is this is a fair, honest way to provide everyone an opportunity to vote and that is exactly what it is all about. [speaker changes] I would like to finish my explanation of the amendment, Mr. President? [speaker changes] Go ahead, Senator Bryant. [speaker changes] In wrapping up, I think it is important for you to see that there is a significant negative racial impact in the elimination of straight party voting, under the Voting Rights Act, even though we don't have to have pre-clearance in our target [inaudible speech]..., under Section 2 the issue of a disproportionate impact on black voters is still going to be an important issue that has to be reviewed, and would still provide some Constitutional concerns, so I'm asking the members to please vote to adopt this amendment because of the negative racial impact and the Constitutional and voting right issues implicated in that. But also, because of the efficiency for all voters, 45% of white voters who will have to take 17 times longer to mark a ballot, requiring more time etc. and then the 80 some percent of black voters in particularly significantly black precincts that will be taking 17 times and 7 times longer. And for those reasons I would that ask that you would please vote to adopt this amendment. Thank you. [speaker changes] Mr. President. [speaker changes] Senator Newton, for what purpose do you rise? [speaker changes] To see if Senator Rucho would yield for a question? [speaker changes] Senator Rucho, do you yield? [speaker changes] Yes sir, I do. [speaker changes] Thank you Senator Rucho. Senator Bryant just gave us a lot of hyperbole about straight party voting and minorities and so forth, and I want to ask you, as I read the section on straight party voting being eliminated, is there anything in there that says that minorities can't vote in the elections? [speaker changes] No sir, and there is no where throughout the entire bill, it is an opportunity for every single person in the state of North Carolina that is registered to do so. [speaker changes] Follow-up? [speaker changes] Does the gentleman yield? [speaker changes] Yes, I do. [speaker changes] As I read the bill, Senator Rucho, aren't there a total of 11 different days that a registered voter, especially a minority voter, could go to vote, do I count that right? Ten days of early voting and one day on election day? [speaker changes] That is accurate, yes sir. [speaker changes] Is there anything in the bill that says a minority voter can't vote on those 11 days? [speaker changes] No sir, there is an equal opportunity for every single voter to vote during any of those.

... eleven days. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman like to ask another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you yield, Senator Rucho? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Rucho. On the straight party voting, is there anything in this bill on ending the straight party voting that eliminates the party label for a partisan election? In other words, if it's a partisan election like say a state Senator's race or a Governor's race or something like that, if there's a Democratic nominee wouldn't it be denominated as a Democratic nominee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just like it's always been: Rs, Ds, Ls, and the like. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there anything in the bill that would prevent a minority voter from being able to identify which party they wanted to vote for on any one of these individual elections? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not a thing. Same as it is today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And... One last follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Rucho. So if a minority voter wanted to vote for all of one party, would they still be able to identify all those candidates and check or punch the button for each one of those candidates? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They would be able to identify the party affiliation of every one of the candidates and vote accordingly on their wish. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. May I speak to the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Bryant, I know that you weren't suggesting that... that... the fact that I filed a bill identical to this language for the last two years to eliminate straight party voting... I know that you and I know each other well so I know you weren't suggesting that I would do that for a reason of suppressing minority votes. Because I certainly would never do such a thing. I certainly was not aware of any data, even if it's accurate, that would somehow keep a minority voter from voting for whoever they chose to vote. The reason I filed legislation in the past, which your amendment would essentially take out of this bill that exact same language... The reason I did that is because I think people should vote for the person and not the party. You and I come from the same neck of the woods. The Democratic Party has been very dominant in our neck of the woods, wouldn't you agree to that? I think you would agree to that? It's the home of... the area of two governors. Jim Hunt was there, four-time governor from my... I guess what you'd say my backyard, or maybe I'm in his backyard, depending on how you want to look at it. Pretty dominant. In fact... in fact... back in the day, Republicans used to get dragged away from the polls and get... get... beat up pretty good if they dared to show their face to vote back in the day. So... Some people back in the day other than minorities also knew about voter suppression. That's a real, recorded fact. I know people that that happened to back in the day. And that's not right. Voter suppression is wrong. I'll be the first one to say that. Republican, Democrat, black, white, male, female, whatever -- if you're a registered voter, you're legal, you're entitled to vote, nobody should be intimidating you. There shouldn't be any thugs there at the polls, whether they be Black Panthers or anybody else, keeping people from voting. Nobody should be suppressed from voting. But it boggles my mind how in the world we can take the idea that, if you're not allowed to punch one button and vote for all one party regardless of how qualified or unqualified some of those nominees are, that somehow you're suppressing minority votes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President... [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I take umbrage to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator... [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I don't yield for a question at this time, but afterward, Senator Parmon, out of respect for you I'll certainly yield for a question. I take umbrage to that. I hope Senator Bryant understands why I might get my hackles up a little bit about that. I think people should vote for the person and not the party. Now everybody that knows me in this chamber knows I'm a loyal Republican. I fight hard for my party, just like all the... all the good Democrats do. But there is... there has hardly been, I'll admit it, there's hardly been an election to go by that there hasn't been at least one Democrat that I voted for. At least one. I don't need a straight party vote to pick out my candidates. And we're going to try to slap a racist label on the idea that people ought to vote for the person and not the party? We've heard a lot of that today. We've heard too much of that today.

The ideal that we're going keep our elections honest and fair and that we might actually ask people to think about who they're voting for instead of what party is somehow amounts to racism. We hear a lot of stuff in this chamber we hear a lot of stuff in this chamber its probably time for us to ?? down the rhetoric get real about all this I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. President[SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe that Senator Parmon had a question for Senator Newton. Senator Newton do you yield [SPEAKER CHANGES]I do[SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. President Senator Newton I heard you talk about racism and certainly I know how you feel cause I lived it, worked it, tried to reverse it but my question is if you don't want to deal with the fact that there many deals with African Americanother people not only African American but other people being impeded in their voting by having to go down and select by name the time element I heard Senator Bryant say 17 times as long to vote in this state election does that ?? just think about the time does that cause you some concern?[SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. President No it actually doesn't because there's so many different ways that we can vote we can vote by absentee we can sit at home and take our time, and pick all the candidates out, I worked many polls, I seen many people walk in with the sample ballot and work through very quickly and I've seen other people with same sample ballot who sat there for 15 minutes trying to make sure they had it exactly the way they wanted it. I think it gives me no concern at all, [SPEAKER CHANGES]follow-up [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator I just want to say to you while we coming here and we think we act with authority of all knowledge different cultures in different incidence I know many people in my community 70,80 90 years old cannot read the complete ballot and that's no fault of their own it was a time they couldn't read it was against the law and here again were talking about elderly people I remember just last election taking 103 year old woman to the polls who was frightened to death to vote for her first time so when we come in and think that we have all the answers we need to consider all the facts so when you say someone that's elderly that got to take time and go down a ballot that's inconsiderate and it's suppressing that voter and let me tell you many elderly folk will not be able to do it[SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. President[SPEAKER CHANGES]Sorry I thought it was a question[SPEAKER CHANGES]I did too Senator Graham you're recognized[SPEAKER CHANGES]Speak to you in a moment drag away from the polls poll taxes African Americans who were beaten for wanting to vote they were discouraged by various tactics and means not to vote so I'm just a little maybe sensitive based on history that we have to protect today Representative Butterfield said earlier today about her 91 year old mother that she had to be able to read the preamble to vote. Today, you can go through the ballot and vote for the man and not the party without changing a thing if you want to do that you can do it today I choose to do that myself because there are some people at the local level on the other side I voted before I want good government democrat, republican, or independent so you can vote for the man today and not the party. But I think it is

Representative: …intellectual dishonest to say when you look at the facts that she brought out, that African Americans do not vote, at heart, straight ballots fully, and that would impact their votes. I think to say that, that should not be counted, that it does not exist, that it is just hyperbole, is just intellectually dishonest. I think it is, and again, this is nothing new. All we have to do is look throughout the county and see some special proposals… Speaker: Senator Rucho, what is your question? Representative: Please do not call me Apodaka. [laughter] Speaker: It has been a long day. Senator Rucho, please state your concern. Representative: When is Senator Graham going to get off the speech for Congress and actually talk about this amendment? Speaker: Let me answer that question. Senator Nesbitt, I will be right with you. Senator, will you stick to the amendment that is before us. Representative: Mr. President, I am speaking to the amendment on the floor. I do not need to be reminded about doing that. Speaker: Continue your remarks. Representative: If anyone is out of order it is Senator Rucho: that is who needs to be reminded to be about order in the chamber, not me. Speaker: Please continue with your remarks on the amendment. Representative: I treat everyone in this chamber with respect, even if I disagree with you, I will respect you and your opinion. I expect nothing less from anyone here. It is a fact, based on what was presented by Senator Bryant, that indeed Senator Apodaka, that African Americans voted in high proportions more for….I am looking at you, you are a friend…you did give gifts [laughter] Speaker: Senator Apodaka, for what purpose do you rise? Representative: To see if will yield for a question, he may want to on this one. Representative: Yes sir. Representative: Senator Graham, I heard you in your opening remarks, when you talked about voting for these amendments, about voting ‘for the man’ – you never once mentioned voting for a woman. I just wanted to mention that. Representative:: ‘Man’ in a universal term. [laughter] Representative: …and women. Speaker: Continue Mr. Brown. Representative: It is late Mr. President. Speaker: Amen. Representative: The point I am trying to make, Mr. President, is this: straight party voting does divide yet another artificial barrier for African Americans who choose not, Senator Newton, take the time, as I do, to go through the ballot, but when going there, pull the lever democratically to vote and get out of the way to allow the next person in line to do the same. Speaker: Senator Bryant for what purpose do you rise? Representative: To speak on the amendment second time. Speaker: Senator Bryant, you have the floor. Representative: Thank you Mr. President. I just wanted to clarify one thing. I was very – I worked to be very careful when I am talking here to you all about issues of racial and cultural difference because I know how easy it is for it to be taken personally, or in the wrong way, but I was very careful to use the words, “disproportional use,” “negative racial impact,” “racial disparity.” The reason I went to the trouble to present the charts and tables was because I knew it was not a conscious intention of everybody in here to propose a policy that would have a negative impact on purpose. So, with that in mind, I presented the data. I am not suggesting that this is a racist, in the “-ist” sense, in that word, proposal. That is not what I am trying to suggest. I am trying to make it clear that it has a negative racial impact so that everyone can keep that in mind. It is the impact that would have

We go in constitutional consequences not whether somebody intended purposefully to do it or not. So I'm just wanting to make that clear. And also to make it clear that under current law you can vote for the straight party ticket and then select any individual by name of the other party that you want to vote for and have both those votes count. So that process is currently available under our current system of straight party voting. I just wanted to clarify those two things and ask please that you would vote to adopt this amendment. Thank you. Speaker Changes: Further discussion or debate? Senator Rucho for what purpose do you rise? Speaker Changes: Just to debate the amendment. We've heard a lot of good discussion. Just to remind everybody, I would urge you to vote no against Amendment number 10. Speaker Changes: Senator Nesbitt, I believe I do owe you a return visit. Did you have any remarks to make? Speaker Changes: I think Senator Graham expressed it better than I could. Speaker Changes: Thank you. Speaker Changes: Mr. President? Speaker Changes: Yes. Speaker Changes: As Senator Rucho to yield for a question. Speaker Changes: Senator Clark ask Senator Rucho to yield for a question. Speaker Changes: Yes, sir, Senator Clark. Speaker Changes: Just a few. I don't want to delay this too long. Currently, it is correct that we can vote or choose to vote for any party that we want, and we don't have to choose to vote "no" just checking one box, right? We don't have to do straight-party, I'm sorry. We go in constitutional consequences not whether somebody intended purposefully to do it or not. So I'm just wanting to make that clear. And also to make it clear that under current law you can vote for the straight party ticket and then select any individual by name of the other party that you want to vote for and have both those votes count. So that process is currently available under our current system of straight party voting. I just wanted to clarify those two things and ask please that you would vote to adopt this amendment. Thank you. Speaker Changes: Further discussion or debate? Senator Rucho for what purpose do you rise? Speaker Changes: Just to debate the amendment. We've heard a lot of good discussion. Just to remind everybody, I would urge you to vote no against Amendment number 10. Speaker Changes: Senator Nesbitt, I believe I do owe you a return visit. Did you have any remarks to make? Speaker Changes: I think Senator Graham expressed it better than I could. Speaker Changes: Thank you. Speaker Changes: Mr. President? Speaker Changes: Yes. Speaker Changes: As Senator Rucho to yield for a question. Speaker Changes: Senator Clark ask Senator Rucho to yield for a question. Speaker Changes: Yes, sir, Senator Clark. Speaker Changes: I'm sorry. Repeat that again. We go in constitutional consequences not whether somebody intended purposefully to do it or not. So I'm just wanting to make that clear. And also to make it clear that under current law you can vote for the straight party ticket and then select any individual by name of the other party that you want to vote for and have both those votes count. So that process is currently available under our current system of straight party voting. I just wanted to clarify those two things and ask please that you would vote to adopt this amendment. Thank you. Speaker Changes: Further discussion or debate? Senator Rucho for what purpose do you rise? Speaker Changes: Just to debate the amendment. We've heard a lot of good discussion. Just to remind everybody, I would urge you to vote no against Amendment number 10. Speaker Changes: Senator Nesbitt, I believe I do owe you a return visit. Did you have any remarks to make? Speaker Changes: I think Senator Graham expressed it better than I could. Speaker Changes: Thank you. Speaker Changes: Mr. President? Speaker Changes: Yes. Speaker Changes: Ask Senator Rucho to yield for a question. Speaker Changes: Senator Clark ask Senator Rucho to yield for a question. Speaker Changes: Yes, sir, Senator Clark. Speaker Changes: Just a few. I don't want to delay this too long here. Currently, it is correct that we can vote or choose to vote for any candidate that we want and we don't have to choose to vote "no" just checking one box, right? We don't have to do straight-party. I'm sorry. Speaker Changes: I'm sorry. Repeat that again. Speaker Changes: Currently, we can choose to vote for any candidate on the ballot by choosing the straight-party ballot option. Speaker Changes: That's correct. Everyone, party partisan, non-partisan and everything. You get a chance to choose one of them... Speaker Changes: OK. Speaker Changes: ...up and down the ballot. Speaker Changes: OK. So we have that choice. Speaker Changes: OK. Follow-up. Speaker Changes: Yes, sir? Speaker Changes: Do you yield? Speaker Changes: Yes, sir. Speaker Changes: I'm getting confused on the choice question because I'm wondering what's wrong with having a choice. Because we also want to have a choice when it comes to where we send our children to school, is that correct? Speaker Changes: I'm not sure what this is relevant to. Speaker Changes: I'm trying to determine when is it good to have choice, and when is it not good to have choice. What's wrong with having a choice on the ballot box like we have when it comes to sending our children to a particular school? Speaker Changes: Senator Rucho, do you yield to that question? Speaker Changes: No because it's not relevant. [laghter] Speaker Changes: Further discussion, further debate on the Amendment. Speaker Changes: Mr. President? Speaker Changes: Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? Speaker Changes: Thank you. To debate the amendment. Speaker Changes: You have the floor. Speaker Changes: As a preliminary manner, Senator Bryant was just pointing out a factual matter about the use of this convenience. And it is a factual matter that approximately 80% of African Americans use it. Approximately 40 - 45% of whites use it. That's just a fact and it's a racial impact to change it. You can have the most innocent purpose intent in the world to change this but it is having a racial impact. The way I wanted to go with my comments is to remind people how many people use straight-party voting in North Carolina. It's 2.5 million North Carolinians. 56 percent, the majority of people in this state, choose the convenience of straight-party voting. What you all are saying is we want to deny the people, 2.5 million, the convenience they choose to utilize. My wife and I intend to vote together. She liked to fill in every bubble. I don't. What I do, Senator Newton, because I occasionally split my ballot too, is I will go straight-party Democrat and every time I want to go for a Republican, I mark the Republican. My wife takes about 10 minutes longer than I do. What you all are cosigning to the people of North Carolina that 2.5 million take ten minutes more. That's 416,000 extra hours it's going to take the same number of people to vote in the booth and it's going to back up that line out the back of the chamber, out the back of the voting area. So we've compressed early voting. We're taking away a convenience that 2.5 million North Carolinians choose to access. By the way, 1.1 million Republicans appreciate the opportunity to do a srtraight-ticket for you all. I encourage you to support this amendment. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? Speaker Changes: Mr. President? Speaker Changes: Senator...

Robertson, for what reason do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robertson, you may debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I, too, appreciate the data that Senator Bryant shared. It is factual regardless of how you take it, it’s factual data. I would say as well, based on my own family history, I have an aunt who’s 98, one 95, and my mother’s 91. Then my experience at the precinct where I worked, that a lot of the folk who vote straight ticket are elderly. Black and white. A lot of those same people have to use their bibles for identification. Black and white. Even though I don’t have the statistics to support it right now, I would go as far to say that those are the same folks who could not read. I know that, historically for African-Americans, like Senator Parmon said, they were denied the right to read and to write. Different from my own grandparents who set up schools and taught a lot of people. There were still a lot of folks who couldn’t write and who had to mark that X. They were excited about exercising their right. Whether the voter is republican or democrat and they’re elderly, when they come to the polls to vote, if they have to check every box, you are suppressing their right as well, too. I don’t think that’s what you intend to do, but there are a lot of older people who want to vote, but will be frightened, who will be scared away and who will be intimidated when you tell them they don’t have a choice to vote straight ticket. But that they have to vote by selecting ever box. It becomes a long day for them, it’s tiring. It’s trying, and as you get older, you will see what the situation becomes as your body begins to break down as well. It becomes really a challenge to you being able to get out and exercise your rights. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Senator Apodaca a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca do you yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t know that we’ve ever cut off debate. I do know that I’ve heard the same issue debated on each one of these 14 times over tonight. I’ve not heard a new issue since the first 30 minutes of this and, of course, the call is up to you Senator. I can stay here all night. I got some peanuts over here I can eat. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, I have the floor, thank you. Mr. President, I never go a question. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a new issue. It’s one sentence long. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually we’re on the amendment, I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s correct. Further discussion and debate on the amendment? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of amendment number ten. All in favor will vote aye, opposed will vote not. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. The clerk will record the vote. 15 having voted in the affirmative and 30 in the negative, the amendment fails. The bill is back before you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what reason do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve listened to a lot of discussion over the last hour or so, about voting rights here in North Carolina. One thing I think back about was my childhood growing up over in Durham where I saw so many people who had never been registered to vote before become registered to vote. I’d see them in knocking on their doors some days, make sure they got a ride to the polls because the place you could register to vote back then was at the precinct itself. People came into the precinct. There were situations where people had to recite a provision of the constitution or to prove certain degree of literacy before they could vote. One thing which I saw which I was always very impressed with, was the fact that after they voted for the first time, after they had exercised that very sacred constitutional right, a sense of ownership in our election system. A sense of pride. They would almost...

I don't newly ratified taking the governor, Senate Bill seven twelve and I can allow division of motor vehicles to develop a process whereby persons who are home bound can apply for special order identification cards by means other than personal appearances, and make other clarifying changes outdoor fifty seven– one prohibit local school of management of unit from assassin indirect cost worked out efficient program with the program is financially solvent and to promote optimal pricing through sound efficient programs, food and supplies and recommend about. don't place a program evaluation oversight committee based on a recommendation from the program evaluation division. house Bill one forty seven active in various loud return to the pain into adoption house Bill two oh nine, an act provide that consent protective order in on the chapter of fifty B are jealous that this may be entered without fine and of fact and conclusions of Law: a written agreement of the parties, hospital, two forty nine act to require local school of ministry units to refund the substitute deduction to her teacher taken personal leave is no substitute is hard for that teacher hospital, six twenty six Mac copy notify local law enforcement agencies uncertain information about vehicles that have been told at the direction of a person other than the owner and operator of the vehicle. House Bill six twenty eight act required net saving of association with haven may differ so is sucked in a renovation progress contact and protect use of North Carolina product. the nature facility construction and renovation projects, almonds, sustainable, energy-efficient building program House Bill seven eighty five that create a stat ewide program to enable cost-sharing transportation proven as an authorized department that they should create a state wide power program for contact the service of cost-saving possibilities and I know I'm necessary that this microphone again. this is because that's a clarify operational oversight of certain ribbon who only govern product, health service in the following build truly ratify promptly rolled• the second Thursday house Bill two twenty nine, an act authorizing down:" now based to accumulate funds in a capital reserve fund for the purpose of the nail venting and maintenance for there in years past built-in thirty four. an act to clarify the distribution of certain net profit from Bend County bought a back haul alcoholic control law enforcement purposes [SPEAKER CHANGES] soon as we do have a nurse of the day with the same married Betsy Giglio, Greenville, North Carolina, versatility, please stand to be recognized. thank you for your services to him and so remove right into our calendar for a•… what was your eyes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. president multiple, multiple medicines. soon you have the for evermore with him as president members at one forty three if his side of the clerk of this image of the number, not the type and you keep up bank at eleven thirty three. house Bill two sixty one. house Bill three oh two hospital for twelve thousand bill for twenty one house Bill five twenty six. house Bill five fifty three. house Bill five sixty seven policy on the move in tonight 's calendar, Lewinsky 's calendar without objection is awarded. thank you, Mister President, members of visual motions must present your person making him thirty six UNC school of arts student days currently enrolled to remove roles referred to committee on vibration objections over after about twenty two master meters landlord-tenant agreement currently enrolled. remove roles reported judiciary, one that objections or division of attorney 's fees and workman 's comp. house Bill one sixty eight new models referred J one objections ordered after two ninety six higher education and apprentice program. finally, mail man, milkman report. the main subject of the word possibility twenty eight update physical therapy practice act called by the committee on rules. remember, the Judiciary, one objections in the hospital for ninety two safeguard qualified individuals Medicaid PCS, there was heard in healthcare

of them are does that percentage is happening in the division for ?? day is five-cent suppression of this event submission to the sense that this is awesome, half of the agenda at this time this happened at that age and that if that is that as of the founders of that event to shut the highly inventive and then to add a eyes of the best medicine as the process and that hasn't been said about half as incentive that the-Hansen-half as the advent of DNA of attentive and send them as if it does have some as evidence that an assessment has suggested that this concert at the end of the fence, and that seven-for-guns times that state and that you have the highest-end of the senate, this reminds me of optimum time, half years ago the state meet Mr. Friedman opportunities to stop in the media, have you stopped and got the news item, so we did in this mess around by time and doesn't mean that an outsider the manners has been made, the stale time in and outside of the headers that we all have a common understanding the owners of the budgets. And we all have our design in plain of the times and we have parties are issues of the others were all happened here are a couple of candlelight are small and downs in Thailand in accidents in contacted the assemble the mount on down and points seem to let you come down here the year before head of the Chinese fighter that, not identified the ?? before you went into the nation's history of our ?? that history and then when Mr. Leonard and we all know that the ??, and armies of that war and the time development act, straighten out some of the heavier North Carolina and 1/2 non-automated tile barely half of the old independence and find out about being intentionally in this late Sunday at work and his top assistant of this crime has a lot was on that your partner update: doesn't mean a share, but hardy days of the comment box and it finds any time to find site unit maintains investment of year we haven't any consequences of that there are some of it is the enemy fighters, the fed has a line around the Manhattan no animation is this java, Indonesia, where the use of Thailand that the ¬dollars, up for the station's orbit the we started out today, said that assessment of pass out ?? that in-house fighting practices are defined in honoraria I need a development in the times and 80% of the hot sun and they are replied, a longtime enemies somebody already in Sunday's ready for him, several things the system is about one of the Max light of the level of the timing of this system for that if I don't think we got where a form of Riyadh and dance we have never problems and we have been popping and that's all ?? ??.....

Some of the problems that we have had, long lines at the polls. Back in the early 90's we were having 3 and 4 hour lines at the polls. And we were proactive about that, and we created early voting. It was bipartisan when we created it, it was a good thig, it solved the problem, and voters are better off for it. And we have done other things to make it easier for people to vote. Now the problem you've got with this bill, I'm gonna run through these things with you, I cannot find anything in here that makes it easier for anyone to vote. Everything you're doing in this bill makes it harder for poor people to vote. And when you do that, we know that will suppress the vote. You make them stand in the line for four hours, some of them are going to go home. They aren't going to do it. You fix it to where they can't register close to the election. Some of them aren't going to think of it in time, so they aren't going to get registered, so they won't vote. Same day registration, I don't know of a single problem that we've had with that. And it allows somebody who gets interested in the election to come in there and vote, and that's a good thing. If they're involved, and people coming in there if they weren't, but I don't think there's been any, I've not heard it if there has. The program where we went into the schools and taught civics, and registered young kids to vote, that's a good thing. You're teaching them about government and about civics and their responsibility, and voting is part of that, and let's get you signed up and then you'll be ready to vote when you turn 18. We're not going to do that anymore. We did financial literacy in here and I supported us doing that to teach kids how to balance a checkbook, how to do a basic thing, but were not going to go in and get them ready to vote. Now, but we were. Early voting I touched on a while ago. That is not broke. It just isn't broken. The people, What little capacity is out there in early voting, they're going to find because they're accelerating the number of people that use it. And it's a relatively new thing. I can't remember the first election we had, but it was around 2000. It hasn't been around that long and the people who try it like it. Not using student ID's. I got to tell you, when I was listening to the debate about student ID's and while there were 50 of these colleges, and I was looking, and in his hand was a photo ID. But it may not be right, and it may be fraud, and it may be that somebody didn't do it, and it's not protected. I don't know how to tell you this, but that sounds like big brotherism to me. Everybody out here is not a thief or a crook. And nobody is trying to break into a polling place. So if somebody is trying to show you a photo ID to vote, it's probably accurate. So if we're trying to identify people, make it as easy as possible to identify them, and get that out of the way and then let them vote. Straight party voting, and you heard it a while ago. By the way Senator Stein, I don't believe I would have told that if I was you, about splitting your ticket. That is a convenience for the voters. That's all that is. And you heard how many people use it lots of people use it. Now you make it 17 times longer to vote when you get there. I think and we think that you're going to create lines by limiting early voting like you're doing. We think that it's going to be difficult for young people to vote under this bill. We think that you will make it much more difficult for minorities and seniors to vote under this bill. And all of these things will suppress the vote. And I don't know in this state, once again I take everybody at their word, but in other states these same tactics have been used to suppress the vote. They've got that one gal on the TV saying they got voter ID passed that going to elect...

dead and one of the body of the day the white ?? here and we've had a lot like taxpayers in the event-hours ??that money in the fall in having this one's not even more often and said the time they will increase for his bike now, and some idea of the loss of a diagram of the show me how that happens at green valley is Robert increase of his wife as having them at night spots and fired on his one-dish, guarding the house of ?? and Wednesday dollars that he brought us together in one day live again, this year in that fact Simon ??in the video, for the end of the end of conservatism are not being aired on inmates place tomorrow night and the DSS has invested the bases and the fact is one of the buyers of life and that time in years and the best thing in his office on a common definition and , in the session, but had not one that sends the message the house bill, 18, 17 of them will one time of the the the second half and that more than one ?? the design-5:00 AM and four gene hack man and- see hospital of the center of novel project of the the city of Anaheim has a second inning that action and feminine from Sandoval and others that ?? center, a procedure runs, one has back to that is the data and the day in the lives of the documents submitted time on that section solar access said that the rams seven to offer more, 7 to 75-four time I'll fit the role of the state has 10 times that the ever-widening of the recidivism announcement that it wasn't that one, seven of the event, that the victim of-fact that the Montana Power-of-seven economic development functions ??domain of importance is a times this to seven-up access, time has some events as his wife-to- use to say that the first year of the St. Louis via more data than this one-time Allstate and of west of the dominant viewers in the west, and most-often-waste time and his wife, and it out advantages of our house man, am for the second 35 am as it was someone made a shot at a time or should it was hard ?? was an investment in the nation and the some of the things that matter, were ......................

to a safer ????of hand that pang that plan that day and demanding than waiting for us, we have some kind of life and non-entity that your day-to-half of them chance for us, here in the data more ideas Sunday night when the half-life that high time we see anybody have sat of medicine, but then complete the other day and age, as well as 14 additional as private sector-of-a-time before-and the fact that leadership for a lot of activity in child-and others that they would enable 1000 higher and the that's as a defensive measure a sign of a twin-more-or as best it is the best and the ascendant time and 0¢ and it's done, and find some later date sides of the Saturday night when using have the same, he had the game has been widely married and have not his real estate advisory is out-of-the-clock without any of the time he have convinced it was abandoned, ms-DOS and Saturdays may not have I seen their ideas and 1/2-day and time is right about us to find a balance of made-in-line that is supportive and other factors behind that that I am attaching that hides together and not the headers that as the 1970s and eighties challenges the U.S. has been designing tax-Saturday and Sunday, is at 97 calorie at the end of a decent night's off ???? businesses today and the defense and seven-year-old has a five-and-a-the-not-call is made active women are resisted a lot of people have also not invade the center pay for charity inside a half, and with that, as high as it ??to pay a high standard of varied and restaurant for all of his efforts they all of the house zero. Five of eight assists and updates the same time the 17th and 18 share in the hierarchy with the demise laden with all of the state ??at pianist time of the 10-7-of-the Saint Vincent said in a seven-may-day after the event of trouble and the Servite Commission of their efforts and thousands of miles Davis' announcements is of addresses, that's a ??is much of the system, for mission bay this president is the father of the automation has invested all the SMS two and one last couple days in years past Monday that she would have been in the state is in ??does some stuff that the session, says the session will recess right hand side, we wouldn't want to have a tool of the more on the thoughts of years and ½, whose home, and Thailand said 180 so-and-so's spending all the fall of the idea of the house for sessions concert inside of the night with David ??????..............

the last few votes after midnight and then be ready to adjourn. Now, all of that obviously is subject to what happens with the house and us in the next 24 hours or so, but that is the current plan just so that you will know. With that, Mr. President, I move that the senate do now adjourn. Subject to the receipt of committee reports, the re-referral of bills and resolutions, the receipt of messages from the house and the governor, the ratification of bills, the appointment of conferees and the receipt of conference reports to reconvene on Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 11am. [speaker changes] The motion is that the senate do now adjourn subject to the stipulations stated by senator Berger to reconvene on Thurday, July 25 at 11 Am. Seconded by Senator Rucho. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The senate stands adjourned.