Declaration of Tomas Lopez, Democracy NC (Exhibit 12 to complaint) — Moore v. Circosta (M.D.N.C. No. 5:20-cv-00507)

Record facts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW · Doc. 1-13 · 2020-09-26 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT 12
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 1 of 30

 
1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA, THE 
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH 
CAROLINA, DONNA PERMAR, JOHN P. 
CLARK, MARGARET B. CATES, LELIA 
BENTLEY, REGINA WHITNEY EDWARDS, 
ROBERT K. PRIDDY II, WALTER 
HUTCHINS, AND SUSAN SCHAFFER, 
 
                Plaintiffs, 
               vs. 
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF 
ELECTIONS; DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his 
official capacity as CHAIR OF THE 
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; STELLA 
ANDERSON, in her official capacity 
as SECRETARY OF THE STATE BOARD OF 
ELECTIONS; KEN RAYMOND, in his 
official capacity as MEMBER OF THE 
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JEFF 
CARMON III, in his official 
capacity as MEMBER OF THE STATE 
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; DAVID C. BLACK, 
in his official capacity as MEMBER 
OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; 
KAREN BRINSON BELL, in her official 
capacity as EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 
THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; THE 
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 
TRANSPORTATION; J. ERIC BOYETTE, in 
his official capacity as 
TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY; THE NORTH 
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 
HUMAN SERVICES; MANDY COHEN, in her 
official capacity as SECRETARY OF 
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 
 
                Defendants, 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil Action  
No. 20-cv-457 
 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 1 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 2 of 30

 
2 
 
PHILIP E. BERGER, in his official 
capacity as PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE 
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SENATE; 
TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official 
capacity as SPEAKER OF THE NORTH 
CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
            Defendant-Intervenors. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SECOND DECLARATION OF TOMAS LOPEZ 
 
 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 2 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 3 of 30

 
3 
 
I, Tomas Lopez, hereby declare as follows: 
1. I am submitting this second sworn declaration in 
response to arguments made in declarations and briefs 
submitted by Defendants and Intervenors in this case. 
2. First, 
the 
allegation 
has 
been 
made 
that 
my 
organization lacks standing to bring these claims.   
a. In paragraph 2-3 of my first declaration dated 
June 4, 2020, the goals of Democracy North 
Carolina as I described them represent our core 
mission. 
b. The diversion of resources that we have suffered 
because of election laws that do not sufficiently 
protect voter access during a global pandemic 
frustrates our ability to execute and achieve our 
core goals.  For example, extending the voter 
registration deadline would allow our voter 
hotline to devote the fullest resources to helping 
voters 
access 
the 
franchise, 
rather 
than 
diverting 
resources 
to 
troubleshooting 
registration issues for voters who have missed 
the deadline and would normally register and vote 
in-person 
during 
one-stop 
voting, 
but 
are 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 3 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 4 of 30

 
4 
 
hesitant to do so because of the pandemic.  That 
is, we could help voters navigate other, non-
pandemic-related issues.  Likewise, the lack of 
an online voter registration option diverts our 
resources from engaging a larger number of voters 
in the political process to guiding voters through 
other voter registration options. 
i. Similarly, using the limited space in our 
printed voter guides will divert resources 
from our efforts to help engage voters more 
effectively. But for the witness requirement, 
we would be able to use our limited resources 
to educate a greater number of voters on a 
greater number of topics. 
ii. The lack of a mandated uniform cure mechanism 
for absentee-by-mail voters who make a 
mistake will frustrate our core mission to 
encourage 
voter 
participation 
because, 
without this safety net in place, any efforts 
we spend encouraging voters to use absentee-
by-mail voting could result in voters being 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 4 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 5 of 30

 
5 
 
inadvertently disenfranchised if they make a 
mistake. 
iii. The pandemic has created the potential for 
poll worker shortages.  The home county poll 
worker requirement created by House Bill 
1169, which eased some of the requirements 
to serve as a poll worker, is nonetheless 
diverting Democracy North Carolina resources 
into never-before-needed recruitment efforts 
to ensure that opportunities for in-person 
voting remain open to North Carolina voters. 
The legislature has failed to change the 
election rules sufficiently enough to address 
this new reality.  Absent this too-onerous 
limitation on poll worker eligibility, we 
would not need to fund or staff this 
initiative to such a great extent and would 
be able to focus instead on our core purpose 
of 
engaging 
underrepresented 
North 
Carolinians 
and 
encouraging 
their 
participation. 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 5 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 6 of 30

 
6 
 
iv. Without easy access to proposed and actual 
precinct consolidations, Democracy North 
Carolina will have to divert resources to 
time-intensive, county-by-county research to 
provide accurate, up-to-date information to 
voters. If we did not have to gather this 
information manually, which we would not have 
had to do before this year, we could spend 
those 
human 
resources 
in 
other 
ways, 
including 
mobilizing 
historically 
underrepresented voters. 
c. Moreover, Democracy North Carolina occupies a 
close and trusted relationship with a large number 
of 
voters 
in 
this 
state—voters 
whose 
constitutional rights we seek to vindicate, in 
addition to our own.  I believe that I made this 
point in my first declaration, but to further 
buttress that claim: 
i. Democracy 
North 
Carolina 
hosts 
and 
principally staffs a statewide election 
protection hotline.  We also facilitate an 
election protection coalition, comprised of 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 6 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 7 of 30

 
7 
 
22 active civic engagement groups across the 
state.  Each of these groups promotes the 
election protection hotline that we staff, 
and advertises it as a way to get trusted, 
reliable, non-partisan information about 
participating in any election.  We answer 
calls to that hotline even during non-
election times, and are already receiving a 
significant number of calls from voters who 
do not know how to vote via absentee-by-mail, 
or who lack the technology to print off an 
absentee request form and want us to mail 
them the form.  We have never before received 
this volume of calls to the 
election 
protection hotline during the summer before 
an election.  The voters who are calling us 
now trust us to guide them through the 
process, and we will do so. 
ii. Our history of answering voter questions via 
the election protection hotline is a strong 
indication of the trusted relationship we 
have with North Carolina voters.  In the 2016 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 7 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 8 of 30

 
8 
 
election (primary and general), we answered 
over 
4,600 
calls 
from 
voters 
seeking 
information on how to vote or reporting 
issues with voting and seeking our assistance 
in addressing those problems.  In 2018, we 
received nearly 2,300 such calls in the 
primary and general elections.  In the March 
2020 primary, we received nearly 900 calls. 
iii. Likewise, as discussed in paragraph 13 of my 
first declaration, we recruit and deploy 
hundreds of volunteers to staff in-person 
voting sites, and those election protection 
volunteers interact with voters to document 
and address voting issues.  Our volunteers 
document these voting issues via incident 
report forms.  Voters have trusted our 
volunteers 
to 
report 
and 
document 
415 
incidents in 2016, 512 incidents in 2018, and 
169 incidents in the 2020 primary election.  
iv. In the 2016 election, these volunteers 
covered 300 precincts in 64 counties on 
Election Day and 63 locations in 21 counties 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 8 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 9 of 30

 
9 
 
during early voting.  In 2018 general 
election, 
those 
volunteers 
covered 
279 
precincts in 55 counties.  And in the March 
2020 primary, those volunteers covered 131 
locations in 35 counties on Election Day and 
99 locations in 36 counties during early 
voting. 
d. Finally, the restrictions challenged here that 
limit my organization’s ability to assist voters 
with their absentee request forms and submission 
of their absentee ballots infringes our speech 
and associational interests.  Helping voters cast 
their ballots is not only central to our core 
mission but associating with voters in this way 
also allows us to communicate our values.  Those 
values include a participatory and inclusive 
democracy where hurdles do not impede political 
participation, 
particularly 
by 
historically 
disenfranchised and underserved communities and 
voters. 
3. Second, while we understand that Director Bell has 
submitted a declaration alleging her intent to provide 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 9 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 10 of 30

 
10 
 
instruction to North Carolina’s 100 counties about a 
uniform cure process for absentee-by-mail ballots, we 
have not yet seen such guidance, and we closely monitor 
such directives issued to the county.  No such guidance 
was issued prior to the June 23rd Republican primary 
run-off in Congressional District 11, and none has 
been issued during my tenure as Executive Director of 
this organization.  In the March 2020 primary election, 
we observed the consequences of the lack of a uniform 
cure process.   
a. As described in my first declaration, Democracy 
North Carolina, with its partners, conducts post-
election canvass monitoring post-election and 
performs in house data analysis of publicly-
available data from the State Board of Elections.  
Based on our examination of May 2020 State Board 
of Elections data, with 92 of North Carolina’s 
100 counties reporting, we observed that 75% of 
absentee ballots were returned. Of these, 86% were 
accepted and 14% rejected— this includes figures 
for people who requested multiple ballots (so it 
captures total ballots rejected, not total voters 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 10 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 11 of 30

 
11 
 
whose ballots were rejected).  Based on our 
volunteers’ attendance at 12 different county 
canvasses following the 2020 primary, and from 
canvass monitoring in prior years, we know that a 
noteworthy number of these absentee ballots were 
rejected on the basis of a voters’ mistake, with 
no indication that the counties followed any 
uniform process (if indeed they employed any 
process at all) to allow those voters to cure 
their mistakes and have their absentee ballot to 
be counted.  The overall primary data also 
indicates this— 35 percent of the ballots that 
did not count were missing signatures from voters 
themselves. Even accounting for voters who 
eventually cast a counted ballot,  this number is 
troublingly high, and could result in tens of 
thousands of voters in a general election (with 
the predicted increase in absentee-by-mail voting 
usage) having their ballots rejected. 
4. Finally, as mentioned in paragraphs 6, 8, and 28 in my 
first declaration, Democracy North Carolina and its 
volunteers engage in extensive early voting advocacy, 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 11 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 12 of 30

 
12 
 
seeking additional sites, days and hours for early 
voting.  We have monitors tracking over 60 of North 
Carolina’s county boards of election as they consider 
this year’s early voting plans.  While we were 
heartened to see Director Bell’s numbered memo urging 
counties to increase the number of early voting sites 
in light of the social distancing and cleaning 
procedures required to conduct safe elections during 
a global pandemic, we have not seen any evidence that 
a significant number of counties will follow this 
suggestion. 
a. While few counties have officially adopted their 
early voting plans yet, and such plans are not 
required to be passed by county boards until the 
end of July, many have met on the topic already 
and are considering plans.  To my knowledge and 
based on our monitoring, there are at most a 
handful at most of counties even considering 
expansion of the number of sites. 
b. Principal among the reason our monitors have 
observed as a justification for reducing or not 
expanding the number of early voting sites, per 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 12 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 13 of 30

 
13 
 
Director Bell’s suggestion on June 24, 2020, is 
that many counties are facing critical revenue 
shortfalls and have not, to date, committed to 
fully funding their county board of elections’ 
requested budget for this general election.  
Instead, the overwhelming majority of counties 
whose early voting plans we are tracking have 
county commissions that have proposed or adopted 
budgets with steep cuts to elections operations. 
Even the few counties that have not proposed such 
cuts have not sought to add early voting sites, 
as Director Bells’ numbered memo recommended. For 
example, the Wake County Board of Elections, 
despite receiving their full budget request for 
this year, chose not to expand the number of early 
voting sites offered this year when compared to 
2016 (20 sites in both elections).   More common 
are reports from our monitors that county 
commissions are telling the county boards of 
election that they need to cut their budgets.  For 
example, the Alamance County Board of County 
Commissioners initially proposed a 54% cut to the 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 13 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 14 of 30

 
14 
 
requested elections budget, which would require 
the county to cut in half the number of early 
voting sites offered.  Similarly, the county 
manager in Lenoir County has informed the Board 
of Elections that the county may only provide 
funding for four sites, instead of the six sites 
offered in 2016. 
c. This pattern is consistent with what we monitored 
and wrote about following the 2018 election.  In 
that election, we documented in a publicly 
available report the decrease in the number of 
sites offered statewide due to the uniform hours 
requirement.  This report also notes examples of 
officials 
who 
opposed 
the 
uniform 
hours 
requirement on the grounds that it would increase 
the cost of running early voting programs, and 
also of officials who reported that they could 
not afford to keep every site open every hour, 
and 
so 
to 
comply 
with 
the 
uniform 
hours 
requirement, they had to reduce the number of 
sites.  That report is attached as Exhibit A to 
this declaration. 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 14 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 15 of 30

 
15 
 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 
United States of America that the foregoing Declaration is 
true and correct to the best of my knowledge.   
 
Executed on the 2nd day of July, 2020. 
____________________ 
Tomas Lopez 
 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 15 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 16 of 30

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT A 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 16 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 17 of 30

 
Greater Costs, Fewer Options:  
The Impact of the Early Voting Uniform 
Hours Requirement in the 2018 Election 
 
By Sunny Frothingham, Senior Researcher 
NOTE: Thanks to ACLU-NC’s Emily Seawell and Rachel Geissler, and to Blueprint NC’s Dan DeRosa for their contributions to this 
research. 
 
Over the last decade, North Carolina has become infamous for some of the nation’s 
most harmful voter suppression tactics — from racially-gerrymandered voting districts, to strict 
photo voter ID laws, to attacks on election safety nets, and, most recently, vote theft in North 
Carolina's Ninth Congressional District. These attacks have also extended to Early Voting, the 
17-day period before Election Day  when the majority of North Carolina voters cast their ballots.   
1
2
A 2013 law dubbed the “Monster Voter Suppression Law” not only installed a strict photo 
ID requirement to vote, but also eliminated crucial reforms which expanded ballot access, 
including pre-registration for 16- and 17-year olds, out-of-precinct voting and same day 
registration, and shortened the Early Voting period by a week. Since 2016, when that law was 
overturned by the Fourth Circuit for “discriminatory intent” which “target[ed] African American 
voters with almost surgical precision,”  the General Assembly has revisited, and in some cases 
3
revived, portions of the law, presumably in hopes of withstanding legal challenges. These efforts 
included placing a photo ID constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2018 and 
passing Senate Bill 325 (S325), which had the impact of limiting Early Voting options in many 
parts of the state.  
1 Under current law, the Early Voting period is 17 days - though it was truncated to only 10 days during 
the 2014 General Election and expanded to 18 days for the 2018 General Election.  
2 Over 60% of ballots cast in the 2016 General Election were cast at Early Voting sites. ​Analysis by 
Democracy North Carolina, based on data available from the State Board of Elections as of April 2019. 
Data retrieved from​ ​https://dl.ncsbe.gov/?prefix=ENRS/​. 
3 ​N.C. St. Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory​, 831 F.3d 204, 219 (4th Cit. 2016). Retrieved from 
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/161468.p.pdf​.  
1 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 17 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 18 of 30

As explored below, S325 drained local resources and led counties across the state to 
reduce Early Voting sites and weekend voting options. In addition to S325’s onerous 
requirements on counties, the law also explicitly eliminated the last Saturday of Early Voting for 
all elections after 2018. Topline findings of the analysis include: 
●
After S325, 43 of North Carolina’s 100 counties eliminated at least one Early Voting site, 
almost half reduced the number of weekend days, and about two-thirds reduced the 
number of weekend hours, compared to 2014.  
●
While 2018 was a high turnout election statewide compared to 2014, site changes 
chipped away at county-level performance, especially in rural counties where the 
distance between voters and Early Voting sites increased the most.  
●
The last Saturday was the only weekend option in 56 of North Carolina’s 100 counties in 
2018 — meaning that without it, there may be no weekend voting in more than half of 
North Carolina counties in future elections. 
●
The loss of the final Saturday will limit ballot access for voters across the state – more 
than two times the number of voters cast ballots, per hour, on the last Saturday 
compared to weekdays in 2018. The last Saturday garnered more than four times the 
18- to 25-year old voters per hour than the weekday average.  
●
The elimination of the last Saturday will disproportionately harm young voters, Black 
voters, Latinx voters, and voters in certain rural counties. 
 
Democracy North Carolina urges lawmakers to act now to ensure that all voters have a fair 
chance to cast their ballots in 2020. Lawmakers should: 
●
Give county boards of elections (BOEs) back the maximum flexibility needed to make 
the best decisions for their county’s resources and voters, as is available in current 
proposals like H893. 
●
If H893 is unable to garner the bipartisan support needed to pass, then lawmakers 
should eliminate the 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. weekday requirement, which requires county BOEs 
to operate during “non-usable” hours and limits the capacity of local Boards to operate 
multiple sites and provide weekend hours.  
●
At a minimum, lawmakers should restore the mandatory last Saturday for all future 
elections, including 2020.  
 
Part One: Background on S325 
  
In the summer of 2018, the General Assembly hastily enacted Senate Bill 325 
(S325), the Uniform & Expanded Early Voting Act, which drastically reduced the 
discretion county BOEs have over designing Early Voting plans that work for their 
communities.  North Carolina law requires counties to make Early Voting available at a 
4
4 The Uniform & Expanded Early Voting Act, Session Law 2018-112, Senate Bill 325. Available at 
https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2017/S325​. S325 as originally filed in the 2017-2018 legislative session 
had nothing to do with elections, but it emerged as the Uniform & Expanded Early Voting Act as a 
proposed committee substitute on June 14, 2018, and was ratified and sent to Governor Cooper just one 
day later. He vetoed the bill on June 25; the veto was overridden by the NCGA on June 27.  
2 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 18 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 19 of 30

minimum of one location (at the county Board of Elections office) and permits counties to 
establish additional sites throughout the county (referred to as satellite sites). In past cycles, 
counties were able to use their discretion about how best to allocate hours throughout the Early 
Voting window based on voter usage patterns  — for instance, by staying open later on one 
5
weekday evening per week, opening mid-morning, or opening more satellite sites for the last 
two weeks of the Early Voting period. But S325 required all satellite sites to be open from 7 a.m. 
to 7 p.m. every weekday and in operation for the entire Early Voting period. The bill originally 
proposed eliminating the extremely popular final Saturday in 2018 by moving the Early Voting 
period up a day, to start on a Wednesday instead of a Thursday and end on a Friday, instead of 
Saturday. Lawmakers added the last Saturday back for the 2018 election only after advocates 
spoke out in opposition. As the law currently stands, the final Saturday of Early Voting is 
eliminated for all future elections, including 2020,  despite its popularity among North Carolina 
6
voters and disproportionate use by Black and Latinx voters.   
7
 
S325 Undermined Local Control Over Early Voting 
S325 dramatically increased the cost to counties of having multiple Early Voting 
locations and made it harder to operate weekend options (other than the required last 
Saturday in 2018). ​During the debate on the bill and following its passage, county BOE 
members and staff expressed frustration about the new, top-down state mandate and the loss of 
flexibility in designing their county’s Early Voting schedules. As Viola Williams, Hyde County 
Director Of Elections put it, “I really wish, before the bill had even been pushed through, that 
they would have gotten the opinions of the people who are directly involved. The way things 
were done before, where the counties made the plans, was a better way to do it. Each county is 
going to make plans for what benefits their county the most, whereas when the state steps in, 
they try to benefit all counties. All counties are not the same.”  
8
Before S325, county boards could flexibly allocate hours across sites and 
prioritize staffing high-volume voting times.​ According to Adam Ragan, Director of Elections 
in Gaston County, in a media interview ahead of the 2018 election: “In elections administration, 
we have what we consider ‘non-usable hours,’ that's why we've never opened sites that early.”9
5 Prior to 2013, county Boards of Elections had maximum flexibility in deciding Early Voting schedules -- 
no uniformity was required and counties could choose to operate until 5 p.m. on the last Saturday. In 
2013, as part of Session Law 2013-381, H589, a sweeping elections omnibus dubbed the “Monster Voter 
Suppression Law” by voting rights advocates, county Boards were required to offer uniform hours at all 
satellite sites and voting was required to end by 1 p.m. on the last Saturday. This less onerous uniformity 
requirement was in effect for the 2014 and 2016 election cycles, as well as the 2018 Primary. 
6 The Uniform & Expanded Early Voting Act, Session Law 2018-112, Senate Bill 325. Available at 
https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2017/S325​; Restore Last Saturday Early One-Stop, Session Law 
2018-129, House Bill 335. Available at ​https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2017/H335​. 
7 ​Analysis by Democracy North Carolina, based on data available from the State Board of Elections as of 
April 2019. Data retrieved from​ ​https://dl.ncsbe.gov/?prefix=ENRS/​. 
8 Weber, J. (2018, July 18). New state law will mean fewer places to vote early in some counties. The 
News & Observer. Retrieved from 
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article214589500.html 
9 Paterson, B. (2018, September 24). Bipartisan Furor as North Carolina Election Law Shrinks Early 
Voting Locations by Almost 20 Percent. Propublica. Retrieved from 
3 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 19 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 20 of 30

In addition to the requirement that counties operate Early Voting during these “non-usable” 
hours, the new mandate made it impossible for some counties to keep popular satellite sites 
open. “I would have loved to have had more Early Voting locations," Ragan said. "It came down 
to having more locations, helping more voters versus our fiduciary responsibilities to the county.
 Tony McQueen, the Deputy Director of Elections in Pitt County, echoed this point: “To run 
10
seven sites, for all of that time, would increase our budget by two-thirds... We've just been 
buffaloed, really.”   
11
At the county level, frustration with the law was bipartisan. ​Both Democratic and 
Republican members of the Bladen County Board of Elections lamented the impact of S325. 
Bladen could only afford one Early Voting site in 2018, compared to the four sites it operated in 
the 2012, 2014, and 2016 cycles. As Bobby Ledlum, the Republican County Board chair, shared 
with ProPublica at the time, “We’re a small county and the law has affected us pretty badly.” Al 
Daniels, a Democratic member, saw the law as “part of a larger voter suppression effort” and 
“anti-voter, period.”  Steve Stone, Chair of the Robeson County Board of Elections, said before 
12
the election, “I’m a full-fledged Republican and a Republican supporter, and I’m just 
disappointed in the General Assembly for not reaching out to election officials in the state and 
asking, ‘What do you think would work well for this early voting law?’”  
13
 
Part Two: Effects of Eliminating Sites and Hours 
 
The Law Led to the Elimination of Early Voting Sites and Hours 
The uniform hours mandate imposed by S325 was a significant departure from the way 
county Boards of Elections had managed Early Voting schedules in the past. Roughly half of 
North Carolina’s counties used flexible scheduling during Early Voting in midterm cycles.  In the 
14
2018 Primary, 46 counties chose to offer varied hours or days at satellite sites (sites other than 
the required Board of Elections site)  during Early Voting to make voting more cost-efficient 
15
https://www.propublica.org/article/bipartisan-furor-as-north-carolina-election-law-shrinks-early-voting-locat
ions-by-almost-20-percent​. 
10 Olgin, A. Early Voting Changes In North Carolina Spark Bipartisan Controversy. NPR. Retrieved from 
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/17/657928248/early-voting-changes-in-north-carolina-spark-bipartisan-contr
oversy. 
11 ​See ​supra​ note 8.  
12 Paterson, B. (2018, September 24). Bipartisan Furor as North Carolina Election Law Shrinks Early 
Voting Locations by Almost 20 Percent. Propublica. Retrieved from 
https://www.propublica.org/article/bipartisan-furor-as-north-carolina-election-law-shrinks-early-voting-locat
ions-by-almost-20-percent​. Bladen County was the center of an vote tampering scheme which lead the 
State Board of Elections to call for a new election in Congressional District 9. The scheme involved 
mail-in absentee ballots and, among other things, highlights the need to ensure that every voter have the 
opportunity to cast an in-person ballot. In addition, the State Board of Elections investigation found that 
Bladen County poll workers improperly counted votes early, as a result of faulty training. 
13 ​Id.  
14 “Flexible scheduling” is defined here as opening satellite sites for only part of the Early Voting period, 
when demand for them is highest.  
15 In many counties the main site is at the County Board of Elections, but counties can also designate an 
“in lieu of” site as the main site, which is typically near the County Board of Elections office. 
4 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 20 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 21 of 30

based on when and where demand was highest. In 2014, the previous midterm election, 55 
counties took advantage of the flexibility provided by the pre-S325 law.  
16
After S325, 43 counties reduced the number of Early Voting sites offered in 2018 
compared to 2014, 47 counties reduced the number of weekend days offered (despite the fact 
that the 2018 Early Voting period included an additional weekend, since 2014’s Early Voting 
period was cut to 10 days), and 65 counties reduced the number of weekend hours.   
17
 
Figure 1: County by County Site and Weekend Day Reductions in 2018  
18
 
16 Analysis of historical Early Voting plans by Democracy North Carolina and ACLU-NC. Plans on file with 
Democracy NC. 
17 Analysis of historical early voting plans by Democracy North Carolina and ACLU-NC. Plans on file with 
Democracy NC. ​Site Reductions: ​Alamance, Ashe, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Buncombe, Caldwell, 
Carteret, Caswell, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Davie, Gaston, Gates, Guilford, Halifax, 
Harnett, Henderson, Iredell, Johnston, Lincoln, Madison, Mcdowell, Mecklenburg, Nash, Northampton, 
Onslow, Person, Pitt, Polk, Richmond, Rowan, Rutherford, Sampson, Stanly, Surry, Transylvania, Vance, 
Wayne, Wilkes, Wilson. ​Weekend Day Reductions:​ Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Beaufort, Bertie, 
Caldwell, Camden, Carteret, Caswell, Chowan, Clay, Columbus, Craven, Currituck, Davidson, Davie, 
Edgecombe, Gates, Haywood, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Jackson, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, Martin, 
Mcdowell, Mitchell, Nash, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Rowan, Scotland, Stokes, 
Transylvania, Tyrrell, Vance, Warren, Washington, Wilkes, Yadkin, Yancey.​ Weekend Hour Reductions: 
Alamance, Alleghancy, Ashe, Avery, Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Buncombe, Caldwell, Camden, 
Carteret, Caswell, Chowan, Clay, Cleveland, Craven, Currituck, Davidson, Davie, Duplin, Edgecombe, 
Gates, Graham, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Haywood, Henderson, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Jackson, 
Lee, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, Martin, Mcdowell, Mitchell, Nash, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, 
Pender, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Polk, Richmond, Rowan, Rutherford, Scotland, Stanly, Stokes, Surry, 
Transylvania, Tyrrell, Vance, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Wilkes, Yadkin, Yancey. 
18 Analysis of historical early voting plans by Democracy North Carolina and ACLU-NC. Plans on file with 
Democracy NC. 
5 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 21 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 22 of 30

 
 
2018 Figures Indicate a Relationship Between Early Voting Site Elimination and Turnout 
Given the enthusiastic turnout of North Carolina voters in 2018, proponents of the law 
might attempt to dismiss the harmful impact of S325’s Early Voting restrictions. However, as 
Democracy North Carolina has noted in previous reports, turnout alone cannot fully reflect voter 
experience or voter access — by definition, it cannot quantify the number of people who did not 
vote due to election administration challenges, like long lines, poorly trained poll workers, or 
limited Early Voting sites and weekend hours.  And while overall 2018 turnout was impressive 
19
for a midterm election, the data at the county level tells a different story. As seen below, turnout 
increased less in counties where Early Voting sites were farther away from voters. This effect 
was especially dramatic for North Carolina’s youngest voters, ages 18-25. 
Ahead of the 2018 election, Propublica and WRAL teamed up to examine how S325’s 
changes to Early Voting sites impacted voters. Their analysis calculated the average change in 
distance, at the county level, between each voter and the closest Early Voting site. In most 
cases, the increases in distance resulted from site elimination, but it also happened in counties 
that changed Early Voting site locations.  While driving a few additional miles might not be 
20
prohibitive to every voter, the added distance can be disenfranchising for many. For low-income 
voters and others with limited mobility or limited access to transportation, like seniors and 
people with disabilities, eliminating an Early Voting site can easily place voting out of reach — 
19 Gutiérrez, I. and Hall, B. (2017, June). Alarm Bells from Silenced Voters. Democracy North Carolina. 
Retrieved at ​https://democracync.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/SilencedVoters.pdf​; ​Gutiérrez, I. (2018, 
July). From the Voter’s View: Lessons from the 2016 Election. Democracy North Carolina. Retrieved from 
https://democracync.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PostElectionReport DemNC web.pdf 
20 Dukes, T. (2018, November 1).Full methodology: 2018 Early voting analysis. WRAL. Retrieved from 
https://www.wral.com/methodology-2018-early-voting-analysis/17960039/​. Supplementary data available 
at ​https://github.com/mtdukes/evl-analysis/blob/master/postgres-analysis.sql​. 
6 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 22 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 23 of 30

especially in rural counties where communities are more spread out and public transit options 
are slim to nonexistent.  
21
As seen in Figure 2 below, turnout increased less, compared to 2014, in counties where 
Early Voting sites were farther from voters. While statewide turnout jumped 9 percentage points 
from 44% in 2014 to 53% in 2018, that surge eroded in counties with fewer sites and significant 
increases in distance between polls. Between 2014 and 2018​ counties saw almost a 
percentage point drop in the turnout margin for each added mile from voters to Early 
Voting sites.  
The trend was even more extreme for 18- to 25-year olds​, as seen in Figure 2. The 
turnout rate for North Carolina’s youngest voters jumped 11% statewide, but ​each additional 
mile between voters and Early Voting sites shrank that surge in youth voting by more 
than a percentage point​. For instance, in Bertie County, where the distance between voters 
and Early Voting sites increased by an average of 5.6 miles, youth turnout increased by 3.5 
percentage points compared to 2014 — paling in comparison to the statewide 11 percentage 
point jump. 
 
Figure 2:  Increased Distance from Early Voting Sites and Turnout Margin Compared to 
2014​  
22
 
21 Letter from Isela Gutiérrez, Research and Policy Director, Democracy North Carolina and Emily 
Seawell, Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina to Kristin Scott, Director Of 
Elections, Halifax County, Re: Senate Bill 325 and Early Voting in Halifax County (2018, July 2) (on file 
with authors).  
22 Analysis of historical early voting plans by Democracy North Carolina and ACLU-NC. Plans on file with 
Democracy NC. Dukes, T. (2018, November 1).Full methodology: 2018 Early voting analysis. WRAL. 
Retrieved from ​https://www.wral.com/methodology-2018-early-voting-analysis/17960039/​. Supplementary 
data available at ​https://github.com/mtdukes/evl-analysis/blob/master/postgres-analysis.sql​. 
7 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 23 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 24 of 30

 
As noted in the analysis by Propublica and WRAL, some of the greatest impacts of 
site elimination fell on rural voters: about 1 in 5 rural voters saw the distance to their 
closest Early Voting site increase by more than a mile.​ In some counties, like Halifax, it was 
more dramatic. In Halifax, ​which can be found in the bottom right corner of Figure 2​, the 
average distance between voters and Early Voting sites increased by 6.5 miles,  and the 
23
turnout rate actually decreased compared to 2014.  
Only three counties in North Carolina saw a decrease in the overall 2018 turnout rate 
(the percentage of registered voters who cast ballots) compared to 2014: Halifax, Jones, and 
Pamlico counties. All three decreased only slightly below 2014 levels. Jones and Pamlico only 
had one site each in 2014, and thus could not have eliminated any sites — but both were 
significantly affected by Hurricane Florence’s devastation.  Halifax had three sites open in 
24
2014, but only one site in 2018, and reduced weekend hours compared to 2014.   
25
In urban counties, where county budgets were generally better equipped to absorb the 
increased costs associated with S325 (resulting in smaller average changes in distance) and 
where voters were more likely to be able to access public transportation, the impact of S325 
was not as extreme. Still, almost 1 in 10 urban voters saw the distance to Early Voting sites 
increase by more than a mile.   
26
 
The Law Led to the Reduction of Weekend Early Voting Options 
In addition to the pressure S325 placed on counties to eliminate Early Voting sites, the 
law priced many counties out of being able to offer weekend options. Because counties had to 
staff any open sites from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, many could not afford to staff their 
historically popular weekend options. As discussed further below, S325 required counties to be 
open for part of the last Saturday before Election Day in 2018, but even with that requirement, 
65 counties reduced the number of weekend voting hours, and 47 counties reduced the number 
of weekend days of Early Voting. The reduction of weekend days offered is especially notable 
since the 2018 period included another entire weekend, or two potential weekend days, 
compared to the truncated 2014 period. And, as seen with site elimination, the impact was felt 
23 Dukes, T. (2018, November 1).Full methodology: 2018 Early voting analysis. WRAL. Retrieved from 
https://www.wral.com/methodology-2018-early-voting-analysis/17960039/​. Supplementary data available 
at ​https://github.com/mtdukes/evl-analysis/blob/master/postgres-analysis.sql​. 
24 Both Jones and Pamlico counties received federal recovery assistance following Hurricane Florence. 
North Carolina Office of the Governor. (2018, Sept 28). Greene Becomes 28th County Eligible for 
Florence Disaster Assistance. Retrieved from 
https://governor.nc.gov/news/greene-becomes-28th-county-eligible-florence-disaster-assistance 
25 Paterson, B. (2018, September 24). Bipartisan Furor as North Carolina Election Law Shrinks Early 
Voting Locations by Almost 20 Percent. Propublica. Retrieved from 
https://www.propublica.org/article/bipartisan-furor-as-north-carolina-election-law-shrinks-early-voting-locat
ions-by-almost-20-percent​. 
26 Dukes, T. (2018, November 1) Early voting changes hit NC rural voters hardest, analysis shows. But 
will it matter in 2018? WRAL.com. 
https://www.wral.com/early-voting-changes-hit-nc-rural-voters-hardest-but-will-it-matter-in-2018-/1795922
4/ 
8 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 24 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 25 of 30

more deeply in rural counties — 70% of North Carolina’s rural counties offered fewer weekend 
hours in 2018 than in 2014, as did 57% of suburban counties and one sixth of urban counties.  
27
Of the eight rural Eastern counties where a majority of registered voters are Black,  four 
28
of them (Bertie, Northampton, Halifax, and Vance) reduced Early Voting sites, and all eight 
reduced the number of weekend hours during the Early Voting period. Seven of the eight 
reduced weekend days, and the eighth, Halifax, could not have reduced weekend days, since 
Halifax was only open on one weekend day in 2014, the last Saturday. None of the eight saw 
increases in sites or weekend options.  
Without weekend Early Voting options, many voters are far less likely to be able to get to 
the polls. For voters who work multiple jobs, voters who have long commutes during the week, 
or voters who rely on friends or family for transportation, weekend hours may be the only 
chance to vote in person. With S325’s elimination of the last Saturday of Early Voting in all 
future elections, as discussed below, voters can expect weekend options to continue to shrink 
precipitously.  
 
Part Three: Effects Directly From Eliminating the Last Saturday of Early Voting 
 
Elimination of the last Saturday will harm young voters, rural voters, Black and Latinx 
voters 
Starting in 2019, S325 also eliminates the popular final Saturday of Early Voting (the 
Saturday before Election Day) for all future elections.  Prior to S325, the Saturday before 
29
Election Day was the only weekend day of Early Voting that counties were mandated to provide. 
This elimination is likely to result in the majority of North Carolina counties having no 
weekend Early Voting options​, which are crucial for voters who work during the week — 
especially since Election Day is also a work day for most voters. Without the last Saturday 
requirement in 2018, 56 counties — a majority — would have had no weekend option for voters 
to cast their ballots. Some proponents of S325 have argued that being open the last Saturday 
before election day is unnecessarily burdensome for county boards, who then need to pivot 
from Early Voting to Election Day. However, as Derek Bowens, Director of Durham’s County 
Board of Elections, noted in an interview with Democracy North Carolina, “Ultimately, our job is 
to do everything we can to facilitate voting, and [the last Saturday] is something we’ve done 
historically — we’ve made it work, we’ll make it work.”  
The last Saturday of Early Voting is consistently one of the highest traffic days of the 
Early Voting period, despite most counties only being open in the morning, instead of all day 
(see Tables 1-3 below). In 2018, the average rate of voting, over the course of the entire Early 
Voting period was 39.7 votes for every hour of Early Voting offered. The last Saturday netted 
over 135,000 votes, even though most counties were only open for a portion of the day, and 
27 Urban, rural, and suburban classifications from the NC Rural Center, available here 
https://www.ncruralcenter.org/about-us/​.  
28 Hertford, Edgecombe, Bertie, Northampton, Halifax, Vance, Warren, Washington 
29 The Uniform & Expanded Early Voting Act, Session Law 2018-112, Senate Bill 325. Available at 
https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2017/S325​; Restore Last Saturday Early One-Stop, Session Law 
2018-129, House Bill 335. Available at ​https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2017/H335​. 
9 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 25 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 26 of 30

thus garnered significantly higher traffic, at 86.6 votes per hour.  As seen below, ​the last 
30
Saturday got more than double the voters per hour than weekdays in 2018​, a 
pattern which held true for Black voters. ​Black voters also used Sunday options at a 
slightly higher rate than Saturday options​, standing out from the statewide trend. For 
North Carolina’s youngest voters, the importance of the last Saturday was even more 
dramatic - ​more than four times as many young voters cast ballots per hour on the 
last Saturday than on weekdays in 2018​.  
 
Table 1: Votes Per Hour in 2018 by Day, All Voters 
 
Total Votes 
Total Hours of EV 
Votes Per 
Hour 
All of EV (In 
Person) 
1,972,338 
49,683.25 
39.7 
Weekdays 
1,718,575 
46,091.25 
37.3 
Weekends 
253,763 
3,592 
70.6 
Saturdays 
213,711 
3,006 
71.1 
Sundays 
40,052 
586 
68.3 
Last Saturday 
135,982 
1,570 
86.6 
 
Table 2: Votes Per Hour in 2018 by Day, Black Voters 
 
Total Votes 
Total Hours of EV 
Votes Per Hour 
All of EV (In 
Person) 
435,482 
49,683.25 
8.8 
Weekdays 
370,177 
46,091.25 
8.0 
Weekends 
65,305 
3,592 
18.2 
Saturdays 
54,222 
3,006 
18.0 
Sundays 
11,083 
586 
18.9 
Last Saturday 
36,600 
1,570 
23.3 
 
Table 3: Votes Per Hour in 2018 by Day, Youth Voters (18 - 25) 
 
Total Votes 
Total Hours of EV 
Votes Per Hour 
All of EV (In 
Person) 
112,331 
49,683.25 
2.3 
30 Analysis of historical early voting plans by Democracy North Carolina and ACLU-NC. Plans on file with 
Democracy NC. ​Analysis by Democracy North Carolina, based on data available from the State Board of 
Elections as of April 2019. Data retrieved from​ ​https://dl.ncsbe.gov/?prefix=ENRS/ 
10 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 26 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 27 of 30

Weekdays 
89,928 
46,091.25 
2.0 
Weekends 
22,403 
3,592 
6.2 
Saturdays 
18,986 
3,006 
6.3 
Sundays 
3,417 
586 
5.8 
Last Saturday 
13,370 
1,570 
8.5 
 
As with the lost Early Voting sites, rural voters will be significantly impacted by 
the elimination of the last Saturday. ​The top 10 counties with the heaviest usage of the last 
Saturday in 2016 were all rural counties, as were 9 of the top 10 in 2018.  In the 2016 election, 
31
rural Harnett County, home of then-House Elections & Ethics Committee Co-Chair David Lewis, 
used the final Saturday of Early Voting at the highest rate in the state, with a stunning 17.2% of 
early voters in the county choosing to vote on the last Saturday (see Table 4 below).  
 
Table 4: Statewide and Top County Usage of the Last Saturday  
32
 
Top ten counties, ranked by the percentage of the Early 
Votes cast on the Last Saturday 
 
2018 General 
 
2016 General 
 
Statewide 
6.9% 
 
Statewide 
6.5% 
1 
Halifax 
11.9% 
1 
Harnett 
17.2% 
2 
Pasquotank 
11.2% 
2 
Caswell 
15.7% 
3 
Currituck 
11.2% 
3 
Northampton 
13.9% 
4 
Montgomery 
10.8% 
4 
Yadkin 
11.7% 
5 
Harnett 
9.7% 
5 
Onslow 
10.3% 
6 
Yadkin 
9.5% 
6 
Currituck 
9.9% 
7 
Camden 
9.4% 
7 
Camden 
9.8% 
8 
Chowan 
9.1% 
8 
Gates 
9.5% 
9 
Hoke 
9.0% 
9 
Halifax 
9.3% 
10 Orange 
9.0% 10 Hyde 
9.3% 
 
In addition to being popular among all voters and heavily used by rural voters in 
particular, ​the last Saturday of Early Voting has been disproportionately used by Black 
voters statewide​ (as seen in Table 5) in recent elections. In the 2016 General Election, Black 
voters made up 21% of those who voted in North Carolina, but 29% of those who cast ballots on 
31 Orange County is classified as a Suburban County by the NC Rural Center. 
32 ​Analysis by Democracy North Carolina, based on data available from the State Board of Elections as of 
April 2019. Data retrieved from​ ​https://dl.ncsbe.gov/?prefix=ENRS/ 
11 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 27 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 28 of 30

the last Saturday. In the same election, Latinx voters disproportionately used the Last Saturday 
— making up 2% of voters, but 3% of those who cast ballots on the last Saturday.  
33
 
Table 5: Historical Voting Rates and Last Saturday Voting Rates for Black voters  
34
 
% of voters 
in the 
election who 
were Black 
% of Last 
Saturday 
voters who 
were Black 
2018 
20.1% 
26.9% 
2016 
20.7% 
28.9% 
2014 
21.4% 
30.0% 
2012 
23.1% 
32.3% 
2010 
20.0% 
28.5% 
 
Conclusion and Recommendations 
At best, S325 was a misguided attempt by the state to impose a one-size-fits-all 
structure on county Early Voting schedules, which historically varied widely from county to 
county to reflect the needs of North Carolina’s diverse voting populations. At worst, it was yet 
another cynical attempt to reduce voters’ access to Early Voting and Same Day Registration 
(available only during the Early Voting period), ahead of a critical midterm election. Regardless, 
the undisputed impact of the law was to reduce the number of Early Voting sites and weekend 
hours available to North Carolina voters and remove needed flexibility from those who are best 
positioned to understand what is needed for their voters — local Boards of Elections. Further, as 
shown by our analysis, those most impacted by these changes are rural North Carolinians, 
youth voters, and Black and Latinx voters.  
Looking ahead to the 2020 election cycle including a fast-approaching March 3 Primary 
— when three times as many North Carolinians as in 2018 can be expected to cast their ballots 
— the constraints imposed by S325 will make it harder for voters to have their voices heard and 
for election officials to provide the robust Early Voting opportunities expected by North Carolina 
voters. Without a change, this major shift in Early Voting availability in a presidential cycle will 
predictably result in longer lines and more pressure on Election Day, and, in combination with 
the latest strict photo ID law going into effect, is especially likely to impact next year’s turnout. 
Now is the time for the North Carolina General Assembly to take proactive steps to show that it 
cares about the voices of all voters and to heed the bipartisan call of county election 
administrators to undo this misguided law.  
33 ​Since voter registration forms did not include a “Hispanic/Latino” classification until 2002, since many 
voters skip that question on the form, and based on comparisons with Census Bureau data, there are 
likely many more Latinx voters on the rolls than those reflected in State Board of Elections data. Read 
more from Gutiérrez, I. and Hall, B. (​2012,​ July). A Snapshot of Latino Voters in North Carolina. Available 
at  ​https://democracync.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/snapshot-of-latino-voters-in-nc.pdf​. 
34 ​Analysis by Democracy North Carolina, based on data available from the State Board of Elections as of 
April 2019. Data retrieved from​ ​https://dl.ncsbe.gov/?prefix=ENRS/ 
 
12 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 28 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 29 of 30

 
In conclusion, Democracy North Carolina urges lawmakers to: 
 
●
Give county BOEs back the maximum flexibility needed to make the best 
decisions for counties’ resources and voters.​ House Bill 893 is one bill filed in the 
2019-2020 legislative session that would do just that.  H893 would change Early Voting 
35
law to pre-2013 flexibility, restoring the mandatory last Saturday of Early Voting (giving 
all North Carolina voters a weekend voting option), allowing counties the option to 
operate until 5 p.m. on that last Saturday, and providing maximum flexibility to county 
Boards of Elections to design and set Early Voting schedules that could vary across 
satellite sites. Currently, H893 does not have the bipartisan support needed to pass the 
Republican-dominated General Assembly.  
●
Eliminate the 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. weekday requirement, which requires county BOEs to 
operate during “non-usable” hours,​ and in practice limits the capacity of local Boards 
to operate multiple sites and provide weekend hours. H893 provides counties with the 
most ability to determine Early Voting schedules, based on their intimate knowledge of 
the county geography, population, and voters— but even a law that requires uniformity 
of hours for satellite sites, while not mandating an unnecessarily burdensome 12-hour 
weekday schedule would be an improvement to the current law. 
●
Restore the mandatory last Saturday for 2020 and all future elections.​ While the 
best option would be one that frees county BOEs from Raleigh-imposed scheduling 
restrictions, restoration of the mandatory last Saturday for all future elections would at a 
minimum ensure that every county has at least one weekend voting option for working 
voters.  
 
 
 
 
35 Allow Early Voting/Last Saturday/Flexibility, House Bill 893. Available at 
https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2019/Bills/House/PDF/H893v1.pdf​.  
13 
Case 1:20-cv-00457-WO-JLW   Document 73-1   Filed 07/02/20   Page 29 of 29
Case 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW   Document 1-13   Filed 09/26/20   Page 30 of 30

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ncmd.87255.1.13.pdf

Size

713,740 bytes

SHA-256

394d90587593eba0fb7a464baab86e356133f041b2d3007047aa346d71fcfba0

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ncmd.87255.1.13.pdf

Original

archive.org