Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Thomas D. Schroeder, United States District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I.FINDINGS OF FACT... 332 A. North Carolina Voting Laws... 332 1. Voter ID... 332 2. Early Voting... 332 3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting... 334 4. SDR... 336 5. Pre-registration... 336 B. Post-2011 Legislation... 337 1. Introduction of HB 589... 337 2. Revision of HB 589... 339 3. Enactment of HB 836... 344 C. Procedural History... 348 D. Evidence of Voter Experience Under Current Law... 351 1. Voter ID... 351 a. Voter Education about the Voter-ID Requirement Prior to the Reasonable Impediment Exception... 351 b. Voter Education After Enactment of the Reasonable Impediment Exception... 353 c. Voters’ Experience in Acquiring Qualifying ID... 358 d. Evidence of North Carolina Voters Without ID... 364 e. Availability of the Reasonable Impediment Exception,., 369 2. Change in the Early-Voting Schedule ... 382 3. Elimination of SDR... 393 4. Elimination of OOP Provisional Voting... 404 5. Elimination of Pre-Registration... 407 6. Other Challenged Provisions... 409 7. 2014 Data... 411 E. Testimony of Other Experts... 412 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW... 412 A.Section 2 of the VRA... 412 1. The Law of Vote Denial and Abridgement Claims..,. 412 2. The Totality of the Circumstances & Gingles... 422 a. The Success of the Prior Practices in Fostering Minority Political Participation... 422 b. History of Official Discrimination ... 425 c. Racially-Polarized Voting... 429 d. Enhancing the Opportunity for Discrimination ... 429 e. Candidate Slating Process,.. 430 f. Continuing Effects of Discrimination Hindering Participation... 430 g. Racial Appeals in Campaigning... 438 h. Minority Electoral Success... 438 i. Responsiveness of Elected Officials ... 439 j. Tenuousness of the State’s Justifications ... 440 i. Voter ID... 440 ii. Early Voting... 445 iii. SDR... 445 iv. OOP Voting... 447 v. Pre-Registration... 463 3. Equality of Opportunity and Social and Historical Conditions... 465 a. Voter ID... 466 b. Early Voting... 472 c. SDR... 473 d. OOP Voting... 479 e. Pre-registration... 483 f. Cumulative Effect... 484 4. Discriminatory Result: Conclusion ... 486 5. Discriminatory Intent... 488 6. Additional Problems with the § 2 Results Claim ... 503 B. “Traditional” Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment Claims... 509 C. Anderson-Burdick Claim... 509 1. Voter ID... 511 2. Early Voting... 513 3. SDR... 514 4. OOP... 516 5. Pre-registration... 518 6. CBOE Discretion... 520 7. Poll Observers and Challengers... 520 8. Cumulative Effect of Provisions... 521 D. Twenty-Sixth Amendment Claim... 521 E. Remedy... 525 III. CONCLUSION... 526 In these related cases, Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing various provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2013-381 (“SL 2013-381”), an omnibus election-reform law, as amended by Session Law 2015-103 (“SL 2015-103”). Plaintiffs are the United States of America (the ■ “United States”) in case 1:13CV861, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and several organizations and individual plaintiffs (the “NAACP Plaintiffs”) in case L13CV658, and the League of Women Voters of North Carolina along with several organizations and individuals (the “League Plaintiffs”) in case 1:13CV660. Additionally, the court allowed a group of “young voters” and others (the “Intervenor Plaintiffs”) to intervene in case 1:13CV660. (Doc. 62 in ease 1:13CV660.) Considered together, Plaintiffs raise claims under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VEA”), 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (formerly 42 U.S.C, § 1973). (Doc. 365 in case L13CV861; Doc. 384 in case L13CV658; Docs. 1 & 63 in case L13CV660.) The United States also moves for the appointment of federal observers to monitor future elections in North Carolina pursuant to § 3(a), of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10302(a) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(a)). (Doc. 365 at 33.) Defendants are the State of North Carolina, Governor Patrick L. McCrory, the State Board of Elections (“SBOE”), and several State officials acting in their official capacities. The record is extensive. The court held a four-day evidentiary hearing and argument beginning July 7, 2014, on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, which evidence is now part of the trial record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). Fifteen days of trial on the merits- were conducted from July 13 through 31, 2015. An additional six days of trial on the voter photo identification (“ID”) provisions of the law were conducted from January 25 through February 1, 2016, The court has considered testimony of twenty-one expert witnesses and 112 fact witnesses. The record consists of more than 11,000 pages from the preliminary injunction phase, in excess of 12,000 pages from the July trial, and over 2,500 additional pages from the January trial. As can be seen from the length .of :this memo-: randum opinion, merely trying to concisely state the court’s findings has presented a monumental challenge. This case presents important questions as it tests North Carolina’s newly-enacted voter photo-ID requirement and the State’s modification or elimination of certain voting procedures not contemplated by the State a little more than a decade ago; seventeen days of in-person early voting before Election Day, same-day registration, voting provisionally on Election Day in an unassigned precinct, and preregistering to vote as early as age sixteen. Under both the Elections Clause of, and the Tenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, such decisions are traditionally reserved to the States, but they are subject to other constitutional and congressional limitations. The principal question in these cases is whether the North Carolina General Assembly imposed a voter-ID requirement and altered these relatively recently-developed voting procedures—deemed “conveniences” and “fail-safes” by some of Plaintiffs’ own experts— based on race or, even if not, in a manner that presents an unlawful discriminatory burden on voters. After careful consideration of the complete record and pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court enters the following findings of fact—based upon an evaluation of the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, and the inferences that the court has found reasonable to be drawn therefrom—and conclusions of law. To the extent any factual statement is contained in the conclusions of law, it is deemed a finding of fact as well. I. FINDINGS OF FACT A. North Carolina Voting Laws The provisions of North Carolina SL 2013-381 at issue establish a voter-ID requirement and repeal certain voting and registration mechanisms enacted since 1999. An understanding of the purposes and effect of the current regime requires an understanding of the previous laws, including their origin and history. See League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 242 (4th Cir.2014) (“League”) (noting that “North Carolina’s previous voting practices are centrally relevant”). Each modified or removed voting and registration mechanism was enacted while Democrats controlled both houses of North Carolina’s General Assembly and its governorship, which they held until 2011. Because North Carolina was a covered jurisdiction under § 5 of the VRA, each change required approval by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). 1. Voter ID Prior to 2016, North Carolina relied on a system of signature attestation to prevent voter fraud. Under this system, poll workers—as the primary gatekeepers to voter fraud—would ask the name and address of voters presenting to vote in person. (Doc. 407 at 43.) If the poll worker was able to locate a registration for the name and address provided, the voter was required to sign an authorization to vote (“ATV”) form attesting that he was the person under whose registration he sought to vote and that he currently resided at the address of registration. (Doc. 410 at 83; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit (“PI. Ex.”) 1056.) The ATV form warned voters that “fraudulently or falsely completing this form is a Class I Felony.” (PI. Ex. 1056.) Although the SBOE maintained voters’ signatures as a result of registration forms, (PI. Ex. 212A), poll workers did not have access to the signatures, either during early voting or on Election Day, (Doc. 414 at 123). Accordingly, signatures were not verified at the polling place and, unless the poll worker knew the voter, the poll worker had very limited means of determining whether the voter was the same person as the registrant. (See id.) 2. Early Voting Prior to 1973, North Carolina required all voters to cast their ballot on Election Day or to apply for an absentee ballot. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-227 (1972). In 1973, the General Assembly passed legislation that permitted voters to participate in “one-stop” “early voting” for a period of sixty days before Election Day, but only if they provided a statutorily-acceptable excuse (e.g., absence from the county, sickness, or disability) and obtained their ballot from the county board of election (“CBOE”). 1973 N.C. Sess. Law 536, § 1. In 1979, the General Assembly reduced the one-stop early-voting period from sixty days to thirty days. 1979 N.C.' Sess. Law 799, § 1. But see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-227.3 (providing that, unless otherwise authorized, a CBOE shall provide absentee ballots for voting by mail “60 days prior to the statewide general election in even-numbered years”). Then, as now, a voter had to be registered at least twenty-five days before the election for which the absentee ballot was being offered. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.6(c); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-67 (1979) (making the registration cut-off twenty-one days before Election Day, excluding Saturdays and Sundays). This law provided that a ballot executed at a CBOE be completed in a voting booth or private room. 1979 N.C. Sess. Law 799, § 2. In 1999 (effective January 1, 2000), on a vote almost entirely along party lines, the General Assembly removed the excuse requirement for “one-stop” voting in North Carolina’s even-year general elections, thus establishing “no-excuse” early voting. 1999 N.C. Sess. Law 455, §§ 1, 6; (PI. Ex. 46 at 25 (chronicling partisan voting)). It also permitted a CBOE, upon unanimous CBOE vote and the approval of the SBOE, to open additional early-voting sites beyond the one site at the CBOE. 1999 N.C. Sess. Law 455, § 6. Thus, a registered voter could present herself at the CBOE or another designated site in her county of residence “[n]ot earlier than the first business day after the twenty-fifth day before an election ... and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the Friday prior to that election” to cast her ballot. Id. Because the law permitted only weekday operations, see id. (amending N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-227.2(f)), this offered registered voters fifteen days of early voting, id. In 2000, the General Assembly enacted SL 2000-136, which allowed CBOEs to petition the SBOE for approval when they are unable to reach unanimous agreement as to the location of additional early-voting sites. 2000 N.C. Sess. Law 136, § 2. The law empowered the SBOE, on a simple majority vote, to approve additional sites based on the consideration of the “partisan interests of that county,” among other factors. Id. (not requiring SBOE unanimity). Because the governor controls appointments to the SBOE, which in turn appoints the members of the CBOEs, both boards are effectively controlled by the same political party as the governor. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-19 (giving the governor power to appoint SBOE members but requiring that “[n]ot more than three members of the [five-member] Board shall be members of the same political party”); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-30 (providing appointment power of CBOE members to the SBOE and requiring that “[n]ot more than two members of the [three-member CBOE] shall belong to- the same political party”). Thus, this change injected partisan considerations into the location of additional early-voting sites. In 2001, the General Assembly expanded no-excuse early voting to all elections and absentee ballots. 2001 N.C. Sess. Law 337, § 1. With votes split largely along party lines in the North Carolina House of Representatives, but with bi-partisan support in the Senate, the General Assembly also amended the early-voting period so that voters could appear at the CBOE office to vote “[n]ot earlier than the third Thursday before an election ... and not later than 1:00 P.M. on the last Saturday before that election.” 2001 N.C. Sess. Law 319, § 5(a). Under this revision, CBOEs were granted discretion to extend the closing time on that final Saturday to 5:00 p.m. and, upon unanimous agreement (or in its absence, upon approval of the SBOE), to maintain early-voting hours during the evening or on weekends throughout the early-voting period. Id. § 5(b). In sum, these 2001 changes, effective January 1, 2002, moved the start of early voting three days closer to Election Day, reduced the number of required days of early voting to twelve and one-half days, but permitted an expansion up to seventeen days upon unanimous CBOE agreement. No one criticized or challenged the reduced minimum or other changes. 3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting The next voting change, chronologically, was the advent of out-of-precinct (“OOP”) provisional voting, whose origins in North Carolina can be traced to Congress’ passage in 2002 of the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20901-21145 (formerly 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-15545), which in turn was passed in the wake of evidence of irregularities in the 2000 presidential election. HAVA, in part, required States to offer provisional ballots to individuals on Election Day who seek to vote and claim to be registered and eligible to vote for federal office, but who do “not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote.” See 52 U.S.C. § 21082(a). However, HAVA only requires such provisional ballots to be counted “in accordance with State law.” Id. § 21082(a)(4). Thus, a provisional ballot must be counted only if State law authorizes it. In 2003, a bill was introduced in the General Assembly titled, “Help America Vote Act Compliance.” H.B. 842, 2003 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2003). Its stated purpose was “to ensure that the State of North Carolina has a system for all North Carolina elections that complies with the requirements for federal elections set forth in” HAVA. See 2003 N.C. Sess. Law 226, § 1. It was approved unanimously. As to provisional ballots specifically, the law provided that the CBOE shall count a provisional ballot “for all ballot items on which it determines that the individual was eligible under State or federal law to vote.” Id. § 15(5). • Soon after, the SBOE claimed authority to count provisional ballots cast outside the voter’s correct precinct, and several affected Republican candidates raised a legal challenge. See In re Election Protest of Fletcher, 175 N.C.App. 755, 756, 625 S.E.2d 564, 565 (2006) (noting the challenger’s party affiliation). The North Carolina Supreme Court unanimously' held that the counting of such ballots violated State law and SBOE regulations, which required voters to cast ballots in their assigned precinct. James v. Bartlett, 359 N.C. 260, 267-70, 607 S.E.2d 638, 642-44 (2005) (“The plain meaning of [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-55 (2003)] is that voters must cast ballots on election day in their precincts of residence.”). In reaching its decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized several “advantages” of the precinct system and in-precinct voting, which it observed were “woven throughout the fabric of [the State’s] election laws,” id. at 267, 607 S.E.2d at 642 (citing statutes), including that it caps the number of voters attempting to vote in the same place on election day; it allows each precinct ballot to list all of the votes a citizen may cast for all pertinent federal, state, and local elections, referenda, initiatives, and levies; it allows each precinct ballot to list only those votes.a citizen may cast, making ballots less confusing; it makes it easier for election officials to monitor votes and prevent election fraud; arid it generally puts polling places in closer proximity to voter residences. Id. at 271, 607 S.E.2d at 644-45 (quoting Sandusky Cty, Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565, 569 (6th Cir.2004) (per curiam)). The court also noted: If voters could simply appear at any precinct to cast their ballot, there would be no way under the present system to conduct elections without overwhelming delays, mass confusion, and the potential for fraud that robs the validity and integrity of our elections process. Id.-.at 270, 607 S.E.2d at 644. The North Carolina Supreme Court found that “it is but a perfunctory requirement that voters identify their proper precinct and appear within that precinct on election day to cast their ballots.” Id. at 271, 607 S.E.2d at 645. In response to James, the General Assembly—on a purely partisan division— immediately passed SL 2005-2, amending N.C. Gen. Stat. § • 163-55 to remove the requirement that voters appear in the proper precinct on Election Day in order to vote. 2005 N.C. Sess. Law 2, § 2. The General Assembly went further, however, to require that the law apply retroactively to the 2004 election, thus ensuring electoral victory for the Democratic candidates in the elections challenged in' James. Id. §§ 1-14. And as “extra insurance” against judicial intervention, the Democratic majority put in place a procedure mandating that the legislature—and not' the courts— would decide contested elections for Statewide offices. (PL Ex. 46 at 30.) The General Assembly also placed in the law a finding that it had “take[n] note” that African Americans disproportionately used OOP voting on Election Day in November 2004. 2005 N.C. Sess. Law. 2, § 1. 4. SDR The National Voter Registration Act '(“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(1) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(l)), permits a State to set a registration cut-off of thirty days before an election. North Carolina extends that deadline by five days such that a person is required to have registered to vote at least twenty-five days before an election in order to cast a ballot. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.6(c). In July 2007, the General Assembly— split almost-entirely along party lines— passed legislation permitting voters to register and vote at early-voting sites, which Governor Michael Easley signed into law. The law provided that “an individual who is qualified to register to vote may register in person and then vote at [an early-voting] site in the person’s county of residence during the period for [early] voting provided under [§ ] 163-227.2.” 2007 N.C. Sess. Law 253, § 1. The law required a prospective voter to complete a voter registration form and produce documentary proof of her current name and address, either through a North Carolina driver’s license, a photo ID from a government agency, or a HAVA document. Id. If she elected to vote immediately, the voter could “vote a retrievable absentee ballot as provided in [§ ] 163-227.2 immediately after registering.” Id. Within two business days, the CBOE was required, in conjunction with the SBOE, to verify the voter’s driver’s license or social security number (“SSN”), update the voting database, proceed to verify the voter’s proper address, and count the vote unless the CBOE determined that the applicant was not qualified to vote in accordance with the provisions of that chapter. Id. As will be seen, this meant that, as a practical matter votes were counted even though the voter registered and voted at the CBOE too close to Election Day to permit the CBOE to comply with North Carolina’s preexisting mail verification system for voter registration. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.7. 5. Pre-registration Ever since the ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971, a person who would be eighteen years-old on the next Election Day could register to vote in North Carolina, which included the primary for that election even if he would not be eighteen on the date of the primary. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-55(a)(l), 163-59. In 1993, a bill to permit sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds to “preregister” was introduced but failed to gain passage. (PI. Ex. 46 at 23.) In 2009, a bipartisan General Assembly passed SL 2009-541, which allowed for “pre-registration” of sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds who would not be eighteen before the next general election. 2009 N.C. Sess. Law 541, § 7(a). With pre-reg-istration, “[a] person who is at least 16 years of age but will not be 18 years of age by the date of the next election and who is otherwise qualified to register may preregister to vote and shall be automatically registered upon reaching the age of eligibility, following verification of the person’s qualifications and address in accordance with [§ ] 163-82.7.” Id. Session Law 2009-541 also mandated that CBOEs conduct pre-registration drives. Id. § 16(a). B. Post-2011 Legislation In 2011, Republicans gained majorities in both houses of the General Assembly, yet the Democrats continued to control the governorship. With that shift, however, efforts to alter several of the recently-enacted election laws began. Those included bills to reduce early voting and end SDR and pre-registration. See e.g., H.B. 658, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011) (reducing early voting by a week); S.B. 714, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011) (requiring all satellite early-voting sites to remain open at least the same number of days per week and the same number of hours per day as the CBOE site); S.B. 657, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.G. 2011) (eliminating a week of early voting and any Sunday voting); S.B. 47, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011) (eliminating a week of early voting, SDR, and straight-ticket voting); S.B. 657, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011) (eliminating a week of early voting, Sunday voting, SDR, and pre-registration). Most prominent among those proposals was H.B. 351, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2011), entitled “Restore Confidence in Government,” which introduced a photo-ID requirement. HB 351 was debated in and passed North Carolina’s House and Senate, but was vetoed by Governor Beverly Perdue. (PI. Ex. 46 at 35.) According to a Plaintiffs’ expert in this case, “All of the votes were almost pure partisan splits.” (Id.) In 2012, Republicans gained control of the governorship and, in 2013, control of both houses. After more than a century since controlling all offices, they renewed attempts to change North Carolina’s election administration. In 2013, several bills were introduced to reduce the early-voting period, eliminate SDR, and alter other procedures. See, e.g., H.B. 913, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating SDR and enhancing observer rights); S.B. 428, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating a week of early voting and SDR); S.B. 666, 2013 Gen. As-semb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating a week of early voting, weekend voting hours, and SDR); S.B. 721, 2013 Gen. As-semb., Reg. Sess. (N.C, 2013) (implementing voter ID and reducing early voting to six days); H.B. 451, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (eliminating a week of early voting, Sunday voting, SDR, and straight-ticket voting). 1. Introduction of HB 589 On March 12, 2013, the legislative process for SL 2013-381 began, with the North Carolina House Committee on Elections, chaired by Republican Representative David R. Lewis, holding public hearings on voter ID. (See PI. Ex. 127.) Over seventy-five citizens from a wide variety of organizations spoke before the committee. (Id. at 2-5.) The next day, the committee met and considered the testimony of five individuals representing a wide variety of organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice and the Heritage Foundation. (See PI. Ex. 128.) One of the speakers was Allison Riggs, counsel of record for the League Plaintiffs in case 1:13CV660, who appeared on behalf of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. (Id. at 4.) On April 3, the committee heard from Ion Sancho, the Supervisor of Elections for Leon County, Florida, who testified about Florida’s experience when it reduced early-voting days in advance of the 2012 general election. (PI. Ex. 129 at 61-62, 69-70, 78-79.) Those public hearings were not required by the North Carolina House’s internal rules. (Defendants’ Exhibit (Def. Ex.) 217 at 3); see H.R. 64, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013), http:// www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/ PDF/H54v3.pdf (last visited April 6, 2016) (hereinafter “H.R. 54”). On April 4, HB 589 was introduced in the House. (PL Ex. 106.) The bill dealt mostly with the implementation of a voter-ID requirement beginning in 2016 in portions titled the “Voter Information Verification Act.” (Id. at 1-6, 11-12.) The remainder of the bill dealt with the procedure for obtaining and voting mail-in absentee ballots. (Id. at 6-11.) Under House rules, legislation must pass three readings. On April 8, the bill passed “first reading” and was referred to the House Committee on Elections. (PI. Ex. 121.) The committee subsequently held another public hearing on April 10, during which over seventy-five citizens from across the political spectrum had the opportunity to speak. (PI. Ex. 130.) That same day, the committee held another hearing during which the bill was discussed and additional public comments were received. (PI. Ex. 545.) The committee further debated the bill and added amendments at a meeting held on April 17. (PI. Ex. 546.) The bill was referred to the House Committees on Finance. (PI. Ex. 121.) HB 589 advanced, as amended, from the various House committees and was debated on the House floor on April 24. (Id.; PI. Exs. 547, 548.) Three amendments were adopted, six others were rejected, and the bill passed “second reading” on a roll-call vote of 80-36. (PI. Ex. 121; PI. Ex. 548 at 177.) The bill subsequently passed “third reading,” on a vote of 81-36, and was passed by the House. (PI. Ex. 548 at 178.) Five House Democrats joined all present Republicans in voting for the voter-ID bill, (PI. Ex. 122 (noting roll call vote on April 24 third reading); PI. Ex. 138 at 67-68, 77, 88), but none of the African American members of the House supported it, (PL Exs. 122, 154). Representative Rick Glazier, who strongly opposed the bill, nevertheless acknowledged that “[fjor a large bill,” HB 589 received up to this point “the best process possible” in the House, one he characterized as “excellent.” (Doc. 165 at 56-57; see also PL Ex. 25 at 6.) HB 589 was received in the North Carolina Senate the next day, passed first reading, and was assigned to the Senate Rules Committee. (Pl. Ex. 121.) The committee took no immediate action on the bill. The parties do not dispute that the Senate believed at this stage that HB 589 would have to be submitted to the DOJ for “pre-clearance” under § 5 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973c), because many North Carolina counties were “covered jurisdictions” under that section. At that time, however, the United States Supreme Court was considering a challenge to the DOJ’s ability to enforce § 5. So, the bill sat. On June 25, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder,- — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2612, 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013), declaring the formula used to determine the § 5 covered jurisdictions, 52 U.S.C. • § 10303(b) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b)), to be unconstitutional. The next day, Senator Thomas Apodaca, Republican Chairman of the Rules Committee, publicly stated, “I think we’ll have an omnibus bill coming out” and words to, the effect that the Senate would move ahead with the “full bill.” (PI. Exs. 81, 714.) The contents of the “omnibus bill” were not disclosed at the time. HB 589 remained in the Senate Rules Committee without legislative action until late July 2013. (PI. Ex. 121.) 2. Revision of HB 589 A meeting of the Rules Committed' was scheduled for July 23. (See PI. Exs. 121, 135, 202.) The night before the Rules Committee meeting, the revised version of HB 589, now fifty-seven pages in length, was posted for the members on the Rules Committee website. (PI. Ex. 18A at 7-8 (declaration of Sen. Josh Stein); PI. Ex. 107; Doc. 164 at 111-12 (testimony of Sen. Dan Blue); Doc. 335 at 169-72.) The revised bill contained ■& number of changes and now focused more broadly on election law reform. (See PI. Ex. 107.) Plaintiffs have characterized the bill as a “monster voter suppression law,” focusing on. the fact that it emerged at- fifty-seven pages* However, in truth, most of HB 589’s changes—some forty-two of the fifty-seven pages (74%)— have gone unchallenged in this case. The changes were also highlighted for the convenience of the reader. HB 589’s various unchallenged revisions, which claimed to “reform” North Carolina’s election law, included: (1) standardizing the process for requesting an absentee ballot through an absentee ballot request form created by the SBOE (Part 4); (2) expanding the public agencies offering voter registration to include senior centers and parks and recreation services (Part 5); (3) making it illegal to compensate persons collecting voter registrations based on the number of forms they submitted (Part' 14); (4) requiring biannual efforts by the SBOE to remove ineligible voters from North Carolina’s voter rolls (Part 18); (5) reducing the number of signatures required to become a candidate in a party primary (Part 22); (6) deleting obsolete provisions about the 2000 census (Part 27); (7) mandating that several matters be referred for further study, including requiring the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee to examine whether to maintain the State’s current runoff, system in party primaries (Part 28); (8) eliminating the option of straight-ticket voting (voting for an entire party rather than individual candidates) (Part 32); (9) moving the date of the North Carolina presidential primary earlier in the year (Part 35); (10) eliminating taxpayer funding for appellate judicial elections (Part 38); (11) allowing funeral homes to participate in canceling voter registrations of deceased persons (Part 39); and (12) requiring provisional ballots to be marked as such for later identification (Part 52). (PI. Ex. 107.) The bill also changed the ordering of North Carolina’s ballots. Prior to 2013, while the candidates’ names were listed in random order in primaries, Democratic candidates were always listed first in the general election ballots. (Doc. 341 at 165.) HB 589 altered the listing for general elections. (PI. Ex. 107 at 43.) The provisions challenged in the present lawsuit comprise approximately fifteen of HB 589’s fifty-seven pages. (See id.) Of those, roughly nine pages contain the voter-ID requirement. Many of the voter-ID provisions did not differ from those in the old, already debated version of the bill: The new changes principally included the removal of certain government, state university, and community college IDs from the acceptable list. (Compare PI. Ex. 105 at 2-3 (original bill filed in the House on April 4, 2013), with PL Ex. 107 at 2 (version approved by the Senate Rules Committee on July 23, 2013.) The bill proposed that the voter-ID requirement go into effect in 2016 but be implemented through a “soft roll out,” whereby voters at the polls in 2014 and 2015 would be advised of the law’s requirement that they will need a qualifying photo ID to vote beginning in 2016 and to permit them time to obtain a free ID from the State. (PI. Ex. 107 at 14.) So, of the fifty-seven-page bill, nine pages related to the voter-ID requirement, much of which was in the original version of the bill, and approximately six pages contained the other challenged provisions in this case. Those are: (1) the reduction of the period of early voting from seventeen to ten days; (2) the elimination of SDR; (3) the prohibition on the counting of ballots cast outside a voter’s correct voting precinct on Election Day (“OOP voting”); (4) the allowance for up to ten at-large poll observers within each county; (5) the ability of any registered voter in the county, as opposed to precinct, to challenge a ballot; (6) the elimination of the discretion of CBOEs to keep the polls open an additional hour on Election Day in “extraordinary circumstances”; and (7) the elimination of “pre-registration” of sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds who will not be eighteen by the next general election. Several legislators reported they had been caught off guard by these changes. (See, e.g., PI. Ex. 18A at 8 (Sen. Stein); PI. Ex. 21 at 7 (Sen. Blue).) In truth, many of these additions to HB 589 were drawn from or patterned after similar bills then pending in the General Assembly. See H.B. 913, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (SDR); S.B. 666, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (early voting and SDR); S.B. 721, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (early voting); H.B. 451, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2013) (early voting and SDR). Moreover, and as discussed below, any assertions of surprise are weakened by the fact that Senator Stein appeared the next day with charts and statistics on early voting and SDR that likely could not have been tabulated overnight. (See PI. Ex. 18A at 18 & Ex. A.) When the Senate Rules Committee met as scheduled on July 23, Senator Apodaca allowed members of the public in attendance to speak for two minutes. (PI. Ex. 202 at 41-56.) Speakers included- the League Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Riggs, as well as Jamie Phillips, who represented the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. (Id. at 41-43, 53-54.) The majority of comments addressed the voter-ID requirement, although citizens also spoke in opposition to the other challenged provisions, including the changes to SDR, pre-registration, and early voting. Several opponents characterized the bill as an effort at voter suppression. (See, e.g., id. at 41 (Riggs: “voter suppression at its very worst”); id. at 53 (Phillips: “The fewer young people and minorities who vote, the better it seems in your minds. We get it. No one is being fooled.”).) Proponents denied the charges. (See id. at 67-69, 74-75.) The Senate Rules Committee debated the recent additions to HB 589. Senator Stein argued that a voter-ID requirement, the reduction in early voting, and the removal of SDR were unneeded changes that would burden voters. (Id. at 32, 37-40.) Senator Robert Rucho, a Republican supporter of HB 589, responded. As to early voting, Senator Rucho cited concerns about inconsistency in the administration of early voting, lack of optimal utilization of early voting during the seventeen-day period, and the then-exiting early-voting system’s potential for “gamesmanship and partisan advantage.” (Id. at 30-32, 74-75.) He also noted the potential for “savings in the sense that by going from seventeen to ten days you actually have more opportunity to open up more sites.” (Id. at 30.) Senator Rucho further cited “integrity and honesty” in North Carolina’s election administration as well as increased public confidence as reasons for the voter-ID provisions. (Id. at 37, 68.) He noted that other States have an ID-requirement but also expressed a belief that most people had one of the required forms of ID or, in combination with the two-year soft roll out, had ample opportunity to obtain a free photo ID, as provided through the bill. (Id. at 36, 39, 67-68.) Senator Rucho also observed that the bill eliminated college IDs from the list of acceptable IDs because of the inconsistency in the issuance of those IDs across the State. (Id. at 68-69.) The elimination of OOP voting was described—apparently by a legislative staffer introducing the bill—as “mov[ing] the law back to the way it was prior to 2005; conforming] to federal law”; no Senator spoke in opposition to its elimination. (Id. at 12.) Senator Rucho defended thé removal of SDR as a way to verify voter registrations by “giv[ing] the Board of Elections an opportunity to do their job correctly, [to] validate those individuals.” (Id. at 41.) Finally, as to pre-registration, Senator Rucho stated that its elimination was'meant to “offer some clarity and some certainty 'as to when ... that young person is eligible to vote and registers to vote,” citing his son’s own confusion about when pre-registration authorized him to vote. (Id. at 22.) After debate, the bill passed the committee and proceeded to the floor for second reading. (Id. at 76.) The following afternoon, on July 24, HB 589 was introduced on the floor of the full Senate. (PI. Ex. 549 at 1-2.) During several hours of debate after the bill’s second reading,. Democratic senators introduced and discussed several proposed amendments. Plaintiffs argue that amendments “designed to ameliorate burdens on African Americans [proposed during the debate] were defeated with little discussion.” (Doc. 346 at 52.) This is simply untrue. First, many such “amendments” were no more than proposals to remove the key provisions at issue. (See PI. Ex. 549 at. 32-33.) Moreover, the Senate did consider and adopt an early-voting aggregate-hours amendment by Senator Stein, which was substantive and significant. This came after Senator Stein argued that the reduction in early voting would disproportionately impact African Americans, and he introduced an amendment to require CBOEs to offer the same number of aggregate hours of early voting as were offered in the last comparable election (whether presidential or off-year). (Id. at 16-18, 43-44; see also PI. Ex. 115 (text of the amendment).) This could be accomplished, he proposed, by CBOEs offering more hours at present sites, or by opening more sites. (PI. Ex. 549 at 46.) Senator Stein argued that the amendment would “mitigate” the impact the reduction of early-voting days would have on all voters, including African Americans. (Id. at 28-29.) Responding, Senator Rucho urged the Senate to support Senator Stein’s amendment, (id. at 44), and it passed by a vote of forty-seven to one, (id. at 49). In all, ten amendments were raised; two were withdrawn, and three were adopted. (E.g., id. at 49-51; 64-65; PI. Ex. 121.) During the more than four hours of debate, the Senators exchanged argument on many of the other challenged provisions, including voter ID, SDR, pre-regis-tration, and the increase in allowable poll observers, as well as several provisions not at issue here (including the elimination of straight-ticket voting and reduction of various campaign-finance restrictions). (See PI. Ex. 549 at 66-141.) Senator Stein' presented charts to support his arguments about HB 589’s disparate impact with respect to early voting and SDR, (see PL Ex. 18A at 18 & Ex. A.), although it is not clear how many senators reviewed them, (Doc. 335 at 195-97). During this hearing, supporters of the bill offered the following reasons in support of its enactment: reestablishing confidence in the electoral process through voter ID, with noted skepticism about the number of voters lacking acceptable identification or the ability to obtain one in North Carolina, (PI. Ex. 549 at 2-3, 86-88, 90); the public support for voter ID, (id. at 3); concern over voter fraud, (id. at 78, 95); inconsistency in college IDs (which were previously permitted in the House version of the bill), (id. at 91-92); providing CBOEs with flexibility to expand early-voting hours and sites to ensure voter access, (id. at 4-5, 11); allowing for the verification of voters’ information, (id. at 5, 78); eliminating confusion stemming from pre-registration, (id. at 6-7); and a desire to align the State with the practices of othér States as to SDR, pre-régistration, and voter ID, (id. at 37, 76-77). At the end of the debate, Senator Martin Nesbitt (Democrat), although opposing the bill strongly and urging its defeat, described the debate as “heated,” “healthy,” and “good.” (Id. at 136.) He characterized two of the “unintended consequences” of the bill to have been “fixed” through the amendment process. (Id. at 137.) After the bill passed the second reading, Senator Apodaca objected to a third reading that day, which extended its consideration by mandating that the debate of the bül be carried over into the next day. (Id. at 142.) On July 25, the Senate began its session with the third reading of amended HB 589, (PI. Ex. 550 at 1-2.) Senator Rucho offered a bipartisan amendment to clarify Senator Stein’s aggregate-hours amendment to permit a county to obtain a waiver from the aggregate-hours requirement upon unanimous approval of both the CBOE and the SBOE; it passed forty-six to zero. (Id. at 7, 16; see also Pl. Ex. 119 (text of amendment).) Proponents and opponents of the bill debated both its provisions and the merits of various amendments over the next four-plus hours, and the Senate accepted an amendment dealing with electioneering from Senator Dan Blue (Democrat). (Pl. Ex. 550 at 82-83.) Points made in favor of the bill at this time included the increased integrity of elections furthered by requiring voter ID, (id. at 44, 99); public support for a voter ID requirement, (id. at 44, 52, 98, 100); concerns of voter fraud, (id. at 76); increased time for verification of voter registrations (SDR), (id. at 45-46); bolstering public confidence in the election process, (id. at 53); increased early-voting hours for voters who worked full-time jobs, (id. at 55-56); and statewide uniformity in early voting, (id. at 56-57). Several Democratic senators characterized the bill as voter suppression of minorities.. (E.g„ id. at 26-35 (Sen. Stein), 57-67 (Sen. Blue), 68-74 (Sen. Gladys Robinson).) Others characterized the bill as partisan. (Id. at 42 (“I can’t help but wonder if the goal is simply to maintain political power.”); id. at 66 (contending that the intent of the law is incumbency protection).) ' Proponents strongly denied such claims and claimed the bill reversed past practices Democrats passed to favor themselves. See, e.g., id. at 50-53 (Sen. Thom Goolsby (Republican) alleging Democrat-partisan influence in past election administration); id. at 74 (Sen. Andrew Brock (Republican) expressing desire to correct Democrat-influence in the placement of early-voting sites).) By the close of debate, a total of fourteen amendments had been raised in the Senate, with five being adopted, and the Senate voted in favor of HB 589 along party lines; the bill then returned to the House for concurrence, as amended. (Id. at 100; Pl. Ex. 121; Pl. Ex. 124.) Senator Nesbitt (Democrat), although a vocal opponent of the bill, noted that “we’ve had a good and thorough debate on this bill over two’ days” and “reviewed the bill in great detail.” (Pl. Ex. 550 at 90-91.) With the end of the legislative session approaching, the House received the Senate’s version of HB, 589 that night. (Pl. Ex. 121.) At the beginning of a two-hour floor session starting at 7:45 p.m., Representative Henry M. Michaux, Jr. (African American, Democrat) moved that the House form a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill. (Pl. Ex. 138 at 1-3.) Representative Michaux testified at trial that forming a Committee of the Whole was not customary, and he could not recall the House ever before having done so. (Doc. 336 at 38.) Representative Tim Moore (Republican) . opposed the motion on the grounds that “it is simply a waste of time” because such a committee “is the same as the full House,” which the bill was properly before at the moment. (Pl. Ex. 138 at 5 (“I can’t think of the last time the House has met as the Committee of the Whole.”).) The motion appears to have been a tactic to slow or stop the bill, and it failed by a vote of forty-one to sixty-nine. (Id. at 6-7.) Two amendments offered by opponents (Sen. Blue’s amendment of the date for electioneering; amendments by Senators Rucho and Stein altering several items, including “expand[ing] and “better de-fin[ing]” the type and number of IDs that can be presented for voting, and requiring the same number of hours of early voting) were adopted 109 to 0. (Id. at 7-11.) The provisions of the new full bill were then reviewed. (Id. at 12-27.) Each member of the House Democratic caucus present— including four of the five members who voted for the House version in April—were granted time to speak in opposition to the bill. (Id. at 67-69, 76-79, 88-89; Doc. 165 at 64-65 (testimony of Rep. .Glazier).) Some opponents characterized the measure as voter suppression, partisan, and disproportionately affecting African Americans, young voters, and the elderly. (E.g., PI. Ex. 138 at 57 (“[0]ur anger tonight is palpable. Passage of this bill is a political call to arms.”); id. at 59 (“This is the most pointedly, obviously politically partisan bill I’ve ever seen.”); id. at 64 (“voter suppression”). On the Republican side, Representative Lewis, a House supporter of the bill, spoke in support of the amended bill. (Id. at 116-20.) He pointed out, among other things, that the bill does not bar Sunday voting, maintains'the same overall hours of early voting, provides for free photo ID, and, in his opinion, strengthens the requirements for absentee voting. (Id.) Subsequently, the House voted—again along party lines—to concur in the Senate’s version óf HB 589 at 10:39 p.m. (Id. at 120; PI. Ex. 122 (noting July 25 roll call vote in House).) In total, there are over 430 pages of transcript representing several hours of debate on HB 589 after its amended version was introduced in July 2013. There is no evidence that any House or Senate Rule was disregarded or violated at any time during the bill’s legislative process. (Def. Ex. 217 at 3; Doc. 335 at 193.) The bill was ratified the next day and presented to Governor McCrory on July 29. (PI. Ex. 121.) The governor signed the bill into law on August 12, 2013, over the recommendation of the Attorney General (an elected Democrat), who nevertheless appears in this lawsuit to defend it. (Id.) 3. Enactment of HB 836 On June 18, 2015, less than a month before trial was set to begin in these cases, the General Assembly passed House Bill 836, and the governor signed it into law as SL 2015-103 on June 22, 2015. The law modified the photo-ID scheme created by SL 2013-381 in three primary ways. First, it expands the category of acceptable photo IDs by permitting driver’s licenses, permits, provisional licenses, and non-operator IDs that have been expired for up to four years. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163—166.13(e)(1)—(2). Moreover, any voter seventy years of age or older is permitted to vote using any of the acceptable identifications that expired at any point after the voter’s seventieth birthday. Id. § 163—166.13(f). Second, the law requires poll workers to inform those without an acceptable ID. that they can complete a written request for an absentee ballot at an early-voting site until 5:00 p.m. on the Tuesday before Election Day (i.e., the deadline for requesting absentee ballots). Id. §§ 163—166.13(c)(3), 163-227.2(bl), 163-230.1. Third, and most importantly, it creates an additional exception that permits in-person voters who do not have an acceptable photo ID to -cast a provisional ballot so long as they complete a declaration stating a reasonable impediment prevented them from acquiring qualifying photo ID. Id. §§ 163—166.13(c)(2), 163-166.15(a)-(b). Such voters must present alternate identification, which can consist of “the voter registration card issued to the voter by the' county board of elections” or “a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document” that shows the name and address of the voter. Id. §§ 163-166.15(c), 163-166.12(a)(2). Alternatively, voters may provide their date of birth and the last four digits of their SSN (“SSN4”). Id. § 163-166.15(c). Session Law 2015-103 expressly addresses the scope of the reasonable impediment exception. At a minimum, all reasonable impediment declaration forms are required to include separate boxes listing the following reasonable impediments to acquiring a photo ID: (1) “Lack of transportation;' (2) “Disability or illness”; (3) “Lack of birth certificate or other documents needed to obtain photo identification”; (4) “Work Schedule”; (5) “Family responsibilities”; (6) “Lost or stolen photo identification”; and (7) “Photo identification applied for but not received by.the voter voting in person.” Id. § 163— 166.15(e). In addition, the form must list a box for “[o]ther reasonable impediment,” which the voter -can check and provide a “brief written - identification of the reasonable impediment.” Id. § 163-166.15(e)(l)h. Although a reasonable impediment voter casts a provisional ballot, the ballot must be counted unless one of the following is true: the impediment described in the declaration is “factually false, merely denigrate[s] the photo identification requirement, or [is an] obviously nonsensical statement ]”; the voter fails to provide one of the alternate forms of identification discussed above; the CBOE could not confirm the voter’s registration using the alternate form of identification provided; or the “voter is disqualified for some other reason provided by law.” Id. § 163-182.1B(a). Significantly, if a voter’s reasonable impediment declaration is challenged, the CBOE is required to “construe all evidence presented in the light most favorable to the voter submitting the reasonable impediment declaration” and cannot reject the. impediment on the ground that it is not reasonable. See id. § 163-182.1B(b)(5)-(6). House Bill 836 was proposed with little notice and considered as an amendment to a pending conference report, which is unusual, (PL Ex. 895.) The legislative record contains thirty pages of debate and indicates an intent for a broad application of the exception. (Id.) Democrats questioned the process but consented to fast-track consideration, thus enabling the law to receive immediate consideration and passage by a wide margin (103 to 4). (Id. at 30; see also id. at 29 (Representative Hall: “This conference report does contain some things that will help get us back to where we are [sic] where we did not have unnecessary restrictions on voters and where we didn’t have any real measurable voter fraud,”).) In summary, as to the major components challenged herein, SL 2013-381 and SL 2015-103 had the following effect: Voter ID: Beginning in 2016, in-person voters who have a qualifying photo ID “bearing any reasonable resemblance to that voter” must' present it to vote, either at the polling place or at the CBOE after casting a provisional ballot. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163— 166.13, 163-182.1A; 2013 N.C. Sess. Law 381, § 6.2. Acceptable photo IDs are (1) a North Carolina driver’s license, learner’s permit, or provisional license (expired up to four years); (2) a special non-operator’s identification card (expired up to four years); (3) a United States passport; (4) a United States military identification card; (5) a Veterans Identification Card issued by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; (6) a tribal enrollment card issued by a federally recognized tribe; (7) a tribal enrollment card issued by a tribe recognized by North Carolina, so long as it is signed by an elected official of the tribe and the requirements for obtaining it are equivalent to the requirements for obtaining a special identification card from the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”); and (8) a driver’s license or non-operator’s identification card issued by another State or the District of Columbia so long as the voter registered to vote within ninety days of Election Day. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-166.13(e). Those who do not have a qualifying photo ID and who can list a reasonable impediment to getting one, can vote in person without photo ID so long as they provide alternative identification and complete a reasonable impediment declaration. Id. §§ 163-166.13(c)(2), 163-166.15. Because the reasonableness of the impediment given cannot be challenged, in practice the reasonable impediment exception is better characterized as an impediment exception. See id. •§ 163-182.1B(b)(6). Only the voter’s subjective belief is relevant to the reasonableness inquiry. See id. In addition, curbside voters, those with religious objections to being photographed, certain victims of natural disasters, and absentee mail voters are exempt from the photo-ID requirement. Id. § 163-166.13(a). Early Voting: Early voting must now begin “[n]ot earlier than the second Thursday before an election,” a reduction of seven days of permissible early voting. H. § 163-227.2(b). Early voting must end by 1:00 p.m. on the final Saturday before Election Day, eliminating CBOE discretion to keep early-voting sites open until 5:00 p.m. Id. Under the Stein amendment, the decrease in permissible days, however, is coupled with a requirement that the aggregate voting hours offered remain the same. Thus, the law requires that, “[f]or elections which do not include a presidential candidate on the ballot,” CBOEs must “calculate the cumulative total number of scheduled voting hours at all sites during the 2010 ... elections” and “ensure that, at least the same number of hours offered in 2010 is offered for [early voting] ... through a combination of hours and numbers of [early-voting] sites during [those] election^]Id. § 163-227.2(g2)(2). In other words, counties must offer the same number of aggregate hours of early voting in non-presidential elections as they did in November 2010. CBOEs must make the same calculation with- respect to presidential elections: e.g„ the same hours in 2016 elections as in 2012, Id. § 163-227.2(g2)(l), The CBOEs can meet these requirements either by opening more early-voting sites or keeping the existing sites open for more hours, including expanding weekend, voting hours. See id. § 163—227.2(f) (“A county board may conduct [early] voting during evenings or on weekends, as long as the hours are part of a plan submitted and approved according to subsection (g) of this section.”). The law also requires that, except for CBOE offices, any early-voting site within a county maintain the same hours of operation as every other site in that county. Id. § 163-227.2(g). ' If a county determinés that it cannot meet the aggregate-hours requirement or that additional hours are unnecessary, it may obtain a waiver only “by unanimous vote of the board, with all members present and voting.” Id. § 163-227.2(g3). The waiver request must also be approved by a unanimous vote of the SBOE. Id. Absent a waiver, counties must either open more early-voting sites or keep existing sites open longer to satisfy SL 2013-381’s aggregate-hours requirement. SDR: Session Law 2013-381 repealed SDR. To be eligible to vote in any primary or general election, a voter must comply with preexisting law that requires the registration application to be postmarked or delivered in person at least twenty-five days before Election Day. Id. § 163-82.6(c). Under existing federal law, those who move to the' State after the registration cut-off date nevertheless remain able to vote for president and vice president. 52 U.S.C. § 10502(e). OOP: Session Law 2013-381 prohibits the counting of OOP provisional ballots, thereby reinstating the North Carolina Supreme Court’s interpretation of State law in James. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-55(a) now provides, Every person born in the United States, and every person who has been naturalized, arid who shall have resided in the State of North Carolina and in the precinct in which the person offers to vote for 30 days next preceding an election, shall, if otherwise qualified as prescribed in this Chapter, be qualified to vote in the precinct in which the person resides. Thus, as a general matter, if a voter appears at the wrong precinct on Election Day, he or she will have to go to the proper precinct before the close of the polls in order to cast a valid vote. Pre-registration: Session Law 2013-381 ends the practice of pre-registration. Voter registration applications now ask only one question regarding the applicant’s age: “Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.4(d)(2). Thus, those who are seventeen but will be eighteen before Election Day may still register to vote in that election and in any primary before that election under SL 2013-381, Under SL 2013-381, the repeal of preregistration took effect in September 2013; the revisions to early voting and the elimination of SDR and OOP voting became effective in January 2014; and the voter-ID requirement took effect in January 2016. 2013 N.C. Sess. Law 381, §§ 6.2, 12.1(3), 60.2. C. Procedural History On the same day that Governor McCro-ry signed HB 589 into law, two groups sued to enjoin it. The NAACP filed its complaint in case l:13cv658, later amended, alleging that the voter-ID requirement, elimination of SDR, reduction of early-voting days, prohibition on counting OOP provisional ballots, elimination of pre-reg-istration, and the expansion of poll observers and ballot challenges discriminates against African Americans and Hispanics in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as § 2 of the VRA. The League Plaintiffs filed their complaint in case l:13cv660, alleging that the elimination of SDR, reduction of early-voting days, prohibition on counting OOP provisional ballots, and elimination of CBOE discretion to extend poll hours one hour on Election Day discriminates against African Americans and imposes an unjustified burden on all North Carolinians, in violation of § 2 of the VRA and the Fourteenth Amendment. On September 30, 2013, the United States filed its complaint in case l:13cv861, alleging that the law’s early voting, SDR, OOP voting, and voter-ID provisions discriminate against African Americans in violation of § 2 of the VRA. These cases were consolidated for discovery and were later consolidated for trial at the parties’ request. (Doc. 252.) On January 27, 2014, the court permitted a group of “young voters” over the age of eighteen and others to intervene as Plaintiffs in case 1:13CV660 pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Intervenors allege that the elimination of pre-registration, reduction in early voting, repeal of SDR, prohibition on counting OOP ballots, elimination of CBOE discretion to keep the polls open an extra hour on Election Day, and implementation of a voter-ID requirement violate the. Fourteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments. All Plaintiffs alleged.that the variously challenged provisions of SL 2013-381 have a discriminatory intent and effect, although the United States has since abandoned its discriminatory effect claim to the voter-ID law after passage of the reasonable impediment exception. As relief, they seek to permanently enjoin the challenged provisions. The United States seeks the appointment of federal observers under § 3(a) of the VRA and to subject North Carolina to a pre-clearance requirement under § 3(c). Several elections have occurred during the pendency of these cases. The first occurred in the fall of 2013, when North Carolina held municipal elections. No plaintiff sought to enjoin enforcement of the law during this election. In December 2013, after a hearing with all parties and at their request, the Magistrate Judge issued a scheduling order, setting May 5, 2014, as the deadline for the filing of a motion for preliminary injunction and dispositive motions. (Doc. 30.) The parties later jointly moved to reset this deadline to May 19, 2014. (Doc. 91.) On