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

searching for


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

Senate | July 23, 2013 | Chamber | Senate Rules Discussion

Full MP3 Audio File

Let's come to order. Let me introduce our pages today. When I call your name, raise your hand. Let us see you. We have Dee Anthony from Wake Forest. Dee, welcome. Dee, were you hear last week? Well, thank you for coming back. Nicholas Crowe, where are you, Nicholas? He's back from last week also. I guess he's working. Is it John McCouda? Is that correct? Welcome. Nightdale. No, you're from Greensboro, excuse me. Andy Schiver from Nightdale. Where's Andy? And Caleb Reed. Where's Caleb? Were you hear last week? Welcome back. Thank you for volunteering. It's unusual somebody wants to come back to this place. Tayvon Holland. Where's Tayvon? Welcome, Tayvon. Renee Ward. Welcome, Renee. Alberto Lopez? Welcome. And Ben McNair, welcome. We'd like to thank you for coming. Hope you have an enjoyable time. I believe we have every sergeant at arms we have on staff here. So we're not going to read them. This is going to be our order of business today. Number 1, House Bill 491. Number 2, 2013 speakers appointments. Number 3, amend pharmacy laws. HB 675 and then the last but not least 589. Let's bring forward HB 491. School Resource officers Lee County. [INAUDIBLE] moves that we bring the PCS before us for discussion purposes on 491. All in favor say aye.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 491 before us. Senator Rabon. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 491 is a school resource officer bill. It's a local bill for Lee County. It provides security in the schools of Lee County by experts in security. I.e., the county sheriffs. It's a cooperative effort between local government and the sheriff's office. We have a resolution that passed. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Senator Rabon. Uh, Senator Hise was over there whirling a favorable report as to the PCS unfavorable adds to the original bill. All in favor, say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir? [SPEAKER CHANGE] We have some questions. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Oh. Go, on. Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I'm reading this thing correctly, the school system now handles its own resource officers. And they've actually been given certification as a company police agency. I guess that's kind of like a university police force or something. Is that the status quo? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes, that is a status quo and the board of commissioners and the sheriff and others in the community decided that they'd like to change that. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator, follow up. And where is the school board on that? [SPEAKER CHANGE] The school board I don't know if they're here to answer the question on that or not sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Have they done a resolution? [SPEAKER CHANGE] The commissioners have a resolution, yes. I don't know about the school board. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator, Mr. Chair, let me do this. This is a house bill. So he's probably just walking this dog. When I look at this stuff, most of the school systems are going towards where Lee County is. It's my understanding they want to be able to create their own resource officers and control their own buildings. And I think there's some concern about having people as the resource officers that are not subject to their control. And I think that's appropriate. I can promise you if something happens in the school, we're going to hold the schools responsible. We're not going to hold the sheriff responsible. We're not going to hold the commissioners responsible. We're going to hold the school board. And I know you all have already changed the way you're going to elect your school board. Apparently, there's something going on down there that people don't like their school board. But are the people in Lee County going to look to the school board to run the schools? Or are you slowly taking all that away? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'm not in charge of Lee County and I didn't walk that part of the dog, sir, but I will tell you.

That the local schoolboard is good for education. The people there have decided the ones that elected officials from the representative through the county commissioners. And to include the county sheriff and his people. Have decided they want to make a change. I've never known when change would be necessarily hurtful. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just pulled up in the resolution from the wake, I mean the Lee county. Schoolboard, which evidently is considered in equal regard to the Wade county schoolboard around here. But they say that they were never consulted or given notice. They have, has been no basis or reasons to fire the SRO officers and the security and protection of our schoolchildren had never been questioned, so the people elected with responsibility for the schoolchildren during the school day are the, is the schoolboard of Lee county and they are firmly opposed to this. So I don't see why we would be wading into their local mess in Lee county. And we should stay out of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any comments senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's one opinion and we have another. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions from the committee? Hearing and all those in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oppose no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much gentlemen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Number two is HB 669. 2013 speakers appointments. Who's gonna present this? The speaker here. No I don't see him. Tim Bruntsetter, you wanna step forth and do this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Appointments this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can walk this dog. Members, this is the 2013 appointments bill. Ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay well done senator, senator Raymond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir send forth your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Raymond sends forth an amendment to Steve. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister chair, are amendments in order? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister chairman I like senator Raymond's amendment, I don't like senator Nesbit's amendment they haven't prepared yet. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Raymond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman. Is this senator Raymond's amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just getting ready to comment senator Newton. It's my name on the amendment. So senator Raymond was kind enough to send it forth for me, moves to amend the bill page one line 32 by deleting 1.8, substituting 1.8 parens a. And on page 1 lines 33 through 34 by inserting between those lines a new section to read. Blank blank is written before you, adding additional names to the appointment. Any debate on the amendment. Hearing none all those in favor the amendment say aye. Oppose no. Amendment passes. We have d pcs that was recommended by senator Brown for discussion purposes. All those in favor of the pcs discussion say aye. Now we have the pcs before is as it's amended by senator Raymond, who moves for a favorable report. Discussion or debate. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Oppose no. So passes. Thank you senator good job. You'll present that on the floor. Representor Murray, here welcome representative. Senator Raymond moves that we hear the pcs for HB 675 amend pharmacy laws. All those in favor of bringing the pcs before say aye. Any oppose pcs is before us. Representative Murray welcome. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr. chairman we did discuss this at the rules committee last meeting we had a couple of tweaks and changes that was recommended by the state health plan blue cross blue shield, express scripts and cvs care mark. Those all been incorporated and I think everybody's willing to tell you that they're happy with this bill if you want them to. But I think they're letting me speak on their behalf and if I will be glad to answer any questions about the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Jenkins moves for a favorable report, unfavorable to the original bill, favorable to the pcs. Any discussion or debate.

?? all those in favor say aye. All ye opposed, so passes.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you Mister Chairman, and Senator Tillman has agreed to handle this bill on the Senate floor.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nHey you want it to pass. Okay, the next bill is 589. Let's discuss this before we go forth. Anyone who would like to speak on this bill will need to sign up back here. We'll limit discussion to two minutes per person. We want everybody to have time to chat about this, and we're more than willing to stay here as long as it takes. Also, we're not gonna have any outbursts or anything of that nature. I think all signs have been confiscated. So let's get started. We have HB 589, PCS, it's in a ??? that we bring to PCS for 589 ???. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed say no. Okay 589's before Senator Rucho. Welcome.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee. What we do have before us is a reform of a our dated, archaic form of state election code that hasn't been adjusted in many years. At least three decades. What we have is reforms to introduce transparency, to the election process, and to create guidelines that everyone can understand very clearly and simply. It also gives every opportunity to eliminate any political gainsmanship. What it does also is it fulfills a campaign process that all of us have made, and that is of election reform. Insuring both integrity and that voters will show a photo identification at the polls, and what this does is it reestablishes a confidence in the electoral process, and therefore, our government. We will go point by point through this, Mr. Cohen and Ms. Churchill, this chairman will end up explaining this. But some of the high points will include photo identification, which I think everyone has had a chance to review that bill. Early voting changes which help streamline and make the system work smoothly as intended when Senator Nesbit and I worked on some of that way back when, in '97 I think it might have been. And then talking about some campaign finance reform, and other changes that will be address in this bill, because it is incomprehensive in nature. Which will talk about the proper method of withdrawal from election races, and help us get more people involved in when they vote that some of the down ballot candidates and the down ballot initiatives will be included in the election so folks don't just look at the top part of the ballot, but will be able to have their voice throughout the entire ballot. And then we also are looking at trying to make North Carolina a bit more relevant in the Presidential elections. And so we have a proposal to handle the Primary at that time. Mr. Chairman ??? be kind enough if Mr. Cohen would go through point by point of these, and Ms. Churchill will help on that and therefore everyone will have a clear picture as to what's included in this bill.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nSenator Rucho I was looking forward to you doing it and I brought a translator in to tell us what you had said but we'll defer to Senator Cohen there.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you, Mr. Chairman. The first six parts of the bill, pages one through 14, are the voter identification committee ??? that was distributed to the committee last week. Which I'll be glad to answer questions about at the end. With two minor changes on page two, it was clarified that military IDs are acceptable even if they don't have an expiration date. And also in the assistance to voters in hospitals and nursing homes provision on page 12, the period in which the country board of elections has to respond to a request to send out a non-partisan team to assist as was enacted in 1983 has now reduced to 15 days to seven days to conform to the fact that devoting cuts off seven days before the election, the request. That's the only change from which you saw last week in the voter ID process. Section eight, part seven on party 14 and 15 says to study the process for filling vacancies and the general...

Assembly, current statute basically derives from 1953 hasn’t really been substantially changed since then. Part 8 requires that if there’s a vacancy in the US Senate that the person appointed be of the same party as the person vacating the office, there’s seven or eight other states that have this and the legislature can regulate the process by which the governor makes appointments to fill vacancies if it chooses to allow gubernatorial appointments. Part 9 asks for review of filling vacancies in the US House of Representative which really hasn’t changed since about 1946. Part 10 takes the provisions of a House passed bill requiring all special elections by local governments be held at the same time as some other election in that city or county with some exceptions for bond issues in the case of a public health emergency. That takes us through, hang on a second here, page 27 at the bottom, part 12 regulates the pre registration of 16 year olds and that goes on through page 30. Page 31, Part 13 provides that with the exception of military and overseas absentee ballots which can be transmitted and issued electronically that the original signature of the voter has to appear on it, not some computer generated signature. Page 14 provides that a person doing voter registration cannot be compensated by the basis of the number of forms they turn in, they can still be compensated for doing paid voter registration, but cannot be compensated for the basis of forms because there’s been some abuse of people with an incentive to turn in false forms if they get paid by the number of forms. Part 16 starting on page 31 eliminates same day voter registration during early voting. Part 17 makes a slight amendment to the overseas and absentee voting act. The Federal law only requires 45 days, our bill that was introduced past two years ago required 60 days. The problem is the national conventions have been moving later and later, last time the Democratic convention didn’t finish their nominations until 61 days before the election and in 2016 due to the Olympics the conventions will be a week later, so this just says the 60 day requirement is waived as long as they get it done within 3 days after the parties finishing their nominations for President. Part 18 is a House passed bill as is that requires the state at least twice a year to make an effort to under the provisions of federal law do list maintenance and also to enter to data sharing agreements with states cross checking information under their states voter rolls. Part 19 eliminates a statutory mandate for a voter registration drive which actually predates mail in voter registration. Part 20 makes it clear that anyone in the state can get access to everyone’s voter registration record not just residents of a county getting access to theirs in their county. Also section 20.2 provides that any registered voter of the county can make challenges anywhere in that county not just in the precinct. Part 21 says if you need to withdraw as a candidate after filing in the primary you have to withdraw at least prior to the close of business on the third business day before that to stop the prearranged withdrawing 2 minutes before the deadline and having somebody along with you to file. Part 22 lowers slightly the signatures required if you want to file a petition instead of paying your filing fee. There’s been very few petitions filed under this opt-out statute, in any case Part 23 says for a nominee, a part nominee to withdraw as a candidate they have to withdraw prior to the time when absentee ballots start being sent out, right now the statute appears to allow withdraws up to 30 days before the election, which is when ballots were sent out 30 years ago when the statute was written. Part 24 asks for a study by joint legislative elections oversight committee, which will being all the studies mandated by this bill to look at do we need to change optimal precinct sizes accessibility, size of the polling place, parking, etc. Part 25 provides that early voting instead of starting on the third Thursday before the election will start on the second Thursday and mandates that it end at 1pm on that last Saturday there was, the current statute allows county board of elections to extend it until

Pm in which a few counties have used that. 26 has a standardized process to approve satellite polling places of which there's 3 in the state. Makes it the same process as allowing out of precinct polling places. Currently there are statues allowing polling places to actually be located outside of the precinct if there's no suitable polling place within the location of the precinct. But it requires the unanimous vote of the county board for that. Part 27 deletes an obsolete statute about preparing for the 2000 census that was enacted in 1986. Part 28 looks for a study of reducing the need for a second primary and asks the committee to look at should we go to a plurality and get rid of it, lower the 40% threshold, keep the 40% threshold but provide that a lower margin might win if there's a substantial margin between like 35% and the next person has 12% or the possiblity of only retaining second primaries for certain major offices and just have plurality for others. Part 29 clarifies some language on the state's boards duty to make sure that ballots are clear and understandable by voters. Part 30 has the effect of requiring paper ballots in the entire state effective in 2018. The system that about 60 counties have now where we have optiscan systems and basically provides that direct record electronic machines will not be used after January 1 2018. Part 31 provides that the order of parties on the ballot will be the party of the nominee for governor, followed by other parties in alphabetical order. Part 32 eliminates what colloquially is called straight party or straight ticket voting. Part 33 reduces the, eliminates the discretion of the county board of elections to extend polling places under an hour, for an hour if they want to and replaces it with the state being authorized to do that for delays in open to the polling places or times where it might be closed due to certain processes and allows them to extend it on a minute by minute basis. If a polling places opens two hours early then it can extend it two hours if there's a problem during the day. And it pushes that to the state and you add an equal amount of time to the day. Part 34 makes some changes to assistance to voters. And especially in assistance to voters who've been adjudicated incompetent. Part 35 provides for an earlier presidential primary if South Carolina has those before the 15th, has its before the 15th day of March. North Caroline did have a separate presidential primary once in 1976. Part 36 makes it clear that the state board can add additional recognized presidential candidates to the presidential primary even if the party chair did not send along their name. Part 38 eliminates the political parties financing fund, the judicial elections fund and the voter owned election fund. I would note that the budget does also eliminate the judicial campaign financing. Part 39 is a house passed bill allowing decedents, deceased voters of state to vote for allows funeral homes and others to assist and canceling voter registration of deceased persons. I think that's a combination of two different house passed bills, 39.1 and 2. 41 calls for a study on campaign finance electronic reporting. And I'm going to let Erica discuss campaign finance until we get down to parts 45 and 49 that I will answer, that I will get back to please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Part 42 would raise the contribution limit from $4,000 to $5,000. Would also conform North Carolina law to federal law with respect to contributions from family. And would provide for a natural increase in the contribution limit based off of the consumer price index every 2 years and publication of that greater amount. Part 43 would expand the use of building funds for political parties. Currently they can be used for headquarters buildings. The expansion would allow that money to be used for the compensation for up to three personnel whose main duties are administrative in nature. Part 44 would repeal via the stand by your ad disclosure requirements. Part 45 would say that any member of the board of elections could not serve more than two consecutive four year terms. Part 47.

DQBBBD\nWould tighten the lobbying, the laws on lobbyist bundling of contributions currently they are not permitted to bundle multiple contributions from multiple contributors this would make a clear that a lobbyist could not take one contribution from anyone and deliver it to any candidate. Part 48 would reveal the two articles on candidates’ specific communications that deal with television cable and radio ads as well as ?? Neilgton Telephone Banks. Part 49…\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nPart 49 basically moves the law back prior to 2005 conforms to Federal Law if you have under this proposal we will go back to pre 2005 if you have moved you may go back to your polling place pick up a precinct transfer form and take it to the correct polling place and go to regular ballot, you may go directly to the correct polling place for where you moved which can be looked up online and cast to provisional ballot there or the Federal Law requires Counties to have a central location where you can vote on election day if you moved which in every County really is the board office. So, those who looking the alternatives you cannot vote at random precinct which is also true if you haven’t moved if you haven’t moved you have to vote in your correct precinct except off course during early voting. Part 50…\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nPart 50 would it change the definition of electioneering communication to have that time period and the even number general election begin on September 15th.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nPart 51 eliminates the instant run off for late occurring traditional vacancies so it will be determined by a plurality as it was prior to about five years ago. Part 52 requires if there are provisional ballots, if you have provisional ballots at a polling place that there will be something written on the ballot to indicate it’s a provisional ballot it doesn’t make it retrievable. In one county last year, accidentally a whole bunch of provisional ballots were fed into the tabulator and once they were in there it was no way to know which were the provisional ballots in the ?? one, this will allow us if that happens again for them to be pulled out because what they were if they get counted centrally by the Board Of Elections.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nPart 53 would change the reporting cycle for the third quarter of a political committee to require weekly reports. Part 54 would establish a $500 threshold before a political committee had met the definition which requires filing organizational reports and the standardized reporting schedule applying. Part 55 would reestablish a study to determine whether or not the contents and the timing of all political committees or electioneering communications, and independent expenditures should be similar in nature. Part 56 would reveal some of the provisions regarding disclosure for media advertisements. Part 57 would study the elimination of the 48 hour report. Part 58 would quantify the decision and take some of the ridge with respect to a returning client privilege and redistricting communications. Part 59 would allow a political committee or a candidate campaign committee to have one raffle per year. And Part 60 is the effective day and it’s effective when it becomes law except this other what’s provided.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nActually the operative parts of the bill become effective January 1, 2014 unless there is another provision in the bill what should number of sections do.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you very well done.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you Mr. Chairman and thank you staff clearly ?? I think everybody having had the opportunity to read the photo voter ID. She is like that there is transition between the passage of this bill and his full implementation in the 2016 election. There are plenty of opportunities for individuals to be notified either directly through education or also at the time of 14th election primary in general election they will, each of them will be notified at their precincts when they go to vote that photo identification will be required in the 2016 election. Mr. Chairman, I think it is clearly before us and we can respond to any questions and hopefully when they ask questions they can identify the sections that they are coming from.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nAnd hopefully the page number also. Let me do this I know we have some amendments, let’s give the amendment setups so we can get those organized and ready, and be ready to start debate here in about three or four minutes if we could. So, we will just take a brief moment. I have a list of folks who will be speaking I believe…\n[0:04:59.9]\n[End of file…]

Or against so...\n???\nWe'll find 1-4 maybe, thank you. If you'll bring forth your amendments, we'll get those put together, please.\n???\nOk, they're passing out… so far we have three amendments, the first one is the one under my name that was passed out we'll deal with that first. It's purely technical. I'm sending forth that amendment for our discussion. Erica, if you'll explain the amendment, please.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nOk, thank you. On the amendment, Line 1 is technical removing an extra word. Line 4 is cleaning up an issue with the acceptable forms of ID. Specifically stating that the military ID, nor the veteran's ID card would need to have an issuance or expiration date. On page… on Line 11 is cleaning up a site to get the.. oh, I'm sorry. On Line 11 of the amendment is to clean up a circular issue with challenges due to failure to present a photo ID to clearly indicate that it is the failure to present, or not..\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nMr. Chair, I'm not sure I have the amendment.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nIt's the one under may name, the big one.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThere's two under your name, and I don't read either of them to be that one.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nIt should be 137-V2.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\n137-V2?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nYep.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you, Mr. Chair.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nYou got it. ??? Ok, everybody have it? Ok, go ahead and start over, if you would. ??? Ok, are you on the committee? ??? We'll get them to you shortly. ??? Yes you may. Make sure she gets. ???\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nI got this one already.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nOk, let's start again. Everybody ready? Alright, let's go.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nOn the amendment itself, Line 1 is purely...

Technical deleting an extra word. Line 4 is cleaning up an issue with the acceptable forms of ID for a photo ID, indicating that a military ID card or a veterans ID card would no longer need to have an issuance or expiration date in order to be acceptable. On the amendment itself, lines 11 is to clean up an issue with the ability to challenge a voter who did not present a photo ID. That photo ID would need to bear a responsible resemblance of the voter that would be dispositively determined at the poll on Election Day by the judges of elections. So, it would not be an acceptable means of challenging the voter. On the amendment itself, line 15 amending page 8 is to clarify that when someone requests due to sickness or physical disability in the week prior to the election a regular mail-in absentee ballot, that that regular mail in absentee ballot can be delivered to the voter, the voter’s near relative, or the verifiable legal guardian of that voter. On the amendment line 19, which is amending page 11 of the bill, is to clarify sight. On line 22 of the amendment, which is amending page 12 of the bill, is to clarify that it would be unlawful for the owner, manager, director, employee, or other person other than a voter’s near relative or verifiable legal guardian when assisting with that regular mail in absentee ballot to sign the application or certificate that is required to be returned with that mail-in ballot. On the amendment itself line 25, which is amending page 26 of the bill, is to clarify that the additional 10 at large observers that could be in the polling place. The list could be sent in by the political party chairs prior to the one stop site and then amended to include different or additional folks for Election Day. On the amendment line 31, which is amending page 31 of the PCS, is changing the effective date for the appeal of the pre-registration program to September 1, 2013. On page 2 of the amendment line 1, which is amending page 31 of the bill, is to clarify that it would be unlawful for any person to be compensated based on the number of forms submitted, in terms of voter registration forms, and it does not matter if you are a government employee or not. On the amendment line 5 page 2, which is amending page 38 of the bill, is to make a technical correction to provide for the effective date of the changes to the approval of the satellite voting places. On line 17 of the amendment, which is amending page 44 of the bill, is to get the proper term in place on line 42. Deleting, preparing, and substituting marking. On the amendment line 20, which is amending page 47 of the bill, is to make conforming change that goes with the repeal of the contribution limit for judges for district and superior court which is currently at a reduced amount of $1,000. That repeal is in the amendment of page 2 lines 28 and 29. The amendment page 2 line 25 is technical in nature to get an extra “the” out of a sentence. On the amendment page 37, which is amending page 50 line 31, is to insert the word multiple to make it consistent with the other three subdivisions. The amendment page 2 line 40 is amending section 48 of the bill to repeal both the television, cable, and radio ads for candidate-specific communications, as well as the mass mailings and the telephone banks. The amendment page 3 line 1 is conforming to the repeal of the mass mailings and telephone banks candidate specific communications and on page 3 of the amendment line 4, which is amending page 51, is making a conforming change to make the phraseology.

...used in the voting and incorrect precinct part 49 consistent throughout to be just "precinct". The amendment deletes part 53 of the bill and provides for a study of the reporting cycles not so the amended PCS would no longer change the quarterly reporting in the third quarter. The last change on page 3 line 13 of the amendment changes the caption for part 58 to state that it's clarifying the scope of chapter 132 and the article 17 of chapter 120 which are the public record statues and legislative confidentiality. [speaker changes] Thank you, Erica. Alright, the discussion, debate on the amendment. Senator Stine. [speaker changes] Um, the provision at the bottom of page 1 of the amendment, line 31 on page 31 eliminating the pre-registration and 13 rather than 15. I'm not as concerned what year you eliminate it, I just want to know why we are eliminating an effort to try to help people get registered to vote.[speaker changes]Senator Rucho. Yes. Jerry, would you explain the provision? [speaker changes]I'm sorry, which one is it? [speaker changes] Explain what the bill does? [speaker changes]No, the amendment. [Speaker changes] The amendment changes the effective date. So pre-registration of voters in high school will end September 1, 2013. Those that who had previously been pre-registered as they turn 18, which could be all the way through September 1st, 2015 will still be moved to the regular voter rolls. [Speaker changes] Mr. Chairman? [Speaker changes] Yes. [Speaker changes] My question is, people engage the state when they get a driver's license. And that is a logical time for them to register. There's no allegations of people voting before they are 18, I'm just wondering why we're not helping people to participate in the democratic process. [Speaker changes] He's wanting to know why...[Speaker changes] Mic's on. [Speaker changes] You're right. The driver...[Speaker changes] If I may, my son turned 18 January 30th. Missed this last ballot. went through the school process and was pre-registered and the like and it was very confusing as to when he was supposed to do this. What this does is offer some clarity and some certainty as to when that child or that young person is eligible to vote and registers to vote, and that's what it's designed to do. [Speaker changes] Follow up? [Speaker changes] Did your son not know that he was 17 on election day? [Speaker changes] If you would like my son to come visit you. He did, but the clarity was the fact that it was confusing. We got a letter from the board of elections which I actually responded to, and I asked them to clarify it. It only made the situation more a lot more complicated and complex, and wasn't understood, clearly understood, and therefore this is a perfect opportunity when they turn 18 to vote to register. [Speaker changes] Other questions on the amendment? [Speaker changes] Let me send forth, let me adjust the amendment here. We need to change a number. Erica? [Speaker changes] On the amendment itself, page 3 line 10 should read "on page 54 line 16 through 36 by deleting those lines. [Speaker changes] Okay. Further discussion. All those in favor of the amendment say "Aye". Opposed, "No". Amendment passes. So, we have the amended bill and let's take another amendment from Senator Clark. Let's take up 117, the...

From ?? The used them on the bill on page 11, ?? 47, by adding the following immediately after the period. Delivered in person as used in the previous sentence also includes delivering the ballot, to an election official, at a one stop voting site, under Statute 163 227.2. During any time, the side is open for voting. The ballot should be kept securely and delivered violation officials to the side of the counting board of election office, for processing. ?? explains\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nMr. Chairman, some people do like the opportunity to complete their ballots in the comfort of their own homes. But, at the same time, they would like to actually go to the polling place, and basically submit their ballot. So, what this does is, it essentially allows them to default. That being said I ask Mr. Cohn, to further explain them.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nAlright, this is similar to a number of other statements. This provision here is similar to a number of other states including Florida, where if you have a mail and absentee voting, rather than mailing it back to the board of election, or delivering into the board office, you can deliver to an early voting site, and turn it into an election official there, during the early voting period.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nMr. President, either to send a clerk in or to just go in, but, In following the process that you're bringing forward, 1, Is everyone eligible to use this absentee ballot, and then using the one stored at the voting site as their depository? And 2, What types of identification are required by the individual or the person? Is that same person delivering that ballot to the one stored at the voting site?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nMr. ?? First, your mail and absentee vote will have to have the same standard as anything else. It is worked out by ?? election. Before you apply when they received it, there are some changes in this bill on, want to have on it. But the process of delivering it, delivering the ballot to the... Anyone can mail it in. If you are delivering it to the board of elections, which would also apply here, can be delivered only by the voter, or the voter's near relatives or legal guardian. Those are the people who could deliver it to an early voting site as opposed to in person to the board of elections or mailing it in.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nIf they were to bring that and to the early voting site and place it into the machine, would that ballot not be read as having voted that day?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThey are not placing in the machine. They are delivering a ballot inside an envelope to the early voting site, just as delivered to the board office. If you deliver it to the board office, they hold it till the election day, when they open the envelope and decide to tabulate Here they would just be basically to be transmitting the sealed envelope to the board of elections.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nI'm aware that what they are intended to do. My question was the... Having ?? stated, Long time ago, in history, it was valuable for an individual to get blank ballot they could pre-mark for an individual and have the individual bring back ?? ballot so that they could verify how the individual is voting. My question is, if someone has received one of these at home and brings it to one of these sites, is it readable in the machine as the same as their ballot they would receive the same day?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nIf the election official, the early voting site were to open the envelope, and put it into the tabulator, Yes. But statute require it just to be delivered to the board office, the official at the early voting site to keep it securely and deliver it to the county board of elections for processing. The earlier thing you were talking about is called chain voting.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\n?? If they are doing that to stop that, they need to stop that. That is illegal.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nExactly! We're trying to help that along.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nAny other questions from the committee? Okay, Second Amendment, all in favor say ?? Any opposes? So passes.

We have 118 v2. Senator Clark, tell us what this amendment does. Everybody has this in front of them I don't think I have to read it to them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay mister chairman. Under the current bill if an individual wants to do an absentee ballot they have to have two individuals sign it for them. But what this does is allows you to have your ballot attested to by a notary public. So that you may not want to have your brother, your sister, your aunt, your uncle or whomever validating your ballot for you. And if you like Mr. Cohen can read through the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right the law up until. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead Jerry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry thank you sir. The law up until four years ago required two witnesses. It was changed to one. This committee substitute restores it to two in the viva part of the bill. His amendment would say you could just have one rather than two if the one was a notary public who signed, put their title and fixed their notarial seal to the envelope so that that would be what he is proposing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Heiss. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any limit to the number that a particular notary public could sign off on? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No I can answer that for him. What he think? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think mister chairman that this is a reasonable alternative and I think it probably should be considered positively. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate on it, senator Brock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Continue my bad attitude here, but I was just asking senator Clark. If they cannot charge a fee, and I mean I really don't think they could charge a fee, but could they refuse to sign it because you may have a notary that works in a office or as a notary in their place of business. And they have to provide this service for free. You're gonna take their time from the workday to notarize all these ballots and just take time away from them. I just think it might, would a notary be able to refuse? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The answer is yes, they could refuse if they do accept however they could not charge a fee. At price. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay that's fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment say aye. Any oppose no. So passes. We have the pcs befores as a amended. Discussion from the committee. Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You had said in the preliminary remarks that you were comfortable staying as long as I needed, I mean this is an extensive bill, it was 6 parts 14 pages and now it's 60 parts and 57 pages so I have a whole series of questions on many provisions is that ok? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. The first week of early voting last election about 900,000 people voted. Something like 85% of the state thinks early voting's a good thing and shouldn't be shrunk. 75% have voted early at one point or another. Why are we eliminating a week of early voting? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're what point are you talking about, what page are you on now, what section? Just so we can be clear. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jerry can help me, what section eliminates a week off of early voting? Page 37 part 25. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister chairman. What we're trying to accomplish. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Senator Stein, what we're trying to do is put some consistency into the process and allow for the facilities to be similarly treated in one county as in being all the counties. It does give still some good flexibility to the county boards of election in selecting those. There's probably a savings in the sense that by going from 17 to the 10 days you actually have a more opportunity to open up more sites that would open more opportunity for people to have access to voting during that period of time. And what it does by having that consistency everyone has an equal access to voting. It does not stop it leaves the county the choice of opening on a Sunday or not opening on the Sunday. But when it was originally put forward back in 1997 and senator Nesbit at that time you were a representative I believe, and I had this early voting bill in place and I was one of the cosponsors of that bill and it was designed to open up the opportunity for access.

It's been altered over the last number of years, maybe tainted in the direction, but what this does is it sets it at an equal footing in every one of the counties and that's going to treat everyone equally and fairly.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank Mr. Chair. If that's nine hundred thousand people that need to vote another time and there's no guarantee or no direction in here as to how many early voting sites to open up. So, the more you backload the vote, the more you'll have on election day, and I know, Senator Rucho you're an expert in electricity. You have peak load, which is the most expensive load, and that's gonna be when most people are in demand, and election day, the more people you push to election day, the more precincts your gonna have to create, the more voting sites your going to have to have, which is more expensive on a marginal basis than having more early vote.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nSenator Stein, I think probably you see a lot of the early days in the seventeen day cycle probably not utilized as much - other than maybe the first day when a lot of folks get excited and then it . . . the peak is reduced - but what this does is it gives access with the same hours that will be treating every one of the sites in every one of those counties the same way and there will be the possibility since there is some savings in the time to open up additional sites, but that will be at the discretion of the county boards of elections, and what that does, is it gives more opportunity for people to vote; you don't have to go across town if it's not in your neighborhood senator Stein.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nSenator, one more comment on this. If you look at the chart, you'll see that voting is actually quite consistent every day of early voting. So if you take those seven days out of early voting, you are going to have to move those people somewhere else. The likely result will be longer lines on election day which leads to my next question Mr. Chair, which has to do with the elimination of straight party ticketing - ticket voting. There, North Carolina is one of the most "little d" democratic states in the country in that we elect more statewide offices than most any state in the nation. So, on a presidential year, there's gonna be anywhere from fifteen to sixteen offices, and even if in an off-year election there can be seven to ten, that seven to ten times - seven to seventeen times longer for each person to vote - my question to the sponsor is, the relationship between substantially lengthening by a factor of ten the amount of time it takes for people to vote early - half people vote early - I mean vote straight ticket . . .\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThirty two.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nWe're trying to get the page number senator Stein.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nWhat's your page and section number of that please. You have the section number?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nPage forty three.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nSection thirty two is it Mr. Cohen?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThirty two. Yes sir.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThat eliminates straight party voting which half the state uses, so for those half the people you're gonna increase amount of time by a factor of ten to fifteen, what kind of analysis have you done in terms of the impact on lines for people to vote by shrinking early voting, and lengthening the amount of time it takes for people to vote.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nWhat we wanted to try to do, is be sure that all of the down ballots, races, a lot of the times the judges that aren't included in the straight voting are included in the process if someone is running for office they should be included in that manner. And also, there are a lot of other down ballots that are non-partisan that get left off, and we want to try to be sure that the voter who I have a lot of respect for is being very intelligent, very knowledgeable, can come forward and handle that problem, and also, I understand, talking with some of our staff, that we are the exception rather than the rule; most states don't have the early, I mean the straight ballot. And, what we're trying to do is find that they've had no problems, so, we see no reason why we can't conform with what a lot of other states have done in the system.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you. My question was, is the effect on election administration. What analysis have you done in terms of the amount of time it's going to take for people to vote with fewer days to vote. What's the consequence gonna be in terms of the length of lines for people to vote given that you're increasing by a factor of ten, on average, the amount of time for half of the people to vote.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nSenator Stein, we believe that the early voting probably will have more sites available that they would be able to have more opportunity in different locations, which will spread out the votes - you don't have folks having to cross town to get into the early sites - and secondly, we believe that other states have had no problem with this, they've, I'm sure Georgia and some of these other states vote every bit as much as . . .

We do, and feel that that's not been a problem and we don't believe that it will be a problem and we also believe that there is a very good possibility that we'll have more pension paid to judges and to other elections and other initiatives that may be dealing with non partison.\nSpeaker changes: And let me just say that we also feel that 2014 will give us a good run to see how that works and then we can make adjustments at that point to be ready for 16. ?? Next question?\nSpeaker changes: just a comment on that before I...\nSpeaker changes: Please\nSpeaker changes: Which is that in an off year election the turnout is a fraction of what it is in a presidential election when you have 70% of the voters voting in a presidential election versus 25-30% in an off year election, I don't think it will give us any indication of how it's working until 2016.\nSpeaker changes: Oh I'd have to disagree with that, I think Senator Heiss could do some statistical analysis to come up with a pretty good figure but next question.\nSpeaker changes: Alright, statistical analysis question; This come- Data from the state board of elections, just in the even year elections, the state elections, last 6 of them, primary and general, there have been approximately 30 million votes cast in North Carolina, and there have been two instances of in-person voter fraud. What evidence of in person voter fraud is compelling you to impose the ID requirement?\nSpeaker changes: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Stein, I'm sure your understanding of how society is today, you can't live in this society with[out] identification; whether you go into buildings, whether you cash checks, whether you pay your groceries with checks, whether you want to get on an airplane - whatever it is - everyone has a form of photo ID. This bill goes to it's full extent in allowing and helping individuals that may not have it, especially since we've allowed the DMV to take an active role in delivering and providing at no cost indenti-photo identification so that they can be used in this manner. There are a number of instances that we know about as individual basis - I'm sure you've heard the same thing and I'm sure you pay close attention to the fact that some folks have lost their opportunity to vote because when they go to vote in an early vote, they were told that they had already voted and for some reason that never seams to get recorded or reported. So what we believe, the importance of the electoral process is the fact that we're providing integrity and honesty in the system and what that means is that that confidence level will be instilled in the electoral process and therefore back in government and that's something we should all be striving for.\nSpeaker changes: Just a brief comment Mr. Cameron\nSpeaker changes: Please\nSpeaker changes: The notion that everyone has of Photo ID is just wrong, there-um-our society...\nSpeaker changes: Okay, alright, now we're not gonna tolerate that! Um, clear the room, we're gonna sit here and act respectfully - respectful of everyone, carry on Senator.\nSpeaker changes: Thank you, and I ask the same of the audience too, to not interupt.\nSpeaker changes: Thank you.\nSpeaker changes: The-the fact is that we have ID's, we have banking accounts. There's more than a half a million adult North Carolinian's who don't have a banking account, therefore they don't have checks. There are, from again the state board of elections, I know we like to have facts when we do our debate, there are more than 300,000 registered voters in North Carolina who do not have a driver's license; 185,000 of those actually voted in 2012, so that's a 185,000 people who are going to be impacted by this requirement; a requirement which the-the necessity of which is non-existent when you have two instances of in person voter fraud, you said for some reason they're never reported, I think there's a reason why they are never reported, because it's myth. Two instances of in person voter fraud out of 30 million votes cast and that doesn't even count the off year municipal elections, I had to go to each county and I didn't have time to do that. The follow up question on same day voter registration.\nSpeaker changes: Senator Stein, not yet, we'll do this question then we'll let some other members but let's let Senator ?? respond here...\nSpeaker changes: You know, Senator Stein, you made a point that I believe is inaccurate. During the in districting hearings, a fellow, when we were in Durham came up and identified himself and said that I-he was at a poll and on three occasions I think he said that he

We had to change and he purposely willing to vote under pseudo name and reality is he said, he didn’t but he said he could. So, I don’t believe that your promise is accurate and I believe that the honesty, integrity of the system is paramount and I also say that the study that you are alluding to I think the board of elections, we did some analysis of it and talking to folks and it is thought that was not accurate the 300,000 you alluded to. And we have a good phased in plan to give people an opportunity that may not have an ID, an opportunity to have an ID for the 2016 election that’s plenty of time to give everybody a chance in the society that requires some form of ID to get around.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nSoon, the people is trying say, they are on that town of 30 miles I’m here I’m sorry, translate the result to understand another question.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThe same day voter registration about a million people took advantage of that in the last elections cycle. People have very busy lives. Now, that they are no longer being registered according to your bill when they get their driver license there is gonna be whole group of young people those are the biggest cohered of new registrants every year, it’s people who ageing and people who move in. The people who ageing they are busy, they are maybe in school one place or another working and they don’t think to get registered to vote months in advance of the election. So, the same day registration is an incredible service that the state offers and million people to come in and get registered and vote that same day, “Why are you taking that away from the people?”\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you Mr. Chairman. So, this time to say that our young people I know my son fully understood when he turned 18, when he got noticed to make sure you went by the post office to sign up for the draft, he also had the idea that he needed to vote. So, I’m not sure that’s an issue that they are not excited about knowing that the opportunities and they know what the rules are to accomplish that and what was the other part of your question please?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThe one million people who did it, why are you taking this away from the next million?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nWell, the problem that we found and what I believe exist is the fact that a lot of boards of elections have a very hard time of working their way through a system when someone comes up and registers the vote and vote at the same time and there is no way and there is no simple way to validate what we are trying to do is give the board of elections an opportunity to do their job correctly validate those individuals and be sure that the election is above the board.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you, additional questions from committee. Okay, I think I will take some from the audience. Let’s start our comments, comments not question. Comments, let see Alison Rigs please come up and you have two minutes thank you for coming today.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you. My name is Alison Rigs and first I would like to comment on what at first introducing this bill at this late day that does this much damage, the damage to democracy in the state from this is unacceptable. This bill is voter suppression and it’s very worst, you are making North Carolina a national laughing stock and you should be ashamed. This bill is a naked attempt to predetermine election outcomes by keeping people from voting. This bill steals from North Carolinians opportunities to vote that you know or disproportionately use by voters of color and low income voters. This bill as a whole can only be interpreted as one thing a cynical ploy to make it harder for certain people to vote. Those are poor people, people of color, elderly people and young people. This bill disrespects and violates state and Federal constitutional and statutory protections of the four of the franchise. North Carolinians won’t stand for this. This bill erases the years of progress we have made and improving election administration making friendlier the election experience for voters and encouraging civic participation. North Carolinians won’t stand for this voters love same day registration they love early voting. This bill encourages bullying at the ballot box, you are creating a situation in which polling places will now be a free for all and the voters who are least likely to be able to stand that bullying are gonna be subject to it even more. This bill does not revise and reform 30 years of election. How many of these reforms and acted since 2000. What it does is it takes away the opportunities that you have…\n[0:04:59.7]\n[End of file…]

The North Carolinians in the past that have been beneficial, it takes those away and it disrespects the right to vote. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. Is it Brent Lawrence, is that right? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes, sir. My name is Brent Lawrence, I'm with the North Carolina Center of Voter Verification. As preposed we have a lot of strong concerns about this bill and the impact it'd have on voting and civic engagement in North Carolina, particular concern is provision in the new version that allow college ID's to be used in public universities in voting under the voting ID portion of this bill. We think that's a bad move because those are public ID's issued by public institutions. The second thing we're really concerned about is the short member early voting. As we've heard, over 2.5 million voters used it last year. That's about 56% of voters. It's a widely popular program of cross party lines, it's not a partisan issue. So we're concerned about that and the impact it might have on longer lines on election day, confusion at the polls, and all that stuff. We're also concerned about the emulsion?? registration, again another tool that can be used to improve civic participation among citizens, and in preregistration, we're intrigued about that design to get 16 to 17 year old kids interested in civics and interested in politics and government and engage in the process at a young age. I think that's a great thing and all children and all students should be taught civics and engage as early as possible. Finally, those are our strongest concerns and there's other issues in there that are concerning, but we hope the final version of this bill will ultimately address some of these concerns and not do such detrimental damage to voting participation in North Carolina. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you for your comments. Vicky Boyer? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, sir, for giving the public an opportunity to speak today. In our country, everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty. Voter ID requirements say everyone is guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. Voter ID punishes all the innocent even when one person has not yet committed a crime. We do not have a constitutional right to buy Sudafed on a plane or drive a car, but we do have a constitutional guaranteed right to vote. American's don't think of themselves as philosophers, but we're blessed to live in the first nation state founded upon an idea; a concept. According to the Declaration of Independence, the idea of America, is that legitimate governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That consent is gained through the process of voting and voting has become a sacred American right. It says government is accountable to the people. ID requirements say people are accountable to the government. Voter ID says each of us must have the consent of the government in order to participate in America's greatest ritual and unless you're going to make all driver's license's' available for free, we have to pay for it to boot. This requirement changes the very nature of the American compact. It replaces voters in charge of government and puts government in charge of voters. It allows for a future when one group an hour can limit voters to those that will keep that group in power. No good American wants to see that and that being said, this bill presented is not about voter protection, but voter prevention. Voter ID diminishes our sacred American pact. Voter ID diminishes our democracy, it is un-American. It is wrong, this bill is bad for North Carolina. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. Alright, next we have Jordan Delotch, is that correct? Please, Jordan, come forward. Thank you for coming today. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, sir, as he said, my name is Jordan Delotch. Im a citizen of Carrie and I'm currently a student at Duke. I'm here to speak about how this bill would affect students in particular. For example, freshmen moving in. They are going to be very excited to vote. They are just turning 18, this is their first opportunity to vote, but their not necessarily going to be familiar with the rules of the states. They're not necessarily going to be excited to vote unless someone notifies them that, yes, they have to get this registration done as soon as possible. So, I've done a lot of work to help get people out to vote.

And yet I know that this voter ID bill would prevent yet another obstacle that is-just isn't necessary for people to deal with, not just students but anyone shouldn't have to deal with getting a photo ID when there just are not cases of in person voter fraud to be reported. The problem with this bill is that it's a solution is search of a problem and even if it does head off any potential in person voter fraud, the damage that it does in terms of preventing people from voting is just so much greater that its a solution that creates more problems. So those are the main reasons why I am against this bill, thank you for your time.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Jordan, thank you for coming, Brian... Im gonna destroy it Brian I'm sorry, Schneiderwynn I've got a bad last name...\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, it's Schneiderwynn.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you Brian for coming today.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks for having me, appreciate it. For the last nine years I've been a government teacher at ?? High School just a couple miles up the road. I wanna thank you guys also for the bill last couple of hours ago that was passed, I promise I'm gonna work a lot harder now and thank you for realizing that in my time when I earned my masters degree I became a terrible teacher. Also, in my time at Millburg, I was able to-I've been able to be this sponsor of a voter registration drive, at which point I've registered approximately 2000 students and I gotta tell you contrary to the bill of sponsor this ain't rocket science. Pretty simple process, I go to the students classroom, I have a list of students who are eligible to register, I ask them if they'd like to, and in about 5 minutes they fill out the voter registration, at which point I double check it, I then send it on to Women Believe Voters who also double checks it and away we go. So I promise you that voter registration, just like Senator Stein said, among voters is not an issue, the registration process itself I don't see fraud, you know assuming that we're not all hopping into a Deloreon and traveling 90 years back to Chicago, I don't see that also as being an issue. What the real issue is voter apathy, you know Senator Stein mentioned that we're up to 70% of people voting during the - if I could get your attention please- thank you thank you, in the last two presidential elections we've been lucky enough - yeah, over here, we've been lucky enough to have 70% of people voting but statistically in the last two decades it's been about 50% so I urge you guys instead of asking what can we do to make even less people are voting we should be asking ourselves the opposite right. And especially for youth, this is a big, you know big issue making a big issue making it very hard for people in urban areas to vote. Finally I'm gonna leave you with this, over the last few years I've had the pleasure of telling my students that this is a government of the people for the people and by the people and if this bill passes I'm gonna have a little bit harder time looking my students in the eye and telling that same thing.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You for coming. Okay, Alison Green. Next.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Good afternoon and thanks for giving me this opportunity my name is Alison Green I'm a native of Durham County and a resident of Durham County but I'm a lecturer in the department of sociology and anthropology at North Carolina State University. I was raised to life of civic participation by my elderly mother who was a leader in the League Of Women Voters and other organizations, and it became a hobby of mine to register voters as soon as I was an adult. Over the course of my adult life I've registered hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of voters, and those were voters who registered as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. I'm extremely proud of this and it continues to be one of my favorite things to do. This bill harms our democracy because it's going to restrict participation in North Carolina elections. It purports to solve a problem of voter fraud that by every scientific measure does not exist. Okay. It will reduce participation in our elections by elderly people, college students, disabled veterans and the working poor. We've heard this already but I personally know people in each of these categories, we've heard the statistics, we've also heard anecdotes. Every election season I walk my precinct, knock on doors, and register voters, wait in front of the grocery store, I am not being a partisan person I am being a participant in our democracy. Early voting has been a great boom to our state by allowing people with limited transportation and long working hours to cast their votes. In my precinct this is a very big deal.

It means a lot of people who couldn't vote otherwise get a chance to vote. Many elderly and disabled people I encounter lack current state identifications and weren't able to get them even though they have been voting for years. In the 2011 November elections I helped a disabled veteran in my precinct register and vote in the same day. He had no transportation, he could barely walk, he had not had the opportunity before I knocked on his door. He would not have been able to vote if this law was in place. So...\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you so much, I believe your time has expired. Susan, I am not going attempt the last name, please...\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] I have owned a home in Durham (spelling?) since 1984 and I would like to remind you, regarding voter ID, that the voter ID law in Pennsylvania was successfully challenged and postponed when the judge found that he could not allow the law to go through if even one voter was disenfranchised by the law. And so what I am simply going to suggest to you is that, contrary to what you seem to think, you people who, and I am one of you, who take planes so easily, who have passports, who travel, who have drivers licenses... there are many, many, many voters who have exactly the same right to vote in this state, but who would be disenfranchised or who would have to pay money to travel. To be able, some kind of money, some kind of getting help from friends, something that would be, in essence, a poll tax, in order to procure this voter ID. Particularly the odd requirement that is student photo ID would not be included as a valid form of ID. I thank you very much for your attention.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Let me make an announcement. I believe everyone here is probably for the finance committee meeting. We are going to postpone that and do it on the floor, so... Next speaker, Rob Stevens please.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not Rob Stevens, I'm Bob Hall. Rob is yielding his time to me.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you representing Democratic party? Is that correct?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir, the Democracy North Carolina, actually one of the provisions that we helped sponsor is the preregistration that you're gonna eliminate. That actually helps Republican voters, new, young Republican voters. Thirty percent of the young people coming in are Republicans, thirty percent are Democrats. So actually it's helping equalize the plain. I will say that it's really sad you are trying to jam so many of these provisions in here at the 11th hour. Rob do you want to? ... Truly I'm just sad that you all feel obliged to jam this kind of thing through. People that have tried to defend voting rights and expand voting participation in this country have withstood water hoses and been beaten and gone through lots, and you're building your legacy here today as you put these measures forward, and so I just don't think its even going to help me to try to explain to you what the damage is. So, good luck to you...\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Next, Jamie Phillips. Welcome.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I am Jamie Phillips. I am here on behalf of the North Carolina NAACP and Reverend Doctor William J. Barber, president. I want to point out, as every single person before me has, that these changes to voting laws are impacting specific groups of people. The fewer young people and minorities who vote, the better, it seems in your minds. We get it, noone is being fooled. Shouldn't a Democracy ensure elections are free, fair and accessible to make...

Sure, every citizen has a say. It is obvious to many North Carolinians including people who have voted for you in this room that this bill has been specifically crafted to make participation disproportionately harder for certain voters, specifically seniors. of registered North Carolina voters who lack ID nearly 25% are seniors over the age of 65. even though they make up only 13% of the states population. seniors are also hard hit by provisions making it more difficult to add satellite voting sites to accommodate seniors and voters with disabilities. The youth: in a sad move to restrict the youth participation in our democracy, this bill specifically bans college student IDs from being used for voting, eliminates free registration for 16 and 17 year olds, and eliminates the requirements for high school voter registration drives we should be encouraging the civic participation of young people, not blocking it. and finally the most blatant and harmful impact of these changes are in voters of color. 31% of registered north carolinian voters who don't have photo id are african american. despite comprising just 22% of the state's population, the bill also bans out african americans, despite comprising just 22% of the state's population. This bill also bans out precinct provisional ballot, striking the votes of people who move, making it much easier to challenge voters eligibility and create an intimidating presence at the polls all we ask is for your conscience and goodwill to overcome your political interests. thank you.\n[speaker changes]\nThank you, last we have Joshua Vincent please welcome\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nThank you. I want to ask everyone who opposed this bill to please stand with me in solidarity as i address the committee. As the state coordinator for civic engagement for multiple follow ??? and partisan turnout campaigns, I say demonstratively that we do not need this bill. How dare we discourage our youth from exercising our right as citizens to contribute to the electoral process by restricting their ability to register and vote early. Further there's no evidence of an issue of fraudulent voting in the state with signature ?? attached to our in person voting process. Also, there's no need to confuse the citizens of this great state by adding loopholes and prohibitive costs to our constitutionally guaranteed right to free and fair education. senators, some of you appear to be drunk with power. why are you so scared of the people? why are you so scared of people voting? Maybe you've seen that less than 20% of north carolina supports your extremist agenda. maybe you've seen that the people of north carolina overwhelmingly support the moral Monday demonstrators who by the hundreds are engaging in civil disobedience. people you have called outsiders who you sit here and attempt to disenfranchise in front of our eyes and our ears. you know that your extreme right wing agenda wont last long you know that the people behind me, the true moral majority, the black, white, asian, latino of all races old and young from all socio-economic and religious backgrounds will not stand for this type of race based fear mongering fundamentalists longing for the days when black and brown people were in bondage and women were still uneducated and in the kitchen. The people here have spoken, and they are with the demonstrators in the streets and not with the regressive and deceitful legislative practice taking place here today.\n[speaker changes]\nthank you very much. whoever claps you can remove from the room. now, from the committee senator Nesbith\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nIf i could, three or four questions, I'm sorry I didn't do it a whole ago\n[speaker changes]\noh that's...\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nI thought you were going to somebody else, I didn't know\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nnow we wanted the public to have their say\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nI got you. general questions i guess for staff, that I'm just interested in. When we do this already voting, we're going to create lines and i know there was a provision about when we close the polls, but if we say that the polls have to close at a certain time and you have 500 people in line, do they get to vote?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nthe answer is yes, both early voting and election day anyone in line at the time the polls close are allowed to vote, regardless of how long that takes.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES]\nand on the question of limiting early voting to 1:00...

Sunday. Somebody, senator Nesbeth I believe. Last day is a Saturday at 1 o'clock, serve at 5. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it's that way now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can somebody explain why on the last day when you got the crunch for early voting we would want to close four hours earlier, has that caused a problem somewhere? [SPEAKER CHANGES] About 30 counties in 2012 stayed open past 1 o'clock, about half 'til 3 and about half 'til 5. I do know that a number of counties reported that when the voting ended at 7 or 8 o'clock in a number of those counties, even 9, that they had some trouble turning around all the lists to be available to the precinct judges for election voting by the next morning, so some counties did report some practical problems. In the last election. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Nesbit, senator Nesbit excuse me. The logistics of carrying that load is what we're looking at to try to help the board of elections to be able to be prepared for the onslaught come election day. So we're trying to give them some ability to meet that demand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Next question senator Nesbit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman, yes sir and I appreciate this. These are really not hard questions for you, they will get a little harder probably. The section 11 authorizes, now I think we have two poll observers from each party. All the sudden we're gonna appoint 10 more from each party? What in the world are we doing? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead, senator Rucha. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman. When you have those poll workers in what was a problem is trying to find that someone wasn't able to visit or be at their location. What these at large poll workers, poll observers do is actually are able to on a large basis fill in the slots so that individual can be there. If someone was assigned to that election precinct or poll is not able to attend. Apparently you have to sign up to be, identify there. This poll worker on an at large basis will be allowed to fill in and represent their organization appropriately. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I guess this would be for Jerry, does the bill provide that only two at a time will be allowed to work a poll? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me read the appropriation again, hang on a second here. On page 26 lines 32. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That they work and poll and when you read the. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I'm reading that. On page 26 line 32 and 33 all those here 10 at large it states that in addition to the two precinct designated of one of those 10 at large observers may be at any one polling place, so would allow at any one polling place one more, making 3. You follow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So I admitted to where you wouldn't have the 6, 3 from each party at a time in there I guess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I say that because when you read the analysis, and I think it's true on election day. It really goes quite extensively in the how you go to allow them to have acces and they gotta be within hearing distance and they can get, they can go anywhere in the poll that they want to. And I just say to you all, that has the potential to getting out of hand. For both parties. When people can run around the polling place and do mischief so. I would suggest to you maybe it, look at that and anything you can do to tighten that up I would certainly be for it. I want them to be able to observe and I want them to be able to watch everybody, make sure everybody's doing the right thing. But I don't want them intimidating people that are trying to vote and I don't want them intimidating poll workers that are trying to do their job or interfering with them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes we agree with you senator, we'll take a look at that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But I believe there is some remedy as to, the judge of that area is still in charge, and you would hope that nobody sends a poll observer, not a worker, the poll observer into an area that's gonna be disrupted. They're there just to monitor. And I think it's pretty clear as to what behavior is necessary for them to do their job and yet not be impeded in doing so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When I read it, it looked to me like it was balanced the other way. In other words if the judge does tell somebody they're done, then that judge is gonna be scrutinized and held accountable and blah blah blah. But I'm just saying.

Might want to look at the language because I want them to be 00:00:02 polling place. That’s what you need to be able to do.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Next question, another question. Okay.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Moving the presidential primary I’m assuming you would not move the other primaries so then you would have two primaries? How large is that unfunded mandate. Are you funding that for the counties?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt is having looked at South Carolina and elsewhere, there is sufficient resources by having a presidential preference pole occurring within U.S. state at that appropriate time that the resources are generated because of all the activity that exists because of that. I think South Caroline, if I’m not mistaken Senator Brock actually showed some increase revenues because of that activity. You also give the people of the state an opportunity to have a say in a presidential election that has meaning, or presidential primary has meaning rather than waiting until May where it often doesn’t.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me let Jerry chime in here.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Under the North Carolina election law, counties are responsible for most election expenditures other than some state canvassing and training. The direct costs of most of the separate presidential primary would be paid by the counties.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Next question senator Nesbitt.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you [?? 01:45] I think what I heard was yes it’s an unfunded mandate.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Not quite in those terms but I believe you’re correct ultimately.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Could someone kind of explain to me these weakened disclosure requirement on independent expenditure committees. I thought we wanted to go the other direction and have disclosures to who these people were. Have a drop in the box. But [?? 02:11] it goes the other way. Maybe we can ask staff. There are two or three places in here where it does that. If they don’t know, I’ll wait and ask it later when I can find it but I can’t.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Which part of the bill Senator Nesbitt?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not sure exactly where it is in the bill but there’s language in here somewhere that talks about not having to disclose who it is that’s doing direct candidate, I think it’s called direct candidate expenditures, or electioneering communications.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe Senator Nesbitt is referring to part 56. There’s repealing the requirement that for electioneering communications and independent expenditures that they no longer would have to have the disclosure of the names of individuals or persons making the five largest donations to the sponsor of that electioneering communication or independent expenditure. Page 56 of the bill.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Why would we want to do that Mr. Chair? The question is why would we want to have less disclosure about independent expenditures as opposed to more? On both sides I mean that cuts both ways.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] You answer that. Page 56, what section was it.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 56.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 56 I’m sorry. What page number was that? Okay yeah.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] I see your name there Senator Rucho as a defendant.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator Nesbitt. The laws have gotten so confusing as far as election laws that what this tried to do is simplify it, clarified it and in essence get rid of any possible criminalization that occurs because of the confusion in the gray area of the law and what this did is it tried to eliminate that and simplify it so that every candidate can understand what’s expected them and the areas that they might run into problems. That’s the purpose behind why it has been clarified and simplified.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman it’s pretty clear when you say you don’t have to tell anybody who gave you the money. I guess that’s clarifying.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t believe it says this.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re striking out subsection 7: The sponsor shall disclose the names of individuals and persons making the five largest donations to the sponsor within a …

[SPEAKER CHANGES] Striking that out.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] The provision that’s being discussed is a provision that is required in media advertisement that would require the media ad to actually contain the information about the five largest donors with respect to an electioneering communication or an independent expenditure. Senator Nesbitt is correct, that requirement would be being struck by the PCS.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] For the media section correct?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] For the media section only.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] But the reporting section they would still have it correct?\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. It just won’t be on your TV screen, just your picture.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me ask this of staff. I’m not sure where I’m going, I just read this and it looks peculiar to me. Some of your independent expenditure committees don’t have to report who gave them the money. That may be federal and it may not apply to this but somebody please explain to me what we’re doing because it looks to me like you’re taking away the right of the public to know who the people are putting the money up.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Please Erica.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll try. With respect to electioneering communications and independent expenditures, if the donor is making the donation for the purpose of furthering an electioneering communication or an independent expenditure, the information on the donor should be reported to the state board of elections. That is not being altered by this provision. The provision is only altering the requirement that the five largest donors be disclosed in the media ad\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] That makes it a little better Mr. Chairman but I still say, for your average person out there that receives an ad, if you put down there paid for by the Republican party, paid for by the candidate, paid for by the Democrat party, people understand that. If you say paid for by the Citizens for Good Government, they have no earthly idea who’s sending that ad to them. I think there’s a purpose for having it on there so that people get a gist of who this crowd is, whoever it may be on my side or yours. I think I would ask you to look at that provision and think about it a little bit because I hadn’t been [honorous? 02:35] that I know of. I hadn’t had a complaint yet from anybody having to list that. If they got to be listed. The problem is the people getting the communication aren’t going to go look up the election records to see who gave the money. That’s not the purpose of it. The purpose of it is so they know when they’re getting the ad, who said it.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sure they’ll decide Senator Nesbitt will make them aware of who paid for the ad ultimately. Senator Rucho.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] I have no further comment on that.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other committee questions? Okay Senator Rucho.\n[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. The lot of the discussion was talking about the voter ID and under the guise that there was no problem or not something that is necessary. Bottom line is we’re the last southeastern state that would be introducing this photo ID. All the others have done. None of them have had the situation where they’ve had a decline in voter turnout and actually some of them have actually shown an increase because people have confidence in the fact that everybody only votes once and their vote matters and what that means is that you’ve established integrity into the electoral process. There has been a lot of discussion about this early on. I think Mr. Chairman, four or five hours in the house, I think Representative Lewis talked about a lot of these issues that were discussed in length and had a lot of public comment. This is not something that has been put on people at the very last bit. We talked about government valid ID’s. Those are ones that we can have confidence in and everyone can have confidence in. Your college IDs, whether they be in the university system in the state of North Carolina or private there’s inconsistency throughout the entire system with the college IDs. It’s felt that to be valid and people to have confidence in, you want a uniform way of producing them and that’s why the list is before you as to what constitutes valid ID. There was a discussion earlier about the fact that senior citizens and/or disabled individuals have been put upon by this bill and it’s totally erroneous because of the fact that there has been allotted …

Discussion with staff and the like, with a lot of people in the disability rights groups. And they were appreciative of the fact especially nursing homes and the like, that we accommodated a lot of their language in the base of this bill and have alleviated most of their concerns. Mister chairman with that being said I would hope that we could pass this bill and reestablish a level of integrity and confidence in the electoral system and I urge the members to vote for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator brought. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman, an appropriate time way to move favorable report to propose committee substitute is amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister prompt, I'm gonna hold that a minute. Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I have a question mister chair, this is a voluminous bill. The fact that the house is debated it, this is the first time the senate has debated any of these provisions so I think we're. Let's not overstate the amount of processes this bill has received. Do take the opportunity to ask question. Part 38 on page 46 repealing the judicial elections fund. We all received a letter from the entire court well scratch that. 14 of the 15 judges on the court of appeals, bipartisan group imploring us to maintain the judicial elections fund. They, judges have to be impartial and people who historically give to judicial races tend to be those parties that are before the judges and I don't think that it necessarily impairs the independence of the judiciary, although there are cases in other states notably West Virginia where that has been. The supreme court has had that happen. Why are we clouding the independence and integrity of our state judiciary by eliminating this important advancement at elections? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ruchin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman, senator Stein. You know as well as I one of the hardest parts of campaigning is going out and soliciting campaign contributions. When you get something from somebody it doesn't mean that your vote is compromised, you have people that are concerned about issues that you may be concerned about and that's why they help you. In this case what we're looking at is not having government interceding or interfering in the process of the electoral process of judges, and as long as we maintain that process we believe that the government shouldn't be using that kind of taxpayers' money for folks they may or may not want bought. So we feel it is a better way of putting this forward. I wouldn't expect any knowing that soliciting campaign contributions being the hardest part of the election campaign, you would expect the judges to be not very interested in having that and so therefore. That's probably why they woulnd't have, they would have said we'd rather keep the money coming so we don't have to work hard at it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With staff and am I right that the judicial candidates have to raise a certain amount of money from a certain number of voters in order to qualify for these funds? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry senator could you repeat the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For judges to qualify for the judicial funds, do they not have to raise a certain amount of money from a certain number of contributors in order to get that money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My understanding is that's correct. I would note that the judicial campaign financing was also repealed in the budget that's up for a vote in the senate today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can vote against that as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nasmeth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chairman, just to comment on the bill. I am, I would feel remiss if I didn't make the statement. In the committee cuz we still got time to maybe fix it by giving directives in there. You're gonna have a situation with this bill where you've had people who have voted all their lives that are gonna show up to polling place and not have what they need to vote. That is outrageous, I mean they're. When they have that track record of voting and they're regular people and they live in a rural community and they're there, there ought to be a provision in here for people who have, are known to everybody in there, be able to vote. I just raise that because that's gonna happen on your side just as much as it'll happen on ours. Second thing is, restricting early voting is gonna cause a problem. The first thing that happened after we got early voting enacted, was that the local boards, we had actually put a provision in that said that the satellite sites would be agreed on unanimously. No board could agree on anything unanimously on purpose. And it.

.... A way to block all the satellite sites. We had to come back down here and pass another bill and you may remember it where we said if they can agree, then the state board will make the decision trying to keep oversight and balance in it but to get some sites out there. And if they do that again and don't open enough sites out there you gone create lines and this has been done. You're talking about we're the last state in the Southeast to do voter ID. we're about the last state in the Southeast to create voter lines. This is exactly what they did in Texas, where they wouldn't open... I mean Florida... where they wouldn't open another site, they wouldn't open enough sites and they had people lined up around buildings. And I am concerned that that's is going to occur again. And that will hurt your voters as much as it will hurt our voters. It's just a bad deal and if you can figure out some way to tell them to put enough polling places out there. I would appreciate it. Because I don't think they will unless we tell them to. And I'm not sure how to tell them. And those lines are, its the most insidious thing in the voting process and it's what brought about early voting. We were getting down to where on election day we'd have two and three hour lines and people would drive in the parking lot and just turn around and drive back out. They weren't gone stand there that long. And its our responsibility to make sure that voting is not a two hour burden on somebody. They aught to be able to go in and vote and do the civic duty and leave and it not be an ordeal for them. So I would ask you, based on what I just told you, if you can to try to fix the problem of somebody on voter id be able to participate and most of all to make sure we don't have this problem of them not setting up enough satellite sites in order to handle the flow of the people, so that we don't have lines.\nSpeaker Changes - Senator Nesbitt. I think that every one of the Boards of Elections for each of the counties fully understand. I know, in my county knows how many folks are gonna estimate and to make sure that we have sufficient polling locations opened up both on election day and on early voting. Their goal is to make their operation run as smoothly as possible. I'm not sure we should be dictating to them and telling them to do this. Their goal is to get that election process done in a timely and effective manner. The original purpose of the early voting was to accommodate the fact that this society has changed where a lot of folks had a lot of time today and with our busy society going from one location to the other and doing things. That's why early voting was put out there, at least in my way of thinking, Senator Nesbitt. And I see that as a good step. I see that there were steps taking that have abused it for part gamesmanship and partisan advantage. And what this does is it levels the playing field. Every county will follow the same rules and everyone will be given the same opportunity to vote and that is what this is about.\nSpeaker Changes\nSenator Meredith\nSpeaker Changes\nThank you Mr. Chairman. I had a question. Senator Ruto. Senator Nesbitt brought up a point about the people coming to the polls and having issues. In 2014 does the bill not state, that we will just\nSpeaker Changes\nThat's a great question.\nSpeaker Changes\nSenator Meridith\nSpeaker Changes\nThis is a phased in approach. During the primary and the general election of 14, the individuals that come to vote will one, they will say... well I got my ID and... that's great, well you don't need it, but you'll happen to need that in the 2016 election cycle and so there's gonna be an opportunity for the ones that are likely to vote to be there plus a lot of other information shared so that everyone understands that they've had a period to adjust a phased in or transition period to know that on the 16th everyone will know that that is a requirement and. We used to vote one day, Senator Nesbitt, before we started early voting. We survived it. I don't know about in your county, but in my county there are 2 and 3 and 4 hours of waiting at early voting lines and people will either stay there or they won't stay there. Or they will find another suitable time. We've given them a lot of other opportunities to practice their right of voting and this will do the same thing but probably in a more efficient manner.\nSpeaker Changes -\nThank you Senator Ruto. I didn't hear fair and legal one time. Senator Brock moves that we vote to approve the PCS as amended with, rolled into a new PCS with any corrections for alphabetical errors or grammatical errors made and unfavorable to the original. All in Favor say I\nSpeaker Changes\nI...\nSpeaker Changes\nAny opp......\nEnd of Transcript

Say no, so passes. Thank you. We are adjourned. We're gonna start session about 4:15, 4:20 so don't rush.