dakota i'd like to start by emphasizing an argument that i don't think i emphasized enough in my briefs and i made the more or i made the argument in my original motion for stay at page thirty nine and in the merits brief at page thirty five and that was the point about the district court's order basically permitting unlimited forms of identification that could be used to vote in north dakota  as long as they contain the p o box or other mailing address in north dakota so i have in my my hand a piece of paper and it's handwritten but it has a name and it has a date of birth and it has an article to p o box on it and i'm not sure what would what would prevent someone from using this document to vote in north dakota and it doesn't require north dakota doesn't require photo so there's no way to link the name on here to me i happen to have john smith on here the date of birth is five five fifty five north dakota p o box for seventy eight the district court didn't limit the form of identification to a government document which is what north dakota law otherwise required that has the reliable in the issue of  someone having in their possession a document issued by a governmental entity and the other thing that i didn't point out is that it prevents north dakota from from  the qualification that someone be us citizen which both of the forms that we currently have we can use to establish that because north dakota driver's idea non drivers id indicate whether or not the person is a us citizen someone can get one of those documents without being a us citizen but it's no added on on there as required by statute as we know it in our brief and a person who possesses a tribal identification a tribal id that's been issued by a federally recognized tribes within the borders of the state of north dakota that would also indicate u s citizenship and i could put any name on here doesn't have to be my name and i'm sure you are you reading then the the most recent preliminary injunction when it says another form of identification is just a piece of paper well your honor let me ask you this what would what would permit the secretary of state from rejecting this as a form of identification that has it has the three criteria that we require if you take out our requirement that you have a current residential street address the other identifying information that we would require a form of identification to include as a name date of birth and current residential street address that's what we identify as the as the as the the identifying information the minimal den of information a voter must present on the day of an election to vote and judge call the district court  did not limit it to and another reliable type of information i mean what what would prevent there what would permit the secretary of state or a north dakota poll worker from rejecting this only form of identification find it acceptable if it was a form of identification that the person submitted that did not have the residential street address but then was supplemented with the post office box information no your court was going to find and if this court finds that some sort of injunctive relief is appropriate it can't be an some type of relief that itself violates the constitution and that's what identifying appeal box as the place where a person can vote does because it permits nonresidents the vote that you don't require state residency to obtain a p o box in north dakota and at present proof permits residents to vote in the wrong precincts and the other thing that's improper about it with respect to  regardless of what this court may feel alternately decide on the merits is the lack of irreparable harm by the six plaintiffs because none of them depend upon appeal boxed of old and so you have type of remedy that itself violates the constitution by permitting invalid votes to dilute the votes of valid  voters throughout the state and that was demonstrated by just four invalid votes that ended up being cast in the june election that's that you know right that's that we know  you have it complete well on that we it's incomplete only to the extent of ten voters so one hundred fifteen thousand two hundred sixteen voters we've confirmed that they had residential street addresses including the sex that voted pursuant to the p o box injunction four of those six voted in a precinct other than where they reside because they're p o box is located in a precinct other than where they re side two of those voters there they're p o box happened to be located in the same precinct when you use the word reside you mean thirty days in one place right that's one way your honor but it's not the only consolation that the way your statute and constitution define no because it it you can a voter could have a place where they reside for thirty days and they are permitted to declare that their voting residence but they're not required to because red and residency requires union of act and intent and that's set forth in north dakota centric or fifty four or one twenty six so for example let's use the example of a farmer who has a home in that's in town and he has his homestead you know the original farm place out in the country and both of those are residents that he receives mail at both a residence that he uses for some form of identification and let's say that he spends most of the growing season on the farm outside town and he spends most of the rest of the year in town he could reside at in town when harvest is done and he's lived there thirty days immediately preceding the election when the november election comes but he considers the homestead outside town to be the place that he considers his and is a voting residence so he could still vote in here in the precinct that's out of town notwithstanding the fact that he also has the choice of electing to say well no my my my house in town is where my intent is that i reside now is that would be the unusual circumstance wouldn't it aren't most of the examples that we're referring to someone who either is trance the end perhaps temporarily homeless and then getting a residen but the two residency example that you provided doesn't seem to be particularly common at least for purposes of this litigation well i think it's very common in north dakota there are a lot of snow what are called snowbirds who live half the year in arizona or florida and half the year in north dakota well i guess for purposes of this litigation however we're talking about a different type of situation where someone is homeless or perhaps not able to stay in one particular spot as long as necessary to establish a residency such that they can get it on an id well let's go through one by one each of the individual plaintiffs in this case because where the analysis has to start is withstanding this court took an oath each member of this court took an oath to uphold the constitution when they when they took the bench and standing requirement the requirement that someone have an actual case or contrary  before them is a necessary part of that and let me let me put it let me let's think about this a little bit different with two different examples that will demonstrate i believe the lack of standing of all three of the six plaintiffs one is let's let's assume that they have standing but then we need to decide determine whether this is a facial challenge or an as applied challenge and the first step in that in requires this court to determine whether a facial challenge can be advanced by a plaintiff who has standing if they can show that it's unconstitutional under all circumstances well we know i know that i voted in the june election and this did not having a residential street address requirement did not impose a burden on my vote we know that the vast majority almost one hundred percent that we've  verified of the voters who voted in june election weren't burdened by that requirement so i think you can accept as a premise that they can't show that that requirement design constitutional under all circumstances which means we're limited to an as applied challenge and then as applied challenge each individual as the supreme court recently articulated again and get over says wait for a decision they must show that  individual right to vote is was bird and the standing is not dispensed engross plan for must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press one for each form of relief so the form of relief that's most that issue most critical to the secretary is the former relief of allowing people to vote pursuant to appeal box but we look at the form of relief that the court gave in determining whether they have standing to begin with because i think there are cases levon circuit maybe a couple of others where just submitting the photo id having the additional requirement of the photo for exam photo i and the most critical pages and when i guess my question is is why why isn't just the requirement itself enough of harm for standing like in the common cause case and some others that they could bring bring the  case for at least for standing not not for merits but at least for standing while under that argument the four plaintiffs who initially indicated they lived in congressional districts that were affected by packing and unpacking and go versus work for would have been able to present the case because the supreme court recognized there was a harm but they held no these individual plaintiffs have to not only allege that the beginning of the case that they have harmed but they have to maintain that and prove it up at trial and since they didn't the district the supreme court said there was no standing so if we go through these explain to us mr brake bill at page ninety nine of the appellant's appendix he admits he currently possesses a tribal id that lists the street address so how can he argue that he is he he relies upon a p r box the bold he not only does not rely upon the vote but he actually has a tribal id that he can use to vote and the injury the specific injury he says that he has is that his tribal idea will expire in august before the november election that's not an injury well you want to call it a law permits him wired to get a new he then  y injured would need the requirement that he have an id but i think your point is he has a residential street address so he's not injured by the requirement that he have a residential street address yes and he has both the residential street address without the state putting any burden on his ability to obtain that and he has an idea he can use the boat without the state putting any burden on his ability to obtain that either the i understand your point about using expired yes you are ok well the state seems very concerned about people voting without proper identification to show they're in their correct precinct but you're telling us at the same time that example let's say that you're saying if it's an expired id that lists your current address you can use it yes here's the example your honor let's say that you have an elderly parent who still has a driver's license but has now no longer drives and so that license expires but that elderly parent still lives at the address where that expired license occurs they can still use that of old what is there any method for verifying that that's the current residential street address in that situation yes your honor the central voter file would indicate if they have a if they have a driver's license that information is in the department of transportation system and it has to be shared by statute with the secretary of state's office which then finds its way into the central voter file maybe i'd ask the question wrong but how i understand that the information from the identification would still be in the system but how would there be a verification that the residence was still current for the individual person with a ten year expired well because they would show up at the precinct where they still live and that precinct where they would say they would present the driver's license that has their current residential street address and it would match the information that the state has in the central voter file and they were probably be permitted to vote when you say the central order file what do you mean by that the center of order file it with what would what are they matching it up to i guess is my question the address the address that they're actually attached to that person and yes even their verifying this is where the person lived ten years ago when he got the driver's license now they're verifying that it's still the information that the department of transportation has in their system there's and it matches where they still live how do they know it matches where they still live if all they have in the system is a ten year old driver's license that it's not just the ten year old driver's license there might be a history of voting in each election between when that license expired the key is the key for the state is not to determine whether someone has a license that's non expiring not it's determine that they still live at that address and if they have a change of address that address can be reported to the department of transportation and updated in the central voter file if the license to spy is that's that's what i thought the state law so that they know the person is currently living in the address in the precinct yes but it's not right or that we should interpret this statute to include expired driver's license but if it doesn't then the injury would be great bill has to get a new license and but but but i thought your point was still that he has a street address and he's always had a street address so well your honor the license that the id th he has now is he obtained without any state imposed bird it was one that he obtained from the tribe because we offer them him that choice and we can't do anything about the fact that the tribe charged him ten dollars for that id and he still has the option of getting a non drivers id free of charge from the state the district court found that that cost money yes that's that's incorrect your honor the district court cited the general statute that sets forth the fee and we pointed out in page three of our marriage brief the exception that was passed recently in two thousand and seventeen that is an exception to that that's found it a century code thirty nine zero six zero three point one sub four the only time that a person has to pay for non drivers ideas for a duplicate every replacement card the director of department of transportation cannot charge a fee for the issu the original one or a renewal of a recent one expired one because the statute makes those distinctions between issuance renewal or replacement so if you lose your card that's on you you have to pay but if you're if you're a card to a teen it initially there's no charge and to renu an expired one there's no charge and so the argument that hard to kota does not permit a totally free way of so some of the arguments that we discussed might be hypothetical if they are matched up to an individual plaintiff but to help understand the way the statute works i think it would help if you could address some of what comes out of the briefs in terms of a person who doesn't have a residential street address there are allegations in the briefs i'm not saying any of the plaintiffs fit in this category but the brief seemed argue that on certain country roads on the reservations there's no streets and there's no street address or a homeless person might be set up in a park or a rest area or something like that and have a comma you know a residential street address what about that concern well i think i don't think you can disregard the standing requirement because i'm not disregarding it i'm just giving you a hypothetical that assumes there's somebody us standing in this scenario what well the if we thought there was a case or controversy over that i'll start with the homeless person i do have to concede that there might be a limited number of homeless people who might have an injury caused by north dakota's rather residential street address requirement they'd have to be someplace for thirty days right homeless for thirty days that so the people who are who might fall in that category are people who enter the state homeless and never gain a residence never again a place where they can declare that i've been here for at least thirty days that i can becomes a pool or what if they set up camp at a place that doesn't have a number and street associated with it be another possibility well no no your honor because there's there is no place like that and that's i mean this is other names ridge somewhere this is this is the danger of having cases like this decided on a preliminary injunction record what under the bridge well  the reality is that with north dakota's harsh winter climb and a person would not be able to survive under a bridge like this summer thirty days in the summer before the primary thirty days ok let's go back let me go back so let's let's take address well let's say the bank foreclosed on his home he's out of there he doesn't matter he doesn't claim that he lives there he doesn't intend to go back he intends to live under the bridge ok if there is a permanent structure there for example if he affixes this tent to a specific place that place will have that property will have an identifiable street address the the central voter file has an entire  grid there's there's no place in north dakota that's not part of the grid and the the record that we cited ok what i understand your answer on the homeless person what about the reservations and whether there are identifiable addresses  locations there well let's look at what the record contains exhibit seventeen that we submitted in support of our renewed motion for stay contains the back seat in the record that's  o where you're trying to put in new evidence on that on appeal well i'm talking about the record for the district court on the order that we're reviewing ok there i think then i you know i just have to stand on my standing argument your honor that richard elvis northway does not fall within that category and this court can't speculate that there are people in north dakota you need an actual live person before you did mr northway testify at a hearing in this case no your honor ok so what we have is the allegations of complaint and this i think it's thirteen  y in what mr norquist claims in his declaration and what's that what set forth in the in the amended complaint well it's the evidence that matters so if you look at exhibit thirteen he says he gets mail at willow creek his utility bill he lives in apartment number one so is that a residential street address absolutely your honor and he has lived there for because he says he lived there since november seventeenth and he signed the declaration february twenty eight hundred he's lived there for at least thirty consecutive days and can declare that to be his residential street address and he can still do that if it intent because there has to be a union of act and intent that if he wants to vote in dunseath he could use that address as a voting address because he regained that address that satisfies north dakota's requirement after becoming homeless and belcourt but if he if he only views that as temporary shelter and that he has an intention to really return to bellecourt at some point if he can there's no impediment to him using his current tribal id that list his bellecourt residence but more importantly your honor with respect to the pill box injunction mr northway it does not rely upon a p o box to vote he relies upon a residential street address that's still where he gets his mail know can i ask you about the the original injunction that in which the district court ordered the failsafe and he and the state did not appeal that correct that's correct  and that seemed to be the remedy that the plaintiffs that were originally were seeking in my right but your honor that itself is also an unconstitutional injunction it be catered vacated that because north dakota changed the law and so the change in law is what mood at the original injunction that it's a different kind of failsafe the change in the law is what you're referring to is the sort of within six were at least three instances where north dakota had a bad situation bad circumstances that caused them to reconsider the soundness of allowing someone to self authentic eight that they were qualified border on the day of an election when that ballot that's cast before the state has actually been able to independently verify their qualifications is thrown into the mix of red panties and blue pennies melted in the pot and can't thereafter be removed and th november soprani sixteen election a stablish that there are over thirty eight hundred votes that north dakota still to this day hasn't been able to verify that the people of all who who cast those votes were qualified but that's what the statute o riginally allowed for am i right yes but but when the district court essentially reinstated that with the first injunction you didn't appeal but you're not here today saying that that's an acceptable  remedy no it's not acceptable your honor and i believe that's the district court recognized that when it declined the plaintiff's request to reinstate it let me ask you this on another topic i know you're mostly concerned about the rosa street address but the briefs go back and forth about the part of the injunction that applies to the tribal i the best i can tell nobody there's not really a dispute about whether a letter from the tribe or something like that would be accepted that you know the plight of the secretary the plaintiffs to do dispute that your honor i understood them to say the statute doesn't allow for it but they are happy with the injunction requiring it and the state's position is the injunctions not necessary because you're the secretary saying the statute r t o ause for it is that correct or not your honor and i said if that is correct i searched and searched for a case that said you're enjoying from enforcing the statute but continued in for employment at the same way you well i know that's your position the district court wasn't convinced th statute allows for that sort of id but i'm just wondering what the fight is about if if you're willing to do with the injunction says why don't you put five more minutes on their missed you know if you're willing to do it the injunction says i understand i just want to know what the fight is about so i had another question about the motion that's pending now earth several motions but the motion first day you know when they came up in late may early june the court denied the motion citing the authorities about changing the rules close to an election and we invited or said the state was free to file renewed motion when the briefing was completed the briefing was completed on july seventeenth but there was no motion filed then for another month and now by the time their response and their reply come in were passed labor day what is the schedule in north dakota for the general election when does early voting begin what other things happen before november  we need to know about to decide whether you've run into the same problem with delaying too close to the election well your honor let me first say that we needed to gather information and that information needs to be  gathered in conjunction with counties who we don't have control over i mean i thought that was possibly your problem you would thought you were going to present new evidence on appeal instead of just renewing the motion about the district court's order based on record that was made in the district court and that apparently legit well wait a month but but that's beyond us now i'm interested in the timeline i so we can assess whether that's a concern the first critical  twenty first september twenty three i think the paper say maybe it's apparent i don't but they have to do anything with regard to residential street address probably would not be affected your honor next critical deadline would be the one for when we have to make mail in an absentee ballots available and that would be supply for twenty seven and then the more critical deadline is what we ran into with what the first order would be when we have to certify the elections manual for the for the november election in order that the training can can begin that deadline is october fifth that's the manual that the secretary of state sends out to all the county auditors right and it has to be approved first it has to be submitted to the attorney general mr stanton and then approved by him before we have our final training that can take place pursuant to the certified elections manual well is that mean it's too late now to change the rules or how much time does it take to get the manual ready before october five well  the first time we were ready to change it on a moment's notice if need be and i think we could do that again now so this court that the critical date would be october fifth which is about a month away a moment's notice all right because you had this filing in the district court that talked about how it takes you know two to three months to prepare the manual and then three to four weeks for the attorney general the proof it and i thought you said in your reply that that timeline is still accurate asked and it still is your honor i mean well then how can you know what are the moments doda says my question well we would maybe we would find a way to do it on a moment's notice if we got relief you if we don't get relief the elections manual that was used for the general action could still be our use for what about the absentee and mail in ballots you said something happens on september twenty seventh that's the day that  the state has to make those ballots available for for people who request them so does that person who request one have to comply then with either the statute or the injunction to get ballot yes that would be true you have in person to have what i would call in person absentee ballot right where you sort of i committed state the day of election but you come in september twenty eighth and say you want to vote no you don't have to come in and you could give an invalid back yes yes ok so isn't that really september twenty seventh because you have to know that when the person shows up whether that person can qualify with what judge hoagland says or whether that person has to qualify under the statute yes your honor but the people who vote i mean it's just the practical circumstances of the of the people who take advantage of the absentee unmount mail in ballot are not likely to require a p o box they have six days after the election to show their qualifications the people who vote on september twenty seventh or twenty no they would have to show that at the time they request confused your honor and well you know you show up you say i'm going to be on vacation november eight i want to vote now ok you've got no registration no valid form and they can they vote it's set aside and you determine six days if the electorate or not they don't need to hear her they still have all the time between september twenty seventh and no no no i'm talking about a little about your endeavor not the voters and i'm talking about the supply not the debate and that's that's what i'm referring to as well your honor if someone comes in with a on the very first day they can submit an application and then application is the fish and the county auditor can tell him no this doesn't this this application doesn't comply with the statute what we need to issue the ballot and have six days to come in with the supplemental documents which are saying the auditor wouldn't even give them the absentee ballot well that they wouldn't they wouldn't need to come back if they submitted a ballot application what we know that that's how it would be you i hypothesizing application that comes up short yes then they would be told they would be instructed this application does not satisfy the criteria we need to to give you a bal but you have between now and november eighth or november sixth whatever the date is i can't remember now to submit to here's the information that you need that's missing from your application as lines you submit the application we will give you a ballot so there is no need the six days is for those people who wait all the way till the end still don't have their ducks in a row and we give them another six days the people who are using an absentee or mail in ballot have a more extended period of time to get their ducks in a row i guess that makes sense ok thank you for your argument thank you mr campbell will hear from you please put the total amount of time that we allowed to mr nicholai on there i think we had given him five more minutes after the first ten so it should be thirty five thirty three thank you may it please the court your honor sir matthew campbell attorney for the native american rights fund on behalf of the plaintiff appleby's in this matter the district court did not err in concluding that north dakota's laws imposed substantial burdens on the right to vote and require an interest in property in order for one to be qualified to vote there's an abundance of evidence in the record that supports the district court's factual findings with regard to standing with regard to the lack of residential addresses on the reservations in north dakota and with regard to the substantial burdens on the right to vote there's evidence from the plaintiffs from expert witnesses from other voters impacted in north dakota as well as from tribal leaders on the impact these laws have on their community members in north dakota therefore the district court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous in this matter why don't you start with standing if you would has evolved six people have residential street addresses how do they have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a requirement that one be yes or on the plaintiffs in this matter have at least six burdens imposed on them that are sufficient for purposes of standing what the record shows is that elvis nork way doesn't currently have a qualifying voter id with his current residential address nor currently has any documentation with a residential address all of the voters all of the plaintiffs in the section must maintain a fixed permanent dwelling and that dwelling must have a residential address all the voters must obtain voter i d s they also must present voter d s to vote well that might give them standing the challenge the id requirement but i'm talking about the street address requirement you say nor quade doesn't have an id that lists his current street address but he has a current street address  them it is to maintain a fixed permanent dwelling with an address he's been in and out of homelessness in order to maintain a dwelling all of the plaintiffs had to either pay rent utilities find a dwelling that has an address and then not only that but they have to list it on their id so it's not just maintaining an address and in a permanent dwelling with an address you also have to have it on your identification and in order to legally change your residence from one precinct to another it's not enough that you have found a new residential address you actually have to have documentation showing that and what the record shows is that he could challenge whether he should be required to get an id but why does he have standing to argue that he should be allowed to use appeal box because he doesn't have a residential street address when he has one he says he gets mail at willow street apartment number one yes your honor that the ability to pay a poll tax doesn't mean someone doesn't have standing to challenge a poll tax it's actually the imposition of the feel or the burden on the right to vote that provides the standing but the state didn't require him to get an address he already had an address well your honor mr norquist get an id maybe and that would be well mr norquist and all the plaintiffs have to maintain an address whether it's through paying rent or paying utility bill has over them have any of them allege that but for the statutory were voting requirement i would not have an address no no i don't need anybody's alleging this statute causes them to maintain an address they all have addresses as i understand it and they're not alleging that but for the voting statute i would abandon my address that's right your honor they're not alleging that they don't have addresses mr over snork we has been in and out of homelessness for the last several years and so he's had this burden that is required  in order to be qualified to vote he has to satisfy that burden and it's on the face of the statute that he has to have a permanent dwelling with an address it's something that's facially invalid and merely maintaining and being forced to have that to be qualified to vote is sufficient for purposes of standing to attack the law in official manner here on north dakota requires the residential street address to be on the valid i correct yes your honor it doesn't require that and it has to be a current current one to be valid are there what other states in the union if you know require a current residential street address on a valid id d for voting purposes i don't know of any other for purposes of voting many other states have idea requirements but they don't necessarily require you to have your residential street address for the them to be considered valid for purposes of voting so is north dakota alone in this requirement to have that on the identification you know i don't know the answer to that i believe so but i don't know how many states have registration requirements if you don't change your registration of certain days thirty days is typical due to dun versus blue stain you don't get a vote so for you to say north dakota is completely wrong in that and having to show up voting system i think you're misleading us counsel well i think what you see with regard to registration is there are at least seventeen different states that have same day voter registration and iowa is one example of that if you don't have an id and you don't have an address in iowa you can bring someone with you to the polls that can vouch for you and allow you to vote without having your id and your address so given the severely burned some nature of the laws the state has to utilize less restrictive means before they can attempt that when you are your answer judge kelly's a little misleading in terms of how elections really work well you know i guess and i believe that the statute here is more restrictive than any of the voter id laws that have been presented before th court all the other three laws had failsafe provisions or had more voter i d s that were acceptable or the states of their how does the the remedy that was most recently  provided by the district court the p o box remedy how does that achieve and what you're trying to get at here does it really meet the goal of fear lawsuit the p o box remedy provides and what the district court saw was that there are many native people in north dakota that have ideas that only have peeled boxes and the district court was concerned with the clear legal obstacle of the requirement that someone must maintain a current residential address and that it must be shown on their id so in order to be qualified how in that situation can the state be assured that the person is voting in the proper precinct is i understand the point there are some folks that their identification they can only provide documentation to support that the sample panel documentation is appeal box and that seem to be the district courts one of the just of courts concerns and i understand now part of that but how do you address the problem that that then seems to create in not allowing the state to monitor whether someone is actually voting in the proper precinct your honor i think what our position is that the state misinterpreted the district court's order what we think is that it provided for a broader allowance of acceptable voter i d s and it did not require the state to allow someone to vote out precinct the poll workers in the precincts can still ask someone where they were they lives in if the the voter can then she point on a map where they live within the precinct and if the where they point is outside the precinct boundaries for workers can them direct them to the prior to the correct precinct we don't think the district court's order requires the state to allow voters to vote out of precinct merely allows the voters to have more of a broader allowance of acceptable forms of id they can point to their where they live why can't what's the burden in producing the street address rather than the p o box in the p o box presumably entails a fee just having a residence doesn't sure the there was a factual finding made by the district court that there is a lack of residential addresses on the reservations in north dakota and there's sufficient evidence in the record to support that factual finding so it's not clearly erroneous the state has recognized on several occasions that native american communities lack residential asher says mr silverman two thousand and eleven representative marvin nelson recognized in two thousand and sixteen that native american communities lack residential addresses in his district we also have testimony from russ mcdonald the previous chairman of the spirit lake nation as well as the treasurer and secretary of the spirit lake nation that provides that on their reservation there are many homes that just simply do not have residential address this testimony in this case before the district court yes your honor thank you yes and i can point to you where it is in the record if you like those  the president of united tribes technical college and nancy robertson's the secretary of the spirit lake nation described the situation on their reservation in the states brief at page twenty five assistant secretary of state s room recognized that native american communities lack in residential addresses and likewise on page twenty in our brief or on doc ninety two in the front of the district court representative marvin nelson recognize that in his district there's a lack of residential addresses we also have mr elvis nork way who's been in and out of homelessness and has had a hard time intending a permanent address course he's always got an address though right if you read his declaration the only fair reading of it he lists saint addresses all the time yes what the record shows is that yes mr norquist while he's been in and out of homelessness he currently did have a residential address when the record was cemented well i asked you about that you said he can bring a facial challenge even though he has a street address but now they're saying to bring a facial challenge he would have to show the statutes unconstitutional in all circumstances would me yes your honor that's correct so are you is he also bringing in as applied challenge that's correct i think the point that the challenges here are facial with regard to the property requirement because that would property require the statute requires one to have a fixed permanent welling council where does it say fix permanent dwelling i don't believe i have it in front of me but there's a definite north dakota's definition of residence provides that in order to be a residence in any other  abode at the end of that sentence if you're referring to sixteen point one no dash zero one dash zero four point two never seen such a long number number everyone in the world but it says every qualified voter you're right it starts with actual fixed this is a complicated case if you could be accurate it would be helpful well it's not only that you have to have that in an abode definition of an abode as a home which would sound like a permanent dwelling but it's not just that you have to have a abode or a fixed permanent whiling it's also that it must have a street address and it must be current and we know that there are many places because the district court found there are places in north dakota that do not have residential street addresses and that there are homeless people in north dakota that don't meet these requirements ok but none of those people is a plaintiff so how is it that any of your plaintiffs have standing to complain about those things again or on earth our position is that they're just the minute putting that requirement in front of the voters and making them satisfy that qualification is a sufficient injury sufficient burden to maintain that for purposes of voting to provide them standing with regard to whether or not this definition of residence is proper what we can look at is crawford and it really sets out how we determine whether or not this definition of residence is invidious and what crawford says is that if there are requirements that are unrelated to voter qualifications then they are invidious and cannot survive even rational basis review and what we know from north dakota's definition of residence is that someone can live in north dakota a house and it merely doesn't have a residential address but they would not be qualified to vote if that if that because they don't have an address in that house or they may be homeless and live at a park and don't have an abode or a fixed permanent whiling and the park may not have a residential address so they'd never be qualified to vote but that doesn't tell us whether or not those people have lived within the precinct for thirty days because many people may have lived within the precinct for thirty days they merely just don't have the address to to show that they've lived within the precinct i and maybe i misunderstood but i thought that part of your argument was that it was not just the residential street at that dress but requiring that r s a on the identification itself and the district court made a number of findings about the difficulties in obtaining identifications did i misunderstand a part of your argument that those two were integrated no i think they exactly are integrated and the district court did makes a very many different findings on the substantial burdens in order to obtain an id and having an interest having a permanent dwelling or an abode with an address is just merely one of those burdens there are several others that i think are worth  that's that there are no free voter i d s in north dakota the district court found out about the non driver's license that we said that i just heard by statute has no fee well the district court was also presented with that information but also with other information that what do you think the statute says well i believe on the face of the statute it might say that but then practicing in apas it right out except for a duplicate or placement card the director may not charge a fee to provide a non driver photo id card applicant i don't think there's a money but go ahead why doesn't that clearly show that you can get a free non drivers photo id and i appreciate that in the statute does say that your honor but what in application and in practice is what the district court found is that north dakota is still charging for i d s we have missed dorothy where they find their i saw a reference to that but are you sure he found that they're charging for that he said can you point us to that finding yes one second your hon i believe that's in the state's appendix on page two sixty three and two sixty four what page of the order if you know april three i don't know the page of the order i only have the page of the appendix in offers no authority for this statement of course it would have been helpful if he had cited the statute but apparently didn't and then the judge goes on and say this fact is contradicted by the north dakota d o t website which reveals a fee for the idea is that in the record the website or is that the judge doing his own website research or i do not remember that the website is in the record but what is in the record is that several of the plaintiffs were charged for i d s including well many of them were charged for tribal i d s but dorothy herman went to get a non drivers id she of course went several times to the driver's license site and was able to give in the limited hours but eventually was able to get a driver's life non drivers id which is supposed to be free but she had to pay eight dollars for her id so what we see in application is where's th record who's the dorothy herman you say yes your honor and i don't have that exact citation for me i apologize for that  well you'd be happy if the state game a free one right we would be happy if the state provided free i d s to all voters in the state and i think north dakota you know i'm talking about the non drivers thing we're talking about yes i think we would be happy point to mr nicol i started with that apparently as briefly alluded to in the briefs and that is that the injunction on page fifteen refers to quote another form of identification that includes either a current residential street address or a current mailing address what what's your understanding of what forms of identification would be covered by that well i think that district court was allowing tribes issue other forms of identifications if they could oh he does say and later in the order of a document letter writing issued by a tribal authority yes you know but you think it's limited to that it says another form of identification well i think the state's concern is whether or not someone can draw it draw on a piece of paper their name and bring it and try and vote and i think what we see is that in several instances the state has fact trusted voters to confirm that they're qualified if you if so you think it allows that voter could just write a statement that i reside at such and such a place or my i have a don't agree with that literal interpretation of the of the judge's order i think it has to be in a diet identification and so i does have to be issued by a government authority or or can it be someone vouching what do you think it means well but i think in the context it probably wouldn't be someone vouching but i think given the context of all the other ideas the supplemental documents that show addresses and his reference to tribes being able to issue other types of things i think it would have to be in line with those types of documents and it could just be someone writing out a piece of paper that this is my name and i'm qualified to vote i think you'd have to be an identification that is is more official than that what about a piece of mail that had appeal box yes your honor i believe that would be exactly something that would satisfy that requirement you think that would be a form of identification yes your honor but you don't think what if the postmaster wrote a note and said i verify that this person has p o box number twelve that the post office i think of the postmaster wrote on letterhead that that was the case i do think that would satisfy that requirement but not if the next door neighbor wrote no i don't believe that we would interpret the statute in that way you know you're on the side of statues first and hoards order i apologise but i'm just wondering how the secretary should interpret it you know i mean that's one concern i think that's being raised is how well the people at the polls know what they can take and what they can't take it just as another form of identification yes so i thought again i think given the context of all the various forms that has been laid out with whether it's male paychecks things like this like that or something it's usually letters one that's listed but we're talking about ones that aren't listed right and if they have their p o box address or something that can be utilized to show that someone lives within north dakota has that i naively thought that it says here the affidavit of james still strong still room says that secretary of state's already interpret the law to apply for a whole list of these is that true the secretary of state asserted in its briefing that it was a interpret in the law in that way but that was the first time that we had seen anything where the law was interpreted in such a way there's no official regulation or assertion or publication that indicated he had done that and in fact the state's own advertising shows a tribal identification a picture of someone holding a card as what a tribal id is and so as the court recognized i would be very dangerous for someone to rely on that and for poor workers to rely on that when there hasn't been any official pronouncement to that fact and that the tribal idea would have at a minimum the name and date of birth correct are we've all tribal ids do have that in north dakota so you would you would we need to read the district court's injunction to include date of birth and the identification other which you couldn't come up with you couldn't come to vote with a piece of mail that had your post office box a name you still need the date of birth do you not yes i think you would need to show that you're over the age of eighteen right so i guess of and kind of pushing on on how minimal the set of identification documents might be even if you brought that even if you brought the mail that had the p o box or even though the letter frankly from the from the postmaster you gotta get something in there with your date of birth correct yes i believe that would be the case if you're requiring while you're switching so this is the problem for the people at the polls we've switched in ten minutes here from yes the mail is good enough to know it's not good enough one of very close to do i do you know so many well i agree with that i think what we're seeing here is what the district court found was that thousands of people were at risk and in its lap through utilizing its last failsafe mechanism sixteen thousand voters utilize that failsafe and so the district court saw a clear legal obstacle that many people would not be able to meet and was balancing the interests of voters against those of the the state and what the court saw was the clear legal obstacle of people that could not vote without residential street addresses and it was providing relief to those voters that it was very concerned about this requirement that you must have a residential street address when it found that there are many places that don't have that in north dakota but what forms of identification are out there that include appeal box and the date of birth well tribal i d s are one form of id expired i d s there could be a veterans affairs card that may only have your da birth in your name i believe a passport i think there's i don't have all of them in my mind but i believe there are many that would have your your identification and your birth date on there and they would have post office boxes on the they may or may not have post box offices in north for the tribes in north dakota many people only have their p o box addresses on their tribal i d s and that's what the district court found in  twice and but some tribes may have no addresses on their id they may only have a person's name and birth date on there with their picture so it depends a little bit on where you're from and which tribe you're from in north dakota but we know that thousands of people lack qualifying identifications at least five thousand native voters and nearly sixty five thousand non native voters lack qualifying identification that would have a residential ad because of the residential address requirement but they would otherwise be allowed to vote except for that requirement so do i understand you to be saying that what at least one category that the district court would allow under this and junk most recent injunction is an id that had your name and date of birth which you've listed a few i think tribal id military id then you could imagine with a piece of mail is that what you're talking about with the peel box yes i agree with that assertion yes but did do you do read the district court injunction is reading out the initial requirement of an identification with the name and date of birth no i don't read it that way i think and i apologize if that's how i've come off but i don't think we would interpret it as you just do away with all the other requirements and all you have to show is a letter with appeal box if it doesn't have your other qualifications on there at least under this district court order i think under the previous order and then there are other systems that are available that would be the case if there is an affidavit that someone could sign it was privy emplace previously in place or someone could vouch for you i think these less restrictive alternatives would do away with that because you would have another way to satisfy the state's interests well i thought the order said it has to be a form of been identified cation that includes the mailing address so i'm not sure why you think that a document that has a name and date of birth plus a separate piece of mail would be included in a form of id that includes a mailing address well i think what the district court was only a providing for as many forms of id that would be acceptable so it wasn't entirely enjoining the statute as it was written so i think the statute would allow for other supplemental documents that would have appeal box and so therefore this the district court's order the way we interpret it was was trying to broaden what was acceptable in north dakota that would be utilized as long as someone could show they're over eighteen they their name and they have a residential or o box address then they should be entitled to vote and i think that's how we would interpret the district court's order in a very broad manner that way so that we can ensure everyone can vote in north dakota well again on supplemental documents the surrounds for that went how could we go back to what was before i mean even maybe like better as a remedy i don't know but how how would we do that well that the first injunction was never appealed and the only reason that the district court dissolved it was because it was providing relief in its current order and there's a new law the new to you know the twenty eighteen order addresses a new law that's right and  think the twenty cites in two reasons two reasons why i think we would disagree that the reason the district court's order provides dissolve the first one was that because it was providing relief not because that because i think the district court clearly recognized that the new law placed the same exact burdens in front of the voters that the old law did and so the only reason it dissolved the first one was because it was providing the relief in the second order and so i think the  current law has never been utilized without providing these failsafe mechanisms that the disk or provided or these other broader forms of id and so this place is a system that's never been in place there's an election that starts in september twenty seventh and so i think the state is familiar with what the district court provided previously which was an affidavit failsafe that had been in place for one hundred years and going to the legislature repeal that right saying the legislature can't repeal an affidavit requirement right no that's not what i'm saying i'm saying but it comes down to the way you argue to reinstate the first guy thought about this a long time because it is attractive but isn't that what you really argues they can't do an affidavit the legislature can't repeal an affidavit requirement and only states have an affidavit requirement after an election i bet that's a none too well i think what what we're asking for is for the if if you're not going to preserve the status quo that we should go to the status quo ante which is what was in place before the district court's order and that was its previous order this new law has never been twenty thirteen or twenty fourteen and then made slight modifications in two thousand and sixty what and maybe maybe this isn't in the record or wasn't discussed but across the states what are the the what are the most common failsafe mechanisms for persons who come to vote without the proper id is it the affidavit or declaration process i think for the voter id states the affidavit is probably the most common where if someone doesn't have their id they can swear that they're qualified to vote and other states also allow for a voucher where if you don't have your idea or you can't show your address someone can vouch for you but i think those than provisional ballots they're not ballots like north dakota used to have that are mixed in immediately in iowa i think the same day registration would allow someone to have outer and they'd get a regular ballot not a provisional my understanding is that they would only get a provisional if they didn't have someone vouch for them so they couldn't show through the person vouching that they were qualified they otherwise can't show they're qualified then they get a provisional ballot the vast majority of states in this country don't have same day registration supported and therefore not clearly erroneous and that we would ask that the district court's order be affirmed so that voters are allowed to vote in the next election thank you all of the germans are not b talked about that hasn't been addressed in the briefing that i've already had and i rely upon that is the point of dorothy herman paying the eight dollars fee if that interim fact happened the cause of action would not lie and the indictment is against the statutory requirement it would be against the department of transportation for violating state law by not issuing that feat or that replacement card free of charge and that's the only additional point i'd make your honor but i think he was saving it as evidence for the state's practice is not in conformance with the statute i think that was the point i don't know what you mean by the cause of action i mean if the state isn't following the statute then there might be a cause of action that they're violating the constitution right but those in the equivalent of a poll tax and that and that that would lie that action would lie against the department of transportation not the secretary of thank you doll counsel for coming on such short notice and preparing so well and we apologize for any shortness of discussion here but we did give you a lot of time and i think it was helpful to the court so we'll be in recess and deliberate and file an order opinion in due course thank you