i'm not even going to bother but i will say even though this is up here in this court for the third time we have probably not gone through all of eighty thousand pages of record  you need to give us citations where you can i will also make a comment although i was never a trial judge like judge graves i did after retry several cases early in my career and one judge told me they were like twice to food so given given that maybe you can stimulate us for his case then his number seventeen four zero eight eight four bill five substantially amended texas voter id law by creating a reasonable impediment exception expressly suggested by this court so whether if you don't remove this remedial principles or liability texas voter id laws are valid s b five holy cured any discriminatory effect in each of the twenty seven voter witnesses whose testimony underlies plaintiff's entire case can vote without id or impediment under arrest b five in our opening brief at pages twenty two twenty three list out each voter with supporting record citations and plaintiffs have no response to this crucial dispositive point the dish report's findings must be vacated  start with movements but whether it's examined under mutinous theory or remedial principles or underlying liability senate bill five change texas voter id law in a fundamental way that this court suggested and the supreme court's precedent requires this court to examine the law as it stands now that's defender for there was a substantial legislative amendment that moots plaintiff's previous challenge against texas old voter id law that did not have any reasonable impediment exception in plaintiff's entire theory in this case has been that they were categorically barred from voting for not having id that's no longer the case after senate bill five and plaintiffs have not amended their complaint to challenge the and to do that point it would have to ignore the effect of s b five when all twenty seven voter witnesses whose testimony underlies their claims can now vote without impediment through the seven enumerated reasonable impediment exceptions listed on the declaration there is no possible ongoing discriminatory effect although we've preserved argument that there was no discriminatory effect even from senate bill fourteen but this panel's bound by the  the idea that plaintiffs could somehow keep this case alive by arguing for a pre clearance remedy vermont agency from the supreme court squarely foreclose that argument plaintiffs do not cite from on agency they have no response to vermont agency what that case holds is mere subjective interest in the by product of a suit there it was a key tamra later balance here it would be the remedy of potential pre clearance that does not give run operation push and address the issue substantial amendment to the law that would move the case that we also have from davis this court's opinion for recently were texas mooted the case by passing a new redistricting map and that redistricting map had districts that were in the previous ma saying operation the nine hundred eighty eight law in operation push which i reviewed this morning was not a substantial change of course it was it was a substantial change here not only that we have the express remedy that this cour the state that and acted so there is no issue here that there could possibly be any lingering burden and that also distinguishes them occurring for circuit case because texas allows regular ballots to be cast on the reasonable impediment exception that's a key distinction but whether you're analyzing o even if it's not moved there is no basis for any injunction against senate bill five and the reason for that is because there is no ongoing injury there is nothing left to be cured an injunction has to be tailored to an actual injury so here without any ongoing discriminatory effect there can be no ongoing constitutional violation this isn't a breach of page forty one forty two in a reply at thirty one to thirty two citing cases like green crawford and palmer from the supreme court and cotton in this court and i think cotton and chen from this quarter two very key cases because what they say is that an amended loss supersedes any possible claims about a prior law's intent that's davis precedents and the supreme court's precedents say you look at the law as it stands now and as it stands now all twenty seven voter witnesses can vote without impediment under just five of the seven enumerated impediments listed in the reasonable impediment exception declaration in crawford because the in a dizzy affidavit in crawford would have required a second trip back to the circuit court clerk's office now this court also suggested that potentially that in the affidavit could have been a suitable remedy but that the texas legislature did is it tracked the interim remedy that had a reasonable impediment exception that both parties agreed to days after this court's in bank opinion last august in addition to that last august the state informed the district court th governor abbott would support legislation to fix the discriminatory effect found by this court in the next legislative session the texas legislature meets five months every two years in the immediate legislative session following this court's and bank opinion the texas legislature did exactly that in february twenty seven thousand senate bill five was introduced there were twenty of the thirty one members of the original author of that of the bill all republican members of the texas senate that passed the senate in march twenty sevent both united states and the state of texas asked the district court to abide by this court's precedent and the supreme court's precedent give the legislature the first reasonable opportunity to fix the law the district court responded saying it was not going to wait and would issue an opinion on discriminatory purpose to quote its earliest convenience unquote that violates this court's mandate it violates the court's precedents the supreme court's precedents and if the district court had waited as senate bill five would have been on the books long before any discriminatory purpose  finding regardless we asked for reconsideration after senate bill five was passed in the district court refused to reconsider but this court's mandate expressly directed the district court to take account of any interim legislative action and when you have senate bill five passed that completely eliminates any injury from all the plaintiffs and all of the testimony shown in the record that is a substantial amendment that would change the nature of that claim and when this court directs the district court to first of all you have to find the cases not you have to find somehow the injunction would have possibly been proper to a different set of circumstances and here this court is already reminded for that what the court said was it remained because you need to quote be confident of the evidence for the record an right but what the court directed the district court to do was to reexamine a new the taliban of the evidence in the district court responded with a nine and a half page opinion it doesn't cite the record we put three hundred thirty four pages of briefing before the district cour at the district courts request on remand and what the court has before it today is the product of that and so what was the difference in your briefing on remand from the way this evidence had been considered first time around well first of all we had much lengthier briefing but again there has been no forfeiture of any argument as plaintiffs and said i'm not saying that i'm just saying just describe to me where are you taking each of the arlington factors and you know really lining them up against the evidence in the record or what yes among many other things getting into the to the factors of the purpose find here to take the unnatural speed finding that senate bill five somehow was presented to fourteen was somehow passed with a natural speed that is clearly wrong it took the entire legislative session from january to may two thousand and eleven in addition to that the texas legislature for six years had been actively debating voter id legislation opponents had conceded that they were ready to offer amendments they conceded they were picking up from the two thousand and nine discussion there were over fifteen hundred transcript pages that were produced on the legislative record senate bill fourteen in two thousand and eleven alone that's in our brief a page sixty bill fourteen was debated for nearly thirty six hours the senate adopted nine amendments the house adopted fifteen amendments this is completely different from a situation such as mccrory in the fourth circuit where you have consideration of that bill over the course of nearly three weeks and here this was part and parcel of a forty five hundred page transcript legislative record over six years in addition to that the district court didn't consider all sorts of proponents favorable status the district court said it only examined plaintiff's probative evidence this is are always six nine seven seven three when the district court only examined plaintiff's evidence and not the totality of it and all sorts of treasure trove that the plaintiffs actually obtained of proponent testimony of legislatively privileged testimony that supported the state's argument that alone is another basis of fear even s b fourteen opponents said there was no invidious purpose from the proponents this is our way three eight five one one three eight nine nine six and four six four one six in addition to that the legislature expressed they relied on polls that showed that photo voter id laws were widely supported across both racial and political lines and while the district court said that maybe those pol weren't formulated the best to get constituent responses legislators expressed they relied on those statements and when you're analyzing the legislature's purpose that evidence is very probative particularly against the backdrop of a presumption of constitutionality good faith and regularity that must be honored when doing the hard work of analyzing a collective bodies intent that's why the spring for the said because the courts must examine what use extraordinary caution determine voter fraud safeguarding voter confidence it would have been election integrity but it would not have been trying to prevent people from voting it would not have been preventing people from voting in was evidence of voter from the evidence of voter fraud there was actually evidence that four there were four prosecutions for in person voter fraud in texas over the past ten years as plaintiff's expert said and that is very that is a stronger record there were four there were four documented carter baker commission also said this is it's very hard to detect and without id laws it is hard for states to detect that and that's why even the carter baker commission here said when you have an exception such as a reasonable impediment exception having perjury penalties attached that is wholly valid and necessary to safeguard election integrity and plaintiffs now say without pleading any claims against senate bill five that the perjury penalties that would attach to the reasonable part of a declaration are somehow discriminatory that but those are part of the interim remedy if you if you file a false voter registration statement in the first place i e subject to criminal penalties yes in fact higher penalties even under  that's right and so that's terri would sweep away all sorts of election laws that is not a theory just about texas photo voter id law but if i can get the notion that you're going to fight you responded to  core please the court jogger on the united states the texas legislature accepted the on the court's invitation and adopted a legislative remedy that directly and completely cures the harms and infirmities that the court found in s b fourteen in fact the legislative remedy largely tracks the interim remedy that the district court entered for the two thousand and sixteen election and it remains undisputed that the interim remedy completely cured the discriminatory effect that the court fou removes any basis for any further remedy in this case including section three c relief s b five the lawsuit began as a challenge to s b fourteen and what the court found was that s b fourteen had a disproportionate racial impact on the subset of texas voters who lacked a photo id and cannot reasonably obtain one due to one of five impediments that the plaintiff voters and other voters testified to a trial those impediments were lack of transportation lack of underlying documentation work schedule a disability and lost or stolen identification s b five the new voter id law in texas maps on to all five of those impediments completely excuse the voter id law and the voter i requirement for any voter who faces any one of those five and ten impediments so that alone is enough to establish that s b five cures the harm that the court identified in s b fourteen there's no need for the court to go any further than that but the texas legislature did it identified a few more impediments and added them to the list those include family responsibilities idea applied for a not yet received and even added illness to the disability category so as it stands today under estimate  didn't it did not is there an other category something that shows the other line was part of the interim remedy but it wasn't necessary to cure the harm that this court identified in this b fourteen and interestingly your honor that even the district court never said  it was it was a limited from the interim remedy to s b thought of but the interim remedy was broader than necessary to cure the effects the court identified in s b fourteen and the other line wasn't necessary to cure any defect or infirmity or harm flowing  from s b fourteen the district court also never said that it was laid out the five impediments that were in the record and all five of those impediments are now covered by s b five the other line was added to the negotiations of the parties because that line appears in these reasonable impediment procedures in other states but there was no finding in the record and the district court didn't make one on three man that the other line was necessary to cure any harm the district court said something else entirely the district court said that it thought that removal of the other line was a quote harsh response to abuse of that line under the interim remedy that in the court's view didn't actually advance texas's interests in secure elections but those are all policy judgments those are judgments for the legislature to make those aren't legal or remedial judgments for a district court to make and they have nothing to do with whether s b five cures the harm in s b fourteen in the record on that on this clear as counsel just laid out there were twenty seven voters who testified at impediments that this court saying anything different on remained of this case than we said in operation push these if evaluating the amended law  we certainly agree that on that point operation push is controlling and shelves according to actually what i got to do in terms of analyzing them and why my point here is that operation push required it's sad that you had to look at the new constitution or under section two that they haven't even alleged that s b five was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and they haven't even tried to put in evidence on that even though the district court offered them the opportunity to do so and the rules of civil procedure would have allowed them to amend their complaint to do so if they'd want its face that it cures the discriminatory effects in s b fourteen because it covers all five of the impediments that were testified to at trial and the private plaintiffs never dispute that they don't dispute that it covers all five of the impediments that are in the record they don't dispute that remedy is that because they did because the court found discriminatory purpose that burden shifted to the need to prove that there was no change  think operation push is controlling it's a more recent case and second of all that we've distinguished those cases in our brief they've cited for example the green case which was a desegregation case where the supreme court in the federal courts at first deferred to the legislative remedy for about three years and only when it became obvious that the legislative remedy wasn't fixing the problem that will bring that state back into court and require it to bear the burden at that point and ask you is on various charlotte  mecklenburg a discriminatory purpose or or effect case i believe it's a purpose case of the i thought so too and the supreme court in that case said that the remedy can't go farther than the violation but that's that is discriminatory effect now the private plaintiffs have mis characterize the position of the united states on page eighty six of their brief they say that we should somehow conceded that they're entitled to broader release on the purpose claim we've never made that concession they cite pages thirty five and thirty six of a brief which i've now read several times and there's no concession to that effect in the up or anywhere else in our brief starting on page twenty three of our brief we've explained that s b five's elimination of the discriminatory effect also eliminates the discriminatory purpose claim and any remedies on the based on that claim and it's easy to understand why if the first arlington heights factor is whether there's a discriminatory effect whether there's a disproportionate burden on one group or another and so if you've eliminated the effect you've eliminated the discriminatory purpose violation so again as p five eliminates relief on the effects claim eliminates relief on the purpose claim and it takes care of all the problems that the court identified and it goes even farther because it adds more impediment more impediments to the list that excuse the photo id requirement texas is a reasonable impediment exception is now progress in those that have been upheld in other states unlike indiana and south carolina it allows voters to vote in a regular ballot at the polls on election day it's not a provisional ballot it's not a ballot that subject to challenge by other voters and it's not a ballot that they need to go back after a few days back to travel back to county registrar's office and provide additional documentation that's what you have to do in indiana and south carolina respectively but texas has removed that here that was a major improvement from the perspective of the united states it's one that we insisted on in the interim then maybe it's one that was carried over court on that point your honor we think that texas has made a strong public commitment that covers all the issues on that front they feel they are in the process of providing a written notice to every active registered voter in texas the voter id rules are going to be printed on the voter registration certificates that texas by law is required to print and send out every two years and to replace free of charge whenever requested they've committed to spending four million dollars on public education and awareness that's more than the two point five million they allocated for the two thousand and sixteen election they've also committed to training their election workers those all that but for the district court absolutely it was before the district court in fact the parties had some even referring to the business about notifying every voter in their  registration card right that's correct right and that's absolutely right your honor just like the court also didn't refer to the fact that s b five covers the five impediments that the twenty seven voters and witnesses testified to in the district court and that dispositive point s b five is an adequate remedy there should be no further remedy on any claim and certainly no section three see relief in this case we asked this court to reverse all right thank you  caucus i will be the first of three advocates on behalf of the private plaintiffs to address the court this morning in order to we hope to avoid redundancies and facilitate the discussion here we've divided the argument in this way i will first argue and explain why the district court's finding of discriminatory intent should be affirmed under rule fifty two ms nelson will then explain why texas is mootness argument should be rejected and mr dunn will conclude by demonstrating that the district courts remedial order was well within his discretion in terms of the discriminatory intent of finding i would of focus on two issues the first is that contrary to texas position the district court in fact did do precisely what was anticipated by this court by the on bond court the ongoing court specifically stated after finding that there had been some inform firm of these in the district courts initial analysis of discriminatory intent stated that because we do not know how much the evidence found in firm weighed in the district this we cannot simply affirm the decision and this is on page seven forty one of the court's opinion instead the court set recognizing that it was within the exclusive province of the district court to decide how the infirm evidence had weighed insta cision it was remaining that decision to the district court for that reason it did not tell the district court to start from scratch it did not tell the district court that it had to review each and every subsidiary finding even if those findings were untouched by any and firm evidence in essence the issue was did the in firm evidence tip the scales what does it mean when the court says we remand to the district court to quote reexamine the probative evidence underlying the discriminatory purpose claims weighed against the contrary evidence in the origins of the appropriate legal standards and the court says we instruct the court to take the requisite time to read evaluate the evidence and determine a new whether the legislature acts in this criminal tory intent and then i believe it ok the court took out a history of past discrimination the court took out statements of opponents the court took out i forget what the other point was of the valar county deal but everything else supports my finding and to review a new that is the evidence and by a new it meant in the context of two things not just a prohibition against relying on in firm evidence but there were other rulings made by the by the on bond panel that also guided the court there were a at least twelve findings twelve rulings by the on panel finding that specific subsidiary factual instances drawn by the district court were based on record evidence were legally relevant to the ultimate issue of discriminatory intent and taken together were sufficient to support an ultimate conclusion of discriminatory  direct evidence of discrimination because motives like that can be hidden but the district court had access to thousands of pages of internal  things might be wrong but as this is on kind of stated over and over again the job of drawing adverse inference is that the trial court but if i may because i do want to respond specifically to for example the e mails as was also in  submitted to the trial court there was an automatic deletion policy by the legislature which severely hampered the number of e mails even assuming that contrary to what the fifth circuit also stated it would be unexpected to find hours per person an easy thing they were hiding their motives no i'm suggesting that for example the deposition of representative harless which i in fact took she was not able to explain any virtually any of the material decision is that went into the passage of s b fourteen she couldn't she couldn't testify as to whether or not she believed that there wasn't fact in person fraud she couldn't explain why in the same legislative session she had  findings which it found legally relevant in this included awareness of possible of potential discriminatory impact and included the pretext and tenuousness of the reasons given that is mr gore pointed out that the first arlington heights factored discriminatory back and where the lead plate here has you are discriminatory and this may go on to the findings of discriminatory effect and findings of discriminatory intent and that it does not retroactively change what the intent was back in two thousand and eleven there is case law to that effect hunter my time's up is mr dunn and you deny us and we're going to in fact is that not it did not sure the facts and it did not place the victims of the discrimination back into position they would have been had not been for us before that on chronic question  lot of stock in the argument that s b five moves this case and that investment is misplaced for four principal reasons i can go into them very briefly first contrary to what mr keller says s b five  substantially change or wholly cure s b fourteen rather s b five carries forward the most discriminatory provisions of s b fourteen and it adds a new express threat of criminal prosecution by state felony state jail felony which carries with it a penalty of a minimum of six months in jail plus and as i'm never it's different from the federal rules and that the federal rules do not require that on the very remedial instrument the declaration of reasonable impediment that s b five creates that there is a warning to prospective voters that what they will be subject to criminal prosecution and that we believe has a chilling effect and frankly as the district court says it takes back the very remedy that the state has provided with one hand given the other take it away so our concern is that  fame driver's license right they can go to jail but they do not have to vote under the express threat of criminal penalty in prosecution by having that on a voter form that is intended to be a remedy for intentional misstate something on this floor and you're subject to a state jail felony and that is is i think everyone can agree a deterrent to voters who may choose the wrong box who may be nervous about whether they by choosing this remedy are exposing themselves to serious criminal prosecution whenever you sign an application and a bank that you have warned about room one thousand and one making false statement and as we don't know as lawyers nobody's prosecute nobody says that instrument in isolation s b five is intended to be a remedy for intentional discrimination and discriminatory effect what it and what it is what it is a violation here the violation is that s b five carries over the not very discriminatory forth in paragraph fifty eight of its complaint is that black and latino voters do not have an equal opportunity to participate in the voting process that includes the inability to vote that includes the abridgement of the right to vote and that includes a process that like s b five which creates a two tiered system in which black and latino voters are literally required to vote on separate lines if they do not possess one of this narrow sets of voter i d s and therefore have to vote in a separate line with a separate document and that creates an unequal system that the voting rights act in the constitution cannot countenance the other reasons that s b five does not fully cure s b fourteen is that even assuming argue end penalty yes yes yes you have the interim remedy i think lose the very common disclaimer that you are signing this affidavit under penalty of perjury what it does not do is set out the very statutory code certainly it can include some language that indicates that they are signing under penalty of perjury but the detailed language that s b five requires that as i mentioned imposes a very stringent felony and heightens the felony  tenuous reasons and that the district court found was based on tenuous reasons at best or intentional discrimination at worst if we are trying to cure that then to include expressed an expressed threat of cannot prosecution in the remedy going to what the district court found was that that warning undercut and undermined the very remedy for the intentional discrimination and the discriminatory effects of s b fourteen  we originally asked for what judge ramos is exercise was below is to see as this court did an operation plus whether s p five is an adequate remedy for the intentional discrimination and the disparate effects of s b fourteen in evaluating s b five judges ramos noticed that the remedy provision was fully undermined by this criminal threat of prosecution in addition it did not address it was definitely silent on the matter of educating voters and requiring the necessary training and most importantly it carried forward the most discriminatory feature of s b fourteen and for those reasons yes thank you what he would he say about the fact that if they're mailing out with every voter registration card and you know this doesn't change on voter registration card if every voter registration card is referring to the  be availability the way in which you can vote with a reasonable impediment which is what i understood mr gore to be saying why does that inform voters are you presuming they can't read not at all i believe that account in in evaluating whether it's been five hundred certainly those records those are his intentions are helpful but this court found that s b fourteen is the most strict and probably the worst implemented already below and all we need do is read s b five juxtapose that against the record in the district court's findings and determine that you should prevail that's all we need to do it depends on what the undertaking is if we are looking at whether s b five is an to make those arguments but that is not what we are required to do it's a state who bears the burden of proving that s b five is an adequate remedy for s b fourteen and it it has failed at meeting that burden well the talk it's  discriminatory feature of s b fourteen we don't need additional evidence to prove that if you look at the text of basically what you're saying is you mounted every objection to s b five and your bottom line is there can be no voter id law  not at all i think the supreme court has established that voter id laws are perfectly constable that's wonderful because then ok so there can be a voter id law and your side did agree to these various provisions in the voter id you henri manned and while you are not bound by those i can't it's hard to believe that your side would have agreed to the really reasonable impediment affidavit with a criminal penalty allowing people over seventy not to have to do that and so on and disabled people and yet now somehow that's not enough well as p five does not near the interim relief identically and leave and we've identified already the differences that are actually quite significant one is as i mentioned having this very expressive language on the declaration of reasonable impediment the threat of a state jail felony second this s b five has removed the other category which is an option that allows voters to explain precisely why they believe they do not have the ability to possess one of the strict forms of id that's incredibly important if you pair that with the threat of criminal process any kind of claim morton compare when you consider the fact that there were about as many uses of other as they were of allegations of fraud you know and person voting which is to say three dozen well i think interesting right i mean why from the evidence that only a few dozen people had availed themselves of other if we look at what he did that correct answer for you that only a few people i i don't know the daily such action on grounds of mootness would be justified only if it were absolutely clear that the litigant no longer had any need of the judicial protection that it sought clearly the plaintiffs in this case continue to need to distil protection we ask that this court writing from a clean slate here and in fact it's clear one case after another i'm prepared to talk about each and every one of them that where the supreme court says that you have to put plaintiffs back in their original position that is the relief we asked for on day one in two thousand and thirteen when this complaint was id law what's not acceptable is for for us here in this quarter in the district court to lay out the parameters of it the supreme court says the legislature has to be given the opportunity to craft the bill not using a discriminatory purpose and completely eliminating the discriminatory effect of its earlier efforts and that's exactly what the district court did if the district court had sat down and craft their own voter id law we'd hear from the state the united states presumably today that the district court stepped outside its boundaries and set itself in the place of the legislature that was in her job that's what she said it is not what she did instead what she did is followed i put that i mean isn't that precisely what she did not in fact what she did was she enjoying the law on basis of discriminatory intent and she told the legislature it's your job in the first instance to fix the discriminatory intent yeah but on the case that we're hearing today showing any voter i d law right photo voter i d law because hunter versus underwood because u s versus virginia because city of richardson versus no legitimacy at all and this green versus the city skirt county school board says it must be eliminated root and branch u s versus virginia justice rankle chief justice rehnquist opinion from one thousand nine hundred six says that the plaintiffs got to be put back into put quote dipping in both said that there was no explanation for the particular i d s texas chose to use in its bill and that didn't change it didn't change under senate bill five and the fact that there was an intentional racial disparity between the i legislature is given a chance to remedy it and let me point out on the senate bill five failures here are the things that this court said on budget was the problem the senate bill fourteen that senate bill five doesn't fix one of them is the picking and choosing the have and have nots of ids the rate of possession of the ideas selected were disproportionately held by anglos and others in the population and there was no rational basis for no rhyme or reason for example the department of public safety issue scores of i d s this is that are a way to seven one six nine i scores of i d s but the only ones the state chose are ones that are disproportionately held by whites and state id and the driver's license number this picking and choosing of have and have nots and voting exists under senate bill five so that's number one the second thing on backcourt found it as did the and did incredibly poor job of telling the public how the id process was going to work and guess what senate bill five also appropriate you know money we have some unsworn statement a briefing that the state's going to find a few million dollars to inform the legislature normally appropriate money for everything that in the in the same piece in the same bill and we can't time standing in texas there's a separate appropriations bill that the district court added available and knew that there was no individual procreation if it is spent is incredibly insufficient to inform a state of this size of this capacitance i'm talking about only a couple hundred thousand predators as i recall from the first case who were potential minority voters who were disenfranchised four million dollars you could you can nail each one of them survived you know along with a couple dollar bills and here is their problem six hundred eight thousand registered voters of one point two million eligible voters that are zero eight two seven zero seven well ultimately i guess i would be up to the district court to decide this case is governed by the un vote decision rule fifty two and on point u s supreme court decisions that say what the remedy ought to be and an intent case and to some degree we're sort of debating the original merits of this today this case is not complicated at this point guys on the right right the law ultimately gets to legislatures job to write a lot if they were interested in my opinion which which is probably unlikely at this point that they were interested in my opinion of what ought to be in the law it's a larger list of acceptable ideas like other states use it is a d r i procedure much like the gym place for the people who can't be caught up but who can who can't get or don't have one of the larger list of approved ids and that's exactly what i mean  example in u s versus virginia was you put the position of the plaintiffs back in the position they occupied absent discrimination so far as possible and of course that's a justice chief justice rehnquist decision at five eighteen us by fifteen and so alternately what the district court had to do here was put the plaintiffs back in its original position and the only way to do that is to enjoying the original law and we could have engaged in this debate with the district court as we have here how would we all as judges and lawyers cra circumstances are the law doesn't change the reality that there was an intent fundamental change is the remedy this type that basic principle of what that what they're saying is that the stat the legislature has a writ has a right to come back purpose in fact and not have to litigate but you argue here is a violation of the constitution that's left in there in other words that which left in that you're quarreling with not necessarily effects and we don't think it's lawful if all we're talking about is effect but we're not just talking about the fact we're talking about ted and that's where the standard is different than what you ought to read from from operation push and under and ted you were about the whole in fact you were about the whole even if it doesn't even have a discriminatory intent and that was decided in the city of richmond versus u s case which was a redistricting case where the u s supreme court said this redistricting plan we found last term to be constitutional in a different jurisdiction the plan itself is not court instructed the district court to consider the legislative response and it also told the district court to not accept any new evidence and so what the district court did was it considered any remedy it were spotted and it doesn't take any evidence to realize they're still have and i don't think it's good but i accept your honour's reading of it ultimately both of the parties said that there's no evidence necessary here and of course from our standpoint we're reading from u s supreme court decisions that say it's the state's burden to prove that b five remedies the intentional finding before it's the state's burden to put on evidence that's what this case this court said and delivered and so the state has to prove that senate bill five is a remedy and from our standpoint you can't they're still have and have nots there's no money spent to tell the public you remove the other box you heighten the criminal penalties ultimately the state it doesn't matter what evidence you put on the state can't prove that senate bill five only cures and puts voters back in the position they were part of senate bill fourteen so ultimately what this court and i know i'm out of time so i'll just conclude if acceptable of course ultimately this case is not complicated i know passions are high stakes are high but the court and this court and on bach decision decided that there was sufficient evidence of intent under the pullman standard there's a rule fifty t deference to the district court and the u s supreme court says that the correct remedy is to let the legislature fix its intent the state took fifty yards and the referees blowing the whistle and the state is asking to only have to give twenty five back and that's not what the as we did in bush versus beer for instance the remedy has not been to require the legislature to up and the entire this fruiting of the state of texas but to just the particular districts that were affected correct well that's true only if the state has failed to remedy that after being given an opportunity i absolutely know what i'm saying here is you say the entire law was passed with discriminatory intent but in fact your proof was only that a a small proportion even a minority voters relative to the entire universe of them was a disadvantage so why doesn't the same principle pertain here you can look at green you can look at the other cases but minorities were huge fully and you know globally disadvantage five being unconstitutional actions there whereas  a stand some people can have that opinion there's a hundred years more or less if you're supreme court cases that say you don't just try to fix the remedy you pull out the law root and branch and you put the people back in the position they would have been before paying for all the reasons i've stated the opinion below should be you're exactly correct operation push controls here and from all three presentations from my friends on the other side you didn't hear a single reference citation of a texas voter that will face a barrier to voting under the reasonable  exception the legislatures and did and no remain is necessary here because they haven't played any claims in senate bill five they can bring a new lawsuit against and both sides they declined to put in evidence here they conceded they were challenging s b five as an actor that's only six nine seven zero one and six one seven zero three so they waived any challenge that they didn't ask for anything like that in their briefing that's why vacant or in rendering judgment on this claim is particularly appropriate in this cont on the root and branch point even in the school desegregation context what is being pulled out root and branch are the harmful effects it's not simply destroying whatever law had been in effect and in any event this court's precedents ma clear that school desegregation context precedents are limited to that scenario and it's hard to strap late into other situations such as this one on the perjury point first of all by giving notice on the form that is helpful  i'm willing to bet that if that had not been on the form the plaintiffs would be saying that there would be some sort of entrapment or some sort of not giving enough notice as to what exactly would be the penalties for something signed on a reasonable impediment declaration the interim remedy also gave that notice regardless by having that notice on the form there's no section two effects violations no disparate impact there's no purpose they haven't pleaded the claims against s b five on the point about the four million dollars six nine eight to five to twenty seven are always seven zero two zero six zero seven this is where the state inform the district court about those efforts we are in the process right now of mailing voter registration cards to every single registered voter in the state of texas and that gives clear notice as to the state of the law the reasonable impediment declaration being an option and this is not going to the back of the line this is an alternative procedure to mitigate a burden had found and i understand the passions are high in this area in this case but the state legislature did exactly what this court said to fix this law it responded to each of the burdens that are in the record from the plaintiffs that brought this lawsuit no texas voter faces a beer voting as the last chance today to preserve arguments that there was no discriminatory effect but after s b five there is certainly no questions no thank you all very much