the honorable the united states court of appeals for the st circuit is now in session all persons having any business before this honorable court make give their attendance and they shall be heard god save the united states of america and this honorable court court is session today's case will be called as previously announced the times is a lot of the counsel the case today is common cause rhode island at all st is the rhode island republican party at all appeal number twenty dash one  yes thank you your honor can i just say at the outset if i could reserve five minutes for about oh yes you may get thank your honor our injury your honor several fold it's the same injury we've alleged in the other do inherently interested in the rules that govern those elections and when they're changed here in the last minute like these have been the parties spend more resources organizing and informing and reacting  powers changed and that doesn't mean you could not have filed suit in june to make the same arguments then that you're making now that your father is a custom at this point voting by e mail i mean be floating by mail without the requirement of signatures on a notary your honor perhaps we could have filed suit the questions would have been much different would have been about the it's just when unlike a general election or even contested state primaries the risks that we're concerned about fraud in changes in last minute changes in the rules are just elections and with that your honor i guess overturned sort of to the gateway question here in this case whether we should be allowed to intervene to make these arguments in the st place and as i mentioned  there's a good opinion on this out of california i believe the eastern district is a person's news and says political parties routinely intervene in cases involving the election rules and no one thinks that's very controversial because they obviously have interest in the rules that govern the candidates up for election the rules that govern the voters in the rules that they have to react to and spend resources on its in its its  intervention that is routinely granted both by repub to the republican party in the democratic party so that being said on intervention you are as i mentioned we have intervened successfully in over a dozen koeppen one thousand election cases this year and i'll say out of all of these all these cases so far this has been easily our strongest case for intervention i read carefully the others my my friends briefs on this question and i don't believe they cite a single of already that has denied intervention in what you did at that hearing and what you're doing today had you had an intervention stand sure your honor i'll limit the appeal question and talk just about the district court the proceedings in the in the process we got in the district court was extremely truncated the district court granted our motion to hold a fairness hearing and i believe she would have held one anyway because she has to to to approve the consent decree but the next day the fairness hearing was held there was no opportunity to collect or present evidence which is one of the concerns believe in the edwards case we cited in our brief as to why this argument that you see if i can clarify that i did not read you a brief as saying that we should reverse or vacate the judgment below on the grounds that you should have been allowed to intervene your brief is saying you should have been allowed to intervene and we should say that now so that you can appeal and participate going forward correct and that we believe that's sufficient to grant us intervention now  glad i was trying to address judge to raise the question as to what was under the district court and i believe there would have been differences your honor we didn't we weren't truly even invited to file a brief in the district court we we found one anyway  hoping the judge would read and she gave it consideration but the process was truncated but as just a out of mentions it's good enough that we need to be able to move forward as parties in taking this appeal  technically i don't believe you can issue a ruling until you've granted our intervention otherwise there will be no parties before you so we believe it's a threshold question and then yes it is important to us if we do not prevail in convincing you to enter a state that we  formally recognized as parties going forward so that we can take further action if necessary for you if you could pro business only appeal to the supreme court if we don't technically we still talk probably could we would we would make sort of the same process argument we're making now where we look like you said provisionally appeal in a nasty supreme court to grant us intervention and then here our stay motion i believe m be in the same posture but i don't believe the parties are truly defending the merits of the district court's intervention decision and believe it's before this court now and i will say from experience in the wisconsin litigation in the  th circuit we were granted intervention but the legislature was denied intervention even though the state stop defending the laws in question and the th circuit made a point to grant intervention before it granted five minutes remaining your honor we don't need to consider that question because our right to appeal is important enough to us but it would have been different we would have had a briefing schedule we've attention lee would have had time to collect and present evidence absolutely so we we all agree here that it that to suspend a state law by consent decree the state bar must be likely unconstitutional under the federal constitution otherwise there is no authority to enter a consent decree and also all agree on the test for answering that question which is called the interest and burdick balancing test based on two supreme court decisions called anderson and byrd and that test essentially has courts weigh the burden that a law imposes on voting rights against the state's interests in having that wall and when the burdens are small in the law it is reasonable and neutral  state almost always wins and so i think it is it isn't it correct the attorney general had input into these proceedings president the court room for the then it was consulted throughout the consent decree process and in rhode island when there's a challenge to the constitution ality of a state law the attorney general has to be given notices i'm sure you consent decree should have been entered so i mean it seems fair to assume that the representative from the state of rhode island constitutionally the elected representative made a determination that as applied during th honor i'll stipulate that the attorney general believes this consent decree is lawful i have no reason to think otherwise i just don't think it's very important the consent decrees or judgments of the court they are injunctions issued by the district or do you for your allegations that the secretary of state colluded with the parties although the district court found there was no evidence of that that's one reason i bring up the attorney general because you are accusing him of collusion also your daughter we've never accused anyone of collusion in this case and i don't believe that was a mischaracterization of our position very respectful your honor i don't believe our brief alleges collusion either it alleges that these parties quickly agreed to a consent decree that we believe is unlawful there's really two potential problems with consent the greasy sort of have a procedural aspect where you can argue collusion and it wasn't a fair deal in the resin arm's length negotiation there's also a subs e aspect where the consent to create itself has to rest on a likely violation of the constitution and we're talking we're raising substantive objections in this motion we're no longer arguing about the  bargaining process that occurred and whether that was sufficient or not to introduce a consent decree there must be a finding that the witness requirement likely violates the constitution and without due respect to be attorney general who's whose views we can all take into account the courts have to make that call it is a question of law that's decided to not much too much like a preliminary injunction and we have good reason to think that this type of thing is not illegal because the u s supreme court stayed in a jun five minutes can i just ask him a question to alabama and they were the it was state officials who were protesting state officials involved in this case who were protesting the consent decree that's correct your honor i would note though that the legislature and governor notably decided not to suspend the witness requirement for these two elections and the didn't move to intervene in this litigation to contest issue are correct your honor we face this issue recently in minnesota in the th circuit there's a case called patrick versus simon in the circuit in entering a stay in our favor rightly noted that election laws are passed by the people's elected representatives and they affected voters those voters are our members and they affect us deeply in our candidates and we're here defending the law that is on the books currently and that is why the parties had to get a consent decrees because the legislature does not agree it is not overturned that wall for these elections mr morris are you aware of any state of any type or the timing of the injunction let me answer that in two parts your honor st there in the wisconsin case we the republican party were the only ones appealing defending the state law the attorney general did not appeal and was not there and we received a stay there as well now i think your question had a consent decree element baked into it and i will say we do not know of a case where procedures specifically in the state in which case in which the state opposed theoretically your honor i will say the th circuit took this on pretty squarely and pavlik and said the voters and the people have an interest in defending election laws that are valid and on the books also us now to the extent purcel turns on injuries to the state itself in the state election officials and they're not here alleging those injuries that maybe that's something that you would take into account but i would say it should be given little to no weight because the legislature is a law that had decided not to repeal year has been suspended in whatever state interests underlie that law which we think there are several  legislature intervene in that case and they opposed the order in the court below that's true your honor i'll say i don't believe we should be subject to any sort of inference that the legislature is not present here that there were fewer total days to intervene in this case it was a very short window i'm not sure what the legislators position is but i am sure that their law is still on the books in voters in little parties and candidates have an interest in seeing it in force and to the extent that affects purcel if you actually read the purcell decision it's all about injures injuries to voters in confusion to voters and distrust of the process and loss of the integrity of the election there really doesn't have a lot in there about burdens on the state even though we all agree burdens on the state is a relevant consideration and could you explain how a ticket typical voter let's start with one who voted in the presidential primary if the injunction is left in place the consent decree injunction how will that person be confused or surprise your honor i believe personnel sort of a legal presumption that last night that let me ask you about if you could correct yourself to something concrete here how would that person be surprised it seems to me they won't because either the last ballot they saw didn't have a witness requirement or even if they were expecting one when they opened one up and saw they didn't have to do it they've got no reliance interest or problems at stake you would i could imagine if you went in the other direction voters expect to see a witness requirement removed from their ballot because it was removed in june this law has been on the books for thirty years so for thirty years since since president clinton is  election voters have seen this appear on their own below and their ballots have been expected to comply with that june they were told after the presidential primary was moved to several months it was already an unexpected different type of election they were told that that that was good for that one election only then and then the state had a very public debate among the governor and the secretary in the legislature about whether to take that action again and they concluded no so so i believe voters have all th information in front of them and if you're thinking about this concretely you know this election if this consent decree goes forward the on the lobes are going to look completely different there is some there is an optional information section that's been added under this consent decree asking for people's address and date of birth and driver's license number i believe and i'm not sure all the details of who there's four pieces of information that are requested for the st time and it's called optional but you wouldn't see that in the place where the witness requirement used to be and think it was very optional i believe it will be somewhat confusing as i started my answer before i believe purcell is a legal principle and i think it's a smart one in that when courts are intervening in elections the last minute they're telling voters that the state has done something unlawful and unconstitutional and had to be corrected which you know when that's you know not true when it's too and there's a real loss of a techie and public confidence in the election in the nation's voters start to wonder about the integrity of the election and then the integrity of their vote not to mention the practical confusion and just the notion of really the heart of purcell is that federal courts not to be intervening in state elections at the last minute and that plaintiffs ought to be bringing these challenges much sooner not after they've lost  september without considerable delay in confusion given where we are now rightly or wrongly would start by saying it's in this court's power to grant a partial stay for just the november portion of the consent decree not the september quarter but we have moved for both and we believe we're entitled to have for september the the august th date is the date that the state gave for when they will start mailing ballots that's why we chose that date and asked this court to rule before then to minimize disruptions to the state but i want to be clear august t not a date set in stone by a wall it is a it is a date where the state has determined it really ought to start sending out ballots because the last day to request a ballot is obviously th so they are backing up about a week and want to start mailing in that's great i'll say that the state is represented that they have sixty thousand of the correct on the globes on hand that they can use the president now if it's not enough going to be it's a good start in  determine who gets the st sixty thousand no matter who does the printing i'm not sure the process the state uses for that but i doubt it's discriminatory the state and can fill in those details but the sixty thousand just gets a gets gets them started and then you know i says that before the consent decree was approved the secretary told the printer to start printing the wrong were they the ballots that would comply with the consent decree but not state law but as i mentioned that the sixty thousand dollars are ready to go they already exist i believe with expedition the rest of them could be printed with perhaps no delay but it was only a couple days the way and more importantly if this were a preliminary injunction from a district court we would be having this conversation because under purcel the there is no reverse personnel principle that stops an appellate court from stopping a judicial very very grateful that we can all be here on teleconference i would note that tell it i would know that as of tomorrow i can't  the supreme court was content to put that choice on alabama voters because that coppa nineteen is a problem and a big change in our society that requires responses but it's and it's a person gathering at your house right now you can go to bars you can go to restaurants you can go to the grocery store there's a lot of interaction that can be had safely with social distancing and mask wearing and being sanitarium just you know being under understanding and cautious toward each other all that's perfectly appropriate but right now is not on total lockdown there there are ways to interact with one notary or two other registered voters that are quite common and you have thirty days to do so but the that the food delivery person may be a good witness but the more importantly i understand that one thousand affects different populations differently and there are different risks involved however this  entirety of the law for everyone in rhode island the few cases that have been joined these witness requirements wisconsin alabama south carolina and virginia the wisconsin case did not enjoying the state of the law statewide told voters if you can write on your ballot and in some written way that you tried to get a witness and couldn't because of copa nineteen then will excuse the requirement in alabama the court only excuse the requirement for those who are immunocompromised or i believe i believe that included elderly or people who took care of elderly or you know compromised people that alabama court actually denied the injunction in part due to refused to enjoin the last statewide both wisconsin in alabama were still state by alabama or by appellate courts but i think it's notable that a state wide ban is not something that the parties could lawfully obtain from a quirk given the nature of their challenge and given the nature of the risks of coppa nineteen all right  we'll stop here and you still have five minutes and we'll hear from the other parties thank you thank you  always a part of a stay pending appeal so we appreciate the attention you're giving to this and taking your time so quickly so let me just start that the parties in the court below we're was our belief that that was an unacceptable choice as a constitutional matter and as applied in these unique circumstances where we're all living through remarkable  c we we did not know what the defendants would do when we brought the suit i am actually very pleased to hear that the other side has dropped the ridiculous allegations that we somehow colluded they absolutely below  intervened has never said they wanted to introduce any evidence to contradict a single fact that we put forward in fact i believe the only fact they tried to introduce was a book by buddy c on c which actually talked about how witnesses tampered with voters and actually kind of thing kind of undercut whatever argument they were trying to make this is purely a legal argument on their part and it's a fallacious one legal interest is in this case the states involved they represent the same interest that everybody represents in going to make sure that voters vote elections are conducted with integrity i don't know what they add to that i don't i don't i don't see what they were that's what i understand their interests and why did they say that that's not a valid interest warranting intervention you know i think the state because partly we're personal we're doing two things one gives a consent decree that we agree to  and the states can be this the states look the states constitutional officers are charged conducting elections fairly and appropriately and lawfully and they are in the best position to make those decisions i don't again i don't i don't know that it's a legal legislation that was passed by the house what are we to make that factor into our consideration at all i don't think it does your honor candidly legislatures act executives act as i said for many reasons or no reason you can't really  ensure anything from it at the end of the day it isn't a predicate to a constitutional as applied challenge but the legislatures have to be given you know the opportunity back to the can be no challenge that's you know one of the reasons we have courts and one of the reasons we have claims like this is legislatures don't always act the way they should executives don't always act the way they should at the end of the day individual rights and the right to vote have to be vindicated and it may be the end of the day that if the courts that that's happened here the courts that effectively have to deal every time another district court has accepted it it's been thrown out three cars by the supreme court how do you respond to that i don't think it's accurate injunctions they have not done so in a connection with the consent decree and i think that is very important and very significant client but it's the difference i think the difference is the states you know when you have the state legislature the state governments saying hey we disagree we don't think the law actually as applied by just a constitutional but a violation at the end of the day they're protected they are they are vindicating it with the getting on that what they think is right for the state and that impacts the balance of harms and everything else in granting an injunction here would be with the state has looked at the facts and the fact that you're from from from counsel to the board of elections i think you know they conducted hearings in connection with the last through its legislature signed into law by the governor is that there is a witness requirement period and the state has never taken a position to the contrary it seems there is a there are officials within state government who unsuccessfully have unsuccessfully lobbied to the governor in the legislature to change their who and what you are now saying is that because those officials enter into a consent judgment wit that distinguishes this case from the others how would you correct what i just said you know i think a couple things st a little bit just take a step back i think the only state we're talking about from the supreme court was with alabama  don't think there was another supreme i don't think supreme court state any of these other orders i may be mistaken but i don't know i think it's just alabama and there's more going on in that case by the way than just the witness requirement so so it will just put it at that point when you know in this case you know winced and i really should leave it to the to the secretary of state of the board answer some of this you know when you when you are faced with as i did will simply say it's obvious that they're not as applied you would be depriving voters of the right to vote using a ballot if they had to risk their life their health to get witnesses to sign i think they are well within their rights to say you know what we we've conducted an election before this way we are not going to oppose and we'll can agree to the entry because we think it's going to finding that that at the end of the day we would be we would be in violation of the law i think that's well within their forty it's constitutional as the cost to actually all authorize offices of the state government to make partisan issue and i'm a little i'm a little disappointed frankly that people have treated it as such you know covert nineteen you know infects democrats the republicans the notion that it is the notion that it is there's some unusual population that's burdened by this which is certainly what the republicans are say is remarkable we're all socially distant thing we're all doing this from all in the last election the one thing and i want to respond one thing to purcell you know i think the court has got it right the voters are actually are fully aware and expecting that they're not going to have to risk their lives to do this they also know this loss it's been filed and this is how the conduct of the last election eighty three percent of the generation did it by mail to say that this is only a small unique idiosyncratic i think was the remarkable term population that's impacted by covert is just absurd and i think that the judgments that were made here by the court well supported by the record arkansas cases that have been cited by the movements in one way or another there are a lot of reasons robert allen's not any of those states but let me be clear about this particular case one is we have the june of last year and that's not can take notice of this the turnout was much higher than it had been prior lections that's public public records that indicate that and so in all of the other cases that we've talked about they didn't have a prior election like this they didn't have an election just previously that had no witness requirement no no requirement asked for person identifiable information which is the  this want to emphasize that is if you look at the supreme court cases that have been cited by the movement in all of them all of them including wisconsin the letter there's a state party that the legislature the secretary of state the governor there's a state party asking for meet and saying don't change our laws and all of them and so purcell really stands for the proposition that you should not that we don't want course to impose these regulations on states so close to an election but again there's a worry about confusion but the real issue here is we believe we've obtained a consent that's good for the city but in the state of rhode island for all the voters and that will mimic any type of confusion because you just had an election in june in that manner so i wanted to make sure that that was clear because those some sensitivity regarding the prior election and the concern in the legislature is a move to do anything like my concern is then what happens is the state says we don't want that take the political heat for making th decision so we're just going to offload it on the federal court and then we can say they made us do it if you're moving from the ballot to the court room and should we have some concerns secretary of state all belong to the same party and they can pick up the phone and call the governor and say governor we need an executive order so i have some of the same concerns that are flashing through my colleagues mind right now why hasn't that been done even in the context of but the initiation of this legislation say will you do this because we like the last election is it is important that the health of the people of rhode island be protected and you have the authority to do it don't think the fact that they haven't acted balance the relief in this case because they have the right and it would be a very different case if the governor or the legislature moved to intervene and were bringing a claim in move forward and to seek to defend the law so that we have i just wanted to add one thing if i could but five minutes goes by fast and that is i want to point out  one of the cases that they mention a little versus reclaim idaho and what chief justice roberts wrote in that case that case involved initiative the voter initiative in how to get voter initiative on the ballot in very issues there regarding that but in that case and it's quoting from it he points out the governor and secretary of state here for example have suspended some limits on absentee voting in process requests for absentee ballots through online channels and yet the district court did not accord sufficient weight to the state's discretionary judgments about how to prioritize limited state resources across the election system as a whole the state of rhode island acting to the secretary of legislature in session now i don't believe the legislature is in session but i'm could be wrong because i saw that they were having some hearings that i believe were postponed just this week today giving us an answer on behalf of the state parties as to whether the governor currently has the power so that she could just sign an executive order and do away with the witness requirement moving this whole litigation i work on that your honor and have a response you before the close of the day not willing or the st thing tomorrow morning but i will work on that and get it to respond to you soon as possible and i just have one more question also i know that you are fit in the constraint decree are you also defending the judge's decision to deny intervention well we are your honor and our brief on it just briefly what your argument is for why that ruling was appropriate of the things you want to just to be clear we while we objected to that we made it clear we did not object to them participating in the finesse hearing that obviously they had a right to be heard in the thinness hearing but arkenstone is really what the concern has been other places and that is that witnesses obviously if the court issues a different order we will do everything that we can to comply to comply with the water as we must so that you are you able at this time if we issue use of these ballots we do not wait till the end of the narrow ballot application period to mail them out i think that's probably commonsense we cannot do that so the answer is would we be able to comply yes is it going to delay some ballots getting out yes and that i know that we would not be able to comply by august th in terms of when we were hoping to get the ballots out because we believe that presents the best opportunity to make sure that all rounders have a while yes on all of this your yes your honor and as her car you were of any reason why the governor would have not to go along with the secretary's view other i don't know exactly how to answer that because my understanding there was no evidence put on this but i mean my understanding i believe that the decision had more to do with the legislature being in session however what i can do as you requested is to get a twenty i think letter this this evening as soon as possible to to respond to that so i want to be candid with the core relative to that i don't know that the what exactly the governor's conclusion came welcome to since she came to you but i have spoken to legal counsel in the so i take it we can presume if the legislature has been out of session and the governor has done nothing to change the status quo then it seems to me we can assume that the governor has determined that all things considered she should not make it easier for people to vote by absentee ballot by getting rid of these but as requirements i would not assume that your honor i think that after i have a chance to submit the letter and get their pure speculation if the governor changes her mind something the general assembly is out of session issues and executive order is that mov litigation think about it though i would think that in litigation but i'm fairly confident and since we're speculating when i speculate that there will be another challenge by moving to that but i would think it would be this this june primary and this is also the logic of district court it would be more confusing to now go back and change it in the middle of the pack demick because this is become the way in rhode island we do pandemic voting because the governor has i mean is he because the secretary has been advertising and sending out voter information postcards and voter information on the website which trey's the price this is what you're here defending should that confusion play any part in our thinking well and we believe that given the record number of people who voted by mail without this requirement in a pandemic we should not change now and i want to add one thing if i could well if your question in that is that the suggest by my brother of the movement to mr morris that we perhaps the core look at november differently than september we would ask you please do not do that for a very simple reason if you want to talk about confusion have an election one way and you the same way in september and then change it for november so we were very we're very concerned about that and just wanted to make that clear in appreciate you have the  recess can we take a little recess and yes we're going to pause we're going to pause the stream for a minute please i can and then we would like to hear from attorney general role in the elections process but i think that is critical to your decision here and that is that the board does have fled with respect to elections matters and can in my judgment along with the secretary of state enter into a consent decree on behalf of the state with respect to anything that impacts the election process but with respect to the mail ballot process i think that is of utmost importance because the question that has been raised here is one of harm and that is an increased chance of fraud  of comparing signatures and in the judgment of the order and that we've got the secretary of state that is the critical way that we protect the franchise from fraud it is not for example determining whether or not a new agree has a valid commission it is certainly not by analyzing the true witness signatures we have really no control over th that people who make this request may be in rhode island they may be in minnesota on business they may be using a witness from minnesota so we can't do an analysis of those two signatures but it minutely both the signatures in the nursery are there as part of this process but the focus as i said on section twenty twenty six if there is a comparison and found to be a sufficient comparison then it will be eligible to be tabulated if it is not if the agency reviewing the board staff  the voting booth you had to write out the end for the information they have these little slips they look to see if it matches what they have on file at the time you register but the general assembly changed that and the governor signed it requiring voter identification why isn't the requirements of witnesses or elder a similar to the requirements now for fighting for voting in person well your honor  because the general assembly when it passed the law did not modify chapter twenty that is a best evidence we have of the legislative intent because i know there's been a lot of talk about what the board was a general somebody has not done but we don't have the benefits of a legislative history on what's transpired over the last several months with something but they didn't they didn't move out of that section but they passed laws to enhance protections against voter fraud supposed voter fraud which it seems to me that these additional witnessing requirements similarly similarly protect or your honor the general remember that isn't the that is the ultimate step in this verification process and the initial step there are other sets of eyes that go through a similar analysis and signature comparison with different signature specimens from the same boat or so but by that i mean when you initially make the application for the mail ballot that is not a local that is under  vote based upon the evidence it developed it agreed to a consent or that went to the lower court and i think that also is a matter of distinction should play too much about the time understood just a few points then your owners didn't get to but it's mentioned in our brief we also asked the district court for intervention for purposes of appeal which is something that round back out to where we started about what our interests are here i've mentioned them before any confusion of our voters saving our resources preserving the integrity of the election avoiding changes perhaps it how does it how does it avoid confusion when the secretary of state has already started sending out literature as to the procedure for voting in rhode island it doesn't match the arguments that ballot voting fair not your honour's i would say it's slightly perverse that states could could negotiate or parties could negotiate consent decrees on the last day and then say no supreme court stays the notion of the deference we give to this to the district court for tell was talking about the findings that were made by the state court judge quite didn't say we give deference to some findings and that deference to other findings general is talking about yes and all those cases the district court interred the injunction of the election law and in deference aside it got this decision stated in the end and i'll say that one of the one of the best opinions up to illustrate this point my friends all agree that rhode island and alabama are sort of the two states with this exact same law the two witnesses or notary requirement and of course the supreme court entered the state in the alabama case and if you read the th circuit subpoena and in that people  disruptive and how one thousand is changed everything that opinion matches their theory exactly that opinion was stated by the supreme court and and the supreme court disagreed with it and then a few days ago in the reclaim idaho case supreme court seventy two dollars stayed an injunction of an in person signature requirement on that applied to the petitioning process and idaho seven justices voted for the stay for justices wrote to explain why and they said  a chief justice that witnessed requirements even during koeppen one thousand remain minimally burdensome requirements that can be complied with with reasonable effort and the state's interest in preventing fraud in it's ensuring that the person voting is that person which is a higher risk with absentee voting those interests are still sufficient i think the supreme court's guidance in these fast moving cases really couldn't be clearer and it's been fairly consistent explain something you may have mean it is it does have some relevance i would think i think barely your honor did alabama have a prior experience only experienced without signatures without witness sure i can't say your honor i'm sure there been other states that had elections without a witness requirement and then with but i don't have the data available or i'll just say the incentives for fraud are fairly low in uncontested elections i'm so i don't think june is very relevant the general election is is in november especially is where this concern with right and despite the evidence of that was what is the evidence that fraud actually occurs in general elections including presidential elections the president put together a panel and they concluded just the opposite your honor not our burden to show that but let me let me get to the factual question so i think that's what that it's not impart voter fraud correct and if i can i'd like to discuss sort of the factual in the legal support for that legally speaking there needs to be no documented evidence of fraud to have prophylactic fraud measures th circuit in the in the thompson case the th circuit in the thurston case the th circuit in the d n c case all said witness requirements the reason they exist is to prevent absentee voter fraud the supreme court in the crawford opinion said absentee voter fraud directly who is signing that absentee ballot and now the witness requirement is the only thing in rhode island that has a party come in and verify that the person voting is in fact that person and now that requirement is gone i understand that rhode island has other requirements but contrary to the board of elections the legislature did not pass a witness requirement for no reason they did it as other legislatures have done across the country to prevent fraud and that risk increases without this requirement as does the risk of voter confusion in our interests and i would just ask we are considering our injury here we would be careful not to we need to be careful not to confuse the merits of the case with with with whether we have standing to make these arguments but i do believe those are separate inquiries and we've made our challenges under purcel and on the merits but those don't quite implicate our standing to come here in the st place thank you i say one more question do you agree that if the governor issues an executive order that this legislation is moot this particular legislation i'm sure you'll probably get back y litigation litigation your honor if the governor suspends the witness requirement in exactly the way that she did in june this litigation has moved in the consent decree should be vacated calculation the great thing about courts and the constitution if i cannot be and our our our claims exist today independently of what the executive branch chooses to do you are he have the secretary of state and the board of elections who in the face of the evidence and the actual parties who are charged with running elections have agreed to it i would candidly say i don't know that it would add much more if the governor does something we will be right back here and given the make did not abuse her discretion there's no there's just no argument and by the way the idaho case did not involve voting rights the supreme court went out of its way to say it was not about the right to vote and i'm sorry the painting to be searched in complete vain for anything that says witness requirements aren't burdensome it talks about signatures it's not talk about witness requirements so i'm a little i wanted to clear with that case is about what it is not it was not about the right to both this very much is about  legal opinion thank you thank you judge thank you thank you understood thank you our thank you thank you just session of the honorable united states court of appeals is now recess until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable start council you may disconnect from the meeting