The reply brief of Judicial Watch in the North Carolina Voter ID case is here.  One snip:

“The JWIs maintained that parties and attorneys who later filed private, related lawsuits met with the President and the Attorney General at the White House prior to the signing of HB 589, and then either planned or anticipated the consolidation of these lawsuits so that North Carolina would face an ideologically united opposition with the U.S. in the lead. JWI Br. at 18-19. The U.S. has failed to comment on the JWIs’ account of these events in any way. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that this account should be deemed true for the purposes of deciding this motion.

In its initial papers, the JWIs cited to one of the many briefs filed by the U.S. in which it supported the applications of various intervenors for permissive intervention. JWI Br. at 20, citing Texas v. Holder, No. 1:12-cv-00128, Doc. No. 6. In that brief, which is appended hereto, the Attorney General stated that, “[c]onsistent with his longstanding position in Voting Rights Act cases before this Court, and as represented by Movant-Intervenors in their papers, the Attorney General does not oppose permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1),” although he did contest intervention of right. Id. at 1. The Attorney General went on to state that, “[a]s elected officials, residents, and registered voters, Movant-Intervenors possess relevant knowledge and a ‘local perspective on the current and historical facts,’” citing County Council v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 694, 697 (D.D.C. 1983). The JWIs are the same kind of intervenors and can bring the same kind of local perspective. Indeed, it is unseemly, given its “longstanding position,” for the U.S. to oppose the JWIs’ motion to intervene here. It suggests that the U.S. hopes to close the door once it has arranged for the entry of only likeminded parties.