Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 579 Filed 08/15/19 Page 11 of 153 They thus seek a hand-marked paper ballot system, with appropriate risk limiting auditing and other measures that are consistent with the recommendations of leading cybersecurity election experts and feasible based on the experience of other state and county jurisdictions that have implemented hand-marked paper ballot based voting systems. This Opinion and Order begins by rejecting the State Defendants’ Rule 19 joinder argument. With that issue out of the way, the Court then details the record evidence demonstrating the serious and continuing vulnerabilities in the State’s current electronic voting system that burden the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The Court also recounts the mountain of voter testimony showing that these vulnerabilities have a tangible impact on these voters’ attempts to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot and have their vote counted. The Order further addresses the evidence from both parties regarding the feasibility of implementing Plaintiffs’ requested relief of hand-marked paper ballots in the 2019 elections, especially in light of the State’s newly enacted BMD voting system. Finally, the Court considers the totality of this evidence and the established legal standards in weighing whether to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief. Based on this careful review of the record, and consideration of the relevant factors for granting injunctive relief, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 387 and Doc. 419]. 11