248 N.C. App. 1
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Watauga County's three-member board (WCBOE) failed to adopt a unanimous early‑voting plan for the 2014 general election; two competing plans were submitted—one including an Appalachian State University (ASU) campus site and a majority plan that did not.
- Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163‑227.2(g), when a county board cannot reach unanimity, the State Board of Elections (Board) may adopt a plan after considering geographic, demographic, and partisan factors.
- The State Board held a hearing, adopted the WCBOE majority plan without significant changes, and memorialized the decision; plaintiffs (seven Watauga voters) filed for judicial review in Wake County Superior Court.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Board abused discretion and violated state and federal constitutional rights by adopting a plan that discouraged student voting and sought remand for findings; the superior court granted relief, ordering the Board to include at least one ASU campus site for the 2014 election.
- The Board appealed, but the election passed and plaintiffs received the relief; the appellate majority dismissed the appeal as moot, rejecting exceptions urged by the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot | Plaintiffs argued not directly—case became moot because relief obtained | Board argued the appeal raises a live procedural question about Wake County Superior Court jurisdiction under § 163‑22(l) that warrants review | Dismissed as moot: election over and relief granted; exceptions do not apply |
| Whether the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception applies | Implicit: plaintiffs would be plaintiffs in future similar challenges | Board argued exception applies because it may face future collateral attacks and needs clarification of jurisdiction | Exception rejected: no reasonable expectation that the same plaintiffs will face the same action; exception protects plaintiffs, not defendants |
| Whether the public‑interest exception to mootness applies | Plaintiffs did not press this exception | Board urged the issue is of public importance and deserves prompt resolution (procedural guidance for future hearings) | Exception rejected: Board’s request is advisory/self‑serving and not of sufficient general importance to overcome mootness |
| Proper forum/procedural route to challenge Board action | Plaintiffs used judicial review under § 163‑22(l) to challenge Board decision | Board contended superior court lacked jurisdiction to review Board acting in supervisory capacity; suggested other actions (e.g., original jurisdiction declaratory relief) would be proper | Court did not reach merits; declined to render advisory guidance on proper procedure because matter is moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Madison Cnty. Realtors Ass'n, 344 N.C. 394 (1996) (defining when a case is moot)
- In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109 (1978) (state courts exercise judicial restraint; dismiss moot questions)
- Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301 (1964) (Article III limits federal courts to live cases or controversies)
- Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (courts may not decide questions that cannot affect parties' rights)
- Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) (explaining "capable of repetition, yet evading review" requires reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (exception applies only in exceptional situations; plaintiff must show reasonable likelihood of repetition)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (discussion of mootness and capable‑of‑repetition standard)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (distinguishing mootness from standing and limits on revival of disputes)