Holmes v. Moore, 840 S.E.2d 244

Background

In Nov. 2018 North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring photographic ID to vote; the General Assembly enacted implementing legislation (S.B. 824) during a December 2018 lame‑duck session, overriding the governor’s veto.
S.B. 824 lists ten acceptable photo IDs, limits some IDs to unexpired or recently expired documents, provides limited avenues for free IDs, and creates a provisional‑ballot “reasonable‑impediment” affidavit procedure.
Plaintiffs sued in state court under the North Carolina Constitution alleging S.B. 824 was enacted with racially discriminatory intent and moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the law’s voter‑ID provisions.
A three‑judge trial panel dismissed most claims but preserved the discriminatory‑intent claim and (by majority) denied the preliminary injunction; one trial judge dissented as to the injunction.
On interlocutory appeal the Court of Appeals applied the Arlington Heights framework, finding plaintiffs presented evidence (historical context, hurried lame‑duck process, legislative history, reliance on outdated racial data, and disparate impact) sufficient to show a likelihood of success on the discriminatory‑intent claim.
The court held plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm to their equal‑voting rights, that the public interest favors maximizing qualified voting, and ordered a statewide preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of S.B. 824’s voter‑ID provisions pending the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Likelihood of success on discriminatory‑intent claim under NC Constitution	S.B. 824 was enacted with discriminatory intent; Arlington Heights factors (history, sequence, legislative history, impact) support inference	Law is facially neutral; plaintiffs must show both impact and intent or that the statute is facially invalid	Court: Arlington Heights governs; plaintiffs presented sufficient historical, procedural, legislative, and impact evidence to show likelihood of success on intent.
2) Proper burden and presumption at the intent stage	Intent may be inferred from totality of circumstances; disproportionate impact is one factor	Defendants urged a higher ‘‘facial‑invalidity’’ or deference standard and argued impact alone is insufficient	Court: initial burden is to prove discriminatory intent (impact can support inference); once shown, burden shifts and deference is limited.
3) Irreparable harm and necessity of preliminary injunction	Denial would cause irreparable harm to the fundamental right to vote on equal terms; injuries in elections cannot be remedied later	Plaintiffs can still vote (free IDs, provisional ballots), so no irreparable harm or substantial right lost	Court: restrictions motivated by discriminatory intent and resulting unequal treatment constitute irreparable harm; injunction necessary to protect rights and public interest.
4) Scope of injunction (individual vs statewide)	Facial challenge affects all voters; equitable relief should match violation’s scope	Relief should be no broader than necessary — limit to named plaintiffs	Court: equitable principles permit statewide injunction because alleged constitutional violation is statewide in effect.

Key Cases Cited

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (establishes totality‑of‑circumstances test for discriminatory‑intent challenges).
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (disproportionate impact may support inference of discriminatory intent).
Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) (once discriminatory purpose is shown, burden shifts to defenders to prove law would have been enacted anyway).
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (context on preclearance and Southern history of disenfranchisement relevant to intent analysis).
N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) (analyzes NC voter‑ID legislation; historical background, rushed process, and racial data support inference of discriminatory intent).
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (recognizes right to participate in elections on equal basis as fundamental).
League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) (courts treat restrictions on voting as causing irreparable injury).
Pers. Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) (distinguishes intent‑versus‑effect inquiries in equal protection analysis).
Lee v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 843 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2016) (upheld Virginia ID law where legislative process and record lacked Arlington Heights indicia of discriminatory intent).