League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina
769 F.3d 224
4th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs challenged NC House Bill 589, enacted in 2013, which imposed strict voter ID, reduced early voting, eliminated same-day registration, and expanded poll access and challenges.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction; the Fourth Circuit reversed in part, granting relief on some provisions.
- The majority held that same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting restrictions likely violate Section 2 and warranted enjoining those provisions for the upcoming election.
- Other provisions (reduction of early voting, challengers, extended hours discretion, teen preregistration, and 2016 ID rollout) were denied for preliminary injunction.
- The court emphasized a totality-of-circumstances analysis and consideration of North Carolina’s history of discrimination in evaluating the challenged provisions.
- Dissent warned against an expansive injunction given timing and administrative burdens and urged restraint in altering election procedures on the eve of an election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 2 burden from same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting | McCrory shows these provisions burden minority voters | State asserts no substantial irreparable harm and that burdens are overstated | Likely to succeed on Section 2 claims for these provisions |
| Proper Section 2 framework and district court errors | District court misapplied totality-of-circumstances and ignored history | District court reasonably weighed evidence under Section 2 standards | District court erred; proper application supports plaintiffs on same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting |
| Irreparable harm and public interest for injunctions | Restrictions irreparably harm voting rights | Irreparable harm not shown for some provisions; public interest favors orderly election | Plaintiffwin on irreparable harm and public interest for same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting; injunction warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Gingles, United States v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1986) (two-step Section 2 analysis; totality of circumstances; minority vote-denial focus)
- Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1991) (illustrative vote-denial framework under Section 2; historical context)
- Husted v. Ohio**, 768 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014) (Section 2 vote-denial burden; local analysis; totality of circumstances)
- Frank v. Walker, F. Supp. 3d 2014 WL 1775432 (E.D. Wis. 2014) (example of Section 2 vote-denial analysis in restrictive ID laws (binding reporter varies))
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2006) (importance of timing near election; caution against changes on eve of election)