NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP v. COOPER, 430 F.Supp.3d 15

Background

In Nov. 2018 North Carolina voters adopted a constitutional amendment requiring photographic ID for in-person voting; the legislature passed S.B. 824 in Dec. 2018 as implementing legislation and overrode the governor’s veto.
Plaintiffs (voting-rights organizations) filed suit immediately, alleging S.B. 824 violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; they moved for a preliminary injunction before upcoming 2020 elections.
S.B. 824 requires photo ID for in-person and absentee voting, lists ten acceptable ID types, provides two types of “free” state IDs, and creates a “reasonable impediment” affidavit/provisional-ballot process; it also (separately) expands at-large poll observers and broadens grounds for ballot challenges.
The state has a recent history of contested voting legislation: the Fourth Circuit struck down H.B. 589 (2013) in McCrory for racial intent; North Carolina’s electorate is highly racially polarized, and many legislators who backed H.B. 589 also supported S.B. 824.
The district court found evidence that minority voters are less likely to possess S.B. 824–acceptable IDs, that the reasonable-impediment process and free-ID mechanisms may be ineffective in practice, and that the bill’s enactment context and history support an inference of discriminatory intent.
Holding on relief: the court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining S.B. 824’s voter‑ID and ballot‑challenge provisions pending trial, denied injunction as to the expanded at‑large poll‑observer provision, and declined to enjoin on the basis of a § 2 results‑only claim alone.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether S.B. 824 was enacted with racially discriminatory intent (Fourteenth/Fifteenth Amendments)	Lawmakers enacted SB824 with discriminatory intent—continuity from HB589, legislative history, racial data use, and disparate impact on minorities	SB824 is facially neutral, followed parliamentary process, responded to constitutional amendment and fraud concerns	Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed on discriminatory‑intent claim for voter‑ID and ballot‑challenge provisions; injunction granted as to those provisions
Whether S.B. 824 violates § 2 of the VRA under a results test	SB824’s disparate burdens and local social/historical conditions cause vote denial/abridgement	Free IDs and reasonable‑impediment remedy cure disparate burdens; similar laws upheld elsewhere	Court: Plaintiffs did not show likelihood of prevailing on a § 2 results‑only claim at the preliminary stage; no injunction on that basis
Whether Plaintiffs showed irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest to justify an injunction	Denial or deterrence of voting and diversion of organizational resources are irreparable; equities and public interest favor protecting the franchise	Injunction harms state interests in implementing duly enacted law and electoral stability	Court: Irreparable harm shown; equities and public interest favor injunction for challenged provisions
Whether the expanded at‑large poll‑observer provision should be enjoined	Provision increases opportunities for voter intimidation and disparate impact on minorities	Provision is procedurally and substantively lawful; insufficient evidence of discriminatory effect	Court: Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on merits of this provision; injunction denied for observer provision

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (factors for assessing discriminatory intent)
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (§ 2 results/totality of circumstances framework)
North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) (striking down 2013 NC voter‑ID law for discriminatory intent)
Lee v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 843 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2016) (upholding a photo‑ID law under § 2 where ameliorative measures alleviated burdens)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (plurality recognizing state interest in preventing voter fraud via photo ID)
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (invalidating § 5 coverage formula; context for post‑Shelby legislative changes)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (caution about last‑minute changes to election rules)
Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) (burden‑shifting when discriminatory purpose is shown)
League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) (interpreting § 2 and vote‑denial claims)