430 F.Supp.3d 15
M.D.N.C.2019Background:
- In Nov. 2018 North Carolina voters ratified a constitutional amendment requiring photo ID for in-person voting; the General Assembly enacted S.B. 824 in Dec. 2018 as implementing legislation, overriding the Governor’s veto.
- S.B. 824 requires photo ID for in-person and absentee voting, lists ten acceptable ID types, creates free state-issued voter-ID options, provides a "reasonable impediment" affidavit exception, and expands ballot-challenge grounds and party at-large poll observers.
- Plaintiffs (voting-rights organizations) filed suit the day S.B. 824 became law, alleging violations of §2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and moved for a preliminary injunction.
- The court applied Arlington Heights intent factors and reviewed legislative history, historical discrimination in NC, disparities in ID possession, and administrative readiness to implement the law.
- The court concluded Plaintiffs likely will prove discriminatory intent for the voter‑ID and ballot‑challenge provisions, but not for the at‑large poll‑observer provision; it granted a preliminary injunction enjoining S.B. 824’s ID and ballot‑challenge provisions pending trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.B. 824 was enacted with racially discriminatory intent (Fourteenth/Fifteenth Amendments) | SB824 continues the discriminatory project behind HB589; history, same legislators, legislative statements, and disparate ID possession show intent | Law is facially neutral, was passed pursuant to a voter‑ID constitutional amendment and to combat fraud and build confidence | Court: Likely discriminatory intent 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-only theory | Disparate ID possession and administrative barriers will deny/abridge minority voting opportunities | SB824’s free IDs and reasonable‑impediment exception cure disparate effects; comparable courts have upheld similar laws | Court: Plaintiffs have not yet shown likelihood of success on a §2 results-only claim; no independent injunction on §2 grounds |
| Whether Plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest for injunctive relief | Restriction on voting and diversion of organizational resources are irreparable; public interest favors protecting voting rights | State harms from enjoining duly enacted law and potential election‑administration confusion | Court: Irreparable harm shown; equities and public interest favor injunction given risk of discriminatory enforcement and limited state implementation efforts |
| Whether expansion of at‑large poll observers must be enjoined | Expansion increases opportunities for voter intimidation and disparate impact | Provision is procedurally valid and not shown likely to be motivated by racial intent | Court: Plaintiffs not likely to succeed on merits as to observer‑expansion; that provision allowed to go into effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; four‑factor test)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving discriminatory legislative intent)
- North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) (struck down NC voter‑ID law; found discriminatory intent and disparate impact)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (§2 results inquiry and ‘‘totality of circumstances’’ factors)
- Lee v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 843 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2016) (upheld Virginia photo‑ID law; discussed ameliorative measures and §2 limits)
- League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) (Purcell effects and §2 analysis in voting cases)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (struck down §5 coverage formula; contextual background for post‑Shelby legislative changes)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (plurality on states’ legitimate interests in voter‑ID laws and Anderson‑Burdick balancing)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (courts should consider election‑order effects and avoid last‑minute changes)
- Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) (if discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor burden shifts to state to show law would have been enacted absent that factor)