North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory
831 F.3d 204
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2013 North Carolina enacted SL 2013-381 (amended 2015) imposing a set of voting changes: a strict photo-ID rule (later amended to add a "reasonable impediment" exception), shortened early-voting (eliminated first week and one Sunday), eliminated same-day registration, eliminated out-of-precinct provisional counting, and ended preregistration for 16–17 year‑olds.
- The expanded omnibus bill passed rapidly immediately after Shelby County v. Holder removed §5 preclearance; legislators had requested and received race-disaggregated data about use of voting practices before amending the bill.
- The racial data showed African Americans disproportionately used early voting (especially first week and Sundays), same-day registration, out‑of‑precinct voting, and preregistration, and were less likely to possess the DMV photo IDs the law favored.
- Plaintiffs challenged the provisions under §2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Twenty‑Sixth Amendments (district court rejected claims; consolidated appeal followed). Trial produced an extensive record and a detailed 479‑page district court opinion.
- The Fourth Circuit (majority) reversed, holding the challenged provisions were enacted with racially discriminatory intent (Equal Protection Clause and §2) and permanently enjoined those provisions; the court severed only the challenged sections and declined to impose §3 preclearance remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SL 2013‑381 was enacted with racially discriminatory intent (Equal Protection/§2) | Legislature acted "because of" race: race data, timing post‑Shelby, history of discrimination, racially polarized voting, and cumulative disparate impact show race was a motivating factor | Law was ordinary partisan legislation to restore prior rules; acted within procedure and for neutral interests (fraud prevention, administrative consistency) | Held: Intentional racial discrimination proved; district court clearly erred; reversal and injunction of challenged provisions. |
| Whether the challenged provisions produced discriminatory results under §2 | Plaintiffs alleged results but majority decides on intent; record shows disproportionate burdens on African Americans | State argued lack of substantial disparate effect and plausible nonracial justifications | Court resolved on intent (did not need to decide results); intent finding sufficed to enjoin provisions. |
| Whether the State’s proffered justifications would have produced the law absent race (burden shifts) | Plaintiffs: justifications are pretextual, not tailored, and alternatives existed | State: legitimate interests (fraud prevention, consistency, administrative ease); post‑enactment amendment (reasonable‑impediment) reduces burden | Held: State failed to show the law would have been enacted without race; justifications implausible/mismatch with choices; burden not carried. |
| Scope of remedy (severability; whether amended ID provision cures injury; §3 relief) | Plaintiffs sought invalidation of challenged provisions, permanent injunction, and §3 oversight | State argued 2015 amendment (reasonable‑impediment exception) mitigates harm and no need for broader remedies; opposed federal monitorship | Held: Severed and permanently enjoined the challenged provisions (photo ID, early voting changes, same‑day registration, out‑of‑precinct voting, preregistration); rejected §3 oversight; court found amendment did not clearly cure the discriminatory taint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (racially polarized voting is a threshold concept in §2 vote‑dilution claims and informs intent analysis)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (invalidated §5 coverage formula; contextual trigger for post‑Shelby legislative changes)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for inferring discriminatory intent from historical background, sequence of events, legislative history, and disparate impact)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (recognizes racially polarized voting can provide motive for electoral changes and that changes may "bear the mark of intentional discrimination")
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (Anderson‑Burdick balancing of voter‑ID challenges; discussed to distinguish deference owed where discriminatory intent is shown)
- Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) (holding that laws enacted with discriminatory intent must be invalidated and burden shifts to defendant to prove law would have been enacted absent race)