North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory
997 F. Supp. 2d 322
M.D.N.C.2014Background
- Plaintiffs challenge North Carolina Session Law 2013-381 (SL 2013-381) under the VRA and Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments seeking a preliminary injunction.
- Related cases were consolidated; a four-day evidentiary hearing occurred in July 2014; trial on the merits is scheduled for July 2015.
- Plaintiffs include the United States, NAACP Plaintiffs, League Plaintiffs, and Intervenors; Defendants are North Carolina, the Governor, SBOE, and state officials.
- Key challenged provisions include SDR repeal, reduction of early voting, out-of-precinct provisional ballots, voter ID soft rollout, poll observer/challenge expansion, and pre-registration elimination for 16-17-year-olds.
- The court denied the motions for preliminary injunction as to most provisions, held standing issues for Intervenors related to preregistration, and denied Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion in part while deferring several issues for trial.
- The court also denied the United States’ request for federal observers and treated severability to analyze provisions piecemeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Intervenors to challenge preregistration | Intervenors allege injury from preregistration elimination harming their registration efforts. | Intervenors lack injury or standing based on non-personal or non-direct harms. | Intervenors have standing to challenge preregistration (limited to preregistration injury). |
| SDR elimination under Section 2 and Fourteenth/Fifteenth Amendments | Elimination of SDR causes discriminatory results/intent against African-Americans. | State has legitimate interests in verification and preventing fraud; no proven irreparable harm. | No likelihood of success on merits for Section 2/Equal Protection claims at this stage; SDR repeal not shown irreparable harm. |
| Out-of-precinct provisional voting under Section 2 and Anderson-Burdick | Prohibition on counting out-of-precinct ballots discriminates against black voters. | State has legitimate administrative interests in precinct integrity and efficiency. | No likelihood of success on Section 2/Anderson-Burdick claims at preliminary stage; burden is not severe. |
| Early voting reduction irreparable harm | Reducing days harms GOTV and increases lines affecting minority turnout. | Turnout for fall 2014 will be lower; aggregate hours compensate; potential waivers available. | Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm; injunction denied for early voting changes. |
| Voter ID soft rollout irreparable harm | Soft rollout will confuse voters and lengthen lines before 2016 implementation. | Soft rollout is informational; evidence of imminent irreparable harm lacking; prior primary experience inconclusive. | No irreparable harm shown; injunction denied for soft rollout. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. Supreme Court (1977)) (discriminatory intent framework; Arlington Heights factors)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. Supreme Court (1992)) (Anderson-Burdick balancing for election restrictions)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. Supreme Court (2008)) (voter-ID restrictions and level of scrutiny)
- Gingles v. Edmisten, 478 U.S. 46 (U.S. Supreme Court (1986)) (Section 2 totality of circumstances framework for vote dilution)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (U.S. Supreme Court (2013)) (Section 5 preclearance formula and its invalidation)