N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory
| Citation | 182 F.Supp.3d 320 |
| Decision Date | 25 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1:13CV660,1:13CV861,1:13CV658 |
| Parties | NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; Emmanuel Baptist Church; Covenant Presbyterian Church; Barbee's Chapel Missionary Baptist Church, Inc.; Rosanell Eaton; Armenta Eaton; Carolyn Coleman; Jocelyn Ferguson-Kelly; Faith Jackson; Mary Perry; and Maria Teresa Unger Palmer, Plaintiffs, v. Patrick Lloyd MCCRORY, in his Official Capacity as Governor of North Carolina; Kim Westbrook Strach, in her Official Capacity as Executive Director of The North Carolina State Board of Elections; Rhonda K. Amoroso, in her Official Capacity as Secretary of The North Carolina State Board of Elections; Joshua D. Malcolm, in his Official Capacity as a Member of The North Carolina State Board of Elections; James Baker, in his Official Capacity as a Member of The North Carolina State Board of Elections; and Maja Kricker, in her Official Capacity as a Member of The North Carolina State Board of Elections, Defendants. League of Women Voters of North Carolina; A. Philip Randolph Institute; Unifour Onestop Collaboarative; Common Cause North Carolina; Goldie Wells; Kay Brandon; Octavia Rainey; Sara Stohler; and Hugh Stohler, Plaintiffs, and Louis M. Duke; Asgod Barrantes; Josue E. Berduo; Charles M. Gray ; Nancy J. Lund; Brian M. Miller; Becky Hurley Mock; Mary-Wren Ritchie; Lynne M. Walter; and Ebony N. West, Plaintiff-intervenors, v. The State of North Carolina; Joshua B. Howard, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; Rhonda K. Amoroso, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; Joshua D. Malcolm, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; Paul J. Foley, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; Maja Kricker, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; and Patrick L. McCrory, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of North Carolina, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. The State of North Carolina; The North Carolina State Board of Elections; and Kim W. Strach, in her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
Bridget K. O'Connor, Christopher J. Maner, Daniel T. Donovan, Jodi K. Wu, Kenneth Winn Allen, Michael A. Glick, Ronald K. Anguas, Jr., Susan Marie Davies, Thomas D. Yannucci, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Caitlin Swain-McSurely, Denise D. Lieberman, Donita Judge, Jadine C. Johnson, Jasmyn G. Richardson, Penda Denise Hair, Advancement Project, Washington, DC, Irving Joyner, N.C. Central University School of Law, Cary, NC, Jennifer R. Basch, John J. Song, Madelyn A. Morris, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY, Adam Stein, Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, PLLC, Chapel Hill, NC, for Plaintiffs.
Karl S. Bowers, Jr., Bowers Law Office LLC, Columbia, SC, Alexander McClure Peters, Katherine A. Murphy, N.C. Department of Justice, Phillip John Strach, Thomas A. Farr, Michael Douglas McKnight, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Raleigh, NC, Amy M. Pocklington, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Richmond, VA, Elizabeth R. Dangel, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Charlotte, NC, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
In these related cases, Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing various provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2013–381 ("SL 2013–381"), an omnibus election-reform law, as amended by Session Law 2015–103 ("SL 2015–103").1
Plaintiffs are the United States of America (the "United States") in case 1:13CV861, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and several organizations and individual plaintiffs (the "NAACP Plaintiffs") in case 1:13CV658, and the League of Women Voters of North Carolina along with several organizations and individuals (the "League Plaintiffs") in case 1:13CV660. Additionally, the court allowed a group of "young voters" and others (the "Intervenor Plaintiffs") to intervene in case 1:13CV660. (Doc. 62 in case 1:13CV660.) Considered together, Plaintiffs raise claims under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("VRA"), 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973 ). (Doc. 365 in case 1:13CV861; Doc. 384 in case 1:13CV658; Docs. 1 & 63 in case 1:13CV660.) The United States also moves for the appointment of federal observers to monitor future elections in North Carolina pursuant to § 3(a) of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10302(a) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(a) ). (Doc. 365 at 33.)2 Defendants are the State of North Carolina, Governor Patrick L. McCrory, the State Board of Elections ("SBOE"), and several State officials acting in their official capacities.
The record is extensive. The court held a four-day evidentiary hearing and argument beginning July 7, 2014, on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, which evidence is now part of the trial record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). Fifteen days of trial on the merits were conducted from July 13 through 31, 2015. An additional six days of trial on the voter photo identification ("ID") provisions of the law were conducted from January 25 through February 1, 2016. The court has considered testimony of twenty-one expert witnesses and 112 fact witnesses. The record consists of more than 11,000 pages from the preliminary injunction phase, in excess of 12,000 pages from the July trial, and over 2,500 additional pages from the January trial.3 As can be seen from the length of this memorandum opinion, merely trying to concisely state the court's findings has presented a monumental challenge.
This case presents important questions as it tests North Carolina's newly-enacted voter photo-ID requirement and the State's modification or elimination of certain voting procedures not contemplated by the State a little more than a decade ago: seventeen days of in-person early voting before Election Day, same-day registration, voting provisionally on Election Day in an unassigned precinct, and pre-registering to vote as early as age sixteen. Under both the Elections Clause of, and the Tenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, such decisions are traditionally reserved to the States, but they are subject to other constitutional and congressional limitations. The principal question in these cases is whether the North Carolina General Assembly imposed a voter-ID requirement and altered these relatively recently-developed voting procedures—deemed "conveniences" and "fail-safes" by some of Plaintiffs' own experts—based on race or, even if not, in a manner that presents an unlawful discriminatory burden on voters.
After careful consideration of the complete record and pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court enters the following findings of fact—based upon an evaluation of the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, and the inferences that the court has found reasonable to be drawn therefrom—and conclusions of law. To the extent any factual statement is contained in the conclusions of law, it is deemed a finding of fact as well.
The provisions of North Carolina SL 2013–381 at issue establish a voter-ID requirement and repeal certain voting and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
One Wis. Inst., Inc. v. Thomsen
...dearth of guidance on what test applies to Twenty-Sixth Amendment claims." N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory , 182 F.Supp.3d 320, 522–24, No. 13–cv–658, 2016 WL 1650774, at *165 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2016), rev'd , 831 F.3d 204, No. 16–1468, 2016 WL 4053033 (4th Cir. July 29, 2016)......
-
Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Reagan
...WL 2191664, at *25. Voters could also "be nefariously directed to vote elsewhere," id ., as detailed in N.C. State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory , 182 F.Supp.3d 320, 461 (M.D.N.C. 2016), rev'd on other grounds , 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). Further, partially counting ballots would burden......
-
New Ga. Project v. Raffensperger
...of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 1221 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (quoting N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 182 F. Supp. 3d 320, 522 (M.D. N.C. 2016), rev'd on other grounds, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) ); Nashville Student Org. Comm. v. Hargett, 155 F. Su......
-
Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Husted, Case No. 2:15-cv-1802
...v. Husted II , 768 F.3d at 547 (recognizing the same); compare with North Carolina State Conference of the N.A.A.C.P. v. McCrory , 182 F.Supp.3d 320, 478–80, 2016 WL 1650774, at *127 (M.D.N.C. April 25, 2016) (finding that unlike in N.A.A.C.P. v. Husted , the record showed that SDR's proxim......
-
Election Law Violations
...against minorities in enacting the law. ” 508 The Biden Administration, however, 495. N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, 182 F. Supp. 3d 320, 331 (M.D.N.C. 2016). 496. N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). 497. Id. at 214–15. 498. North Carolina v. N.C. Stat......
-
Gender, Voting Rights, and the Nineteenth Amendment
...One Wisconsin Institute, Inc. v. Thomsen, 198 F. Supp. 3d 896 (W.D. Wisconsin 2016); N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 182 F. Supp. 3d 320 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2016), rev’d , 831 F.3d 204, (4th Cir. July 29, 2016); Nashville Student Org. Comm. v. Hargett, 155 F. Supp. 3d 749 (M.D......