City of Greensboro v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Elections
| Decision Date | 03 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | 1:15-CV-559. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | CITY OF GREENSBORO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendant. |
Allison Jean Riggs, Anita S. Earls, Emily E. Seawell, George E. Eppsteiner, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham, NC, D. Bryan Starrett, Jr., Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Greensboro, NC, Julia C. Ambrose, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiffs.
Georgeanna Butler Womack, pro se.
John Mark Payne, Guilford County Attorney's Office, Greensboro, NC, for Defendant.
In 2015, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law that, among other things, prohibited the citizens of Greensboro, alone among municipal citizens in the state, from participating in municipal initiatives or referendums.1 The City of Greensboro and several individual residents of Greensboro sued, challenging the law on several grounds, including a claim that this ban violates their equal protection rights.
The plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings on this claim. The defendant, the Guilford County Board of Elections, takes no position on the constitutionality of this provision. The State has not appeared in this litigation and thus has identified neither a legitimate governmental purpose for the initiative and referendum ban nor a rational relationship between any such purpose and singling out of Greensboro voters. No legitimate purpose or rational relationship appears in the undisputed evidence. The Court, having converted the motion to one for partial summary judgment and upon an expansion of the record, will grant the motion.
Under the North Carolina Constitution, cities and counties are essentially creatures of the state.2 Article VII gives the General Assembly the power to "provide for the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries of counties, cities and towns."3 "[M]unicipalities have no inherent powers; they have only such powers as are delegated to them by legislative enactment."4
In 1969, the General Assembly adopted the statute now codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 160A–101 to –111, which delegates significant control to all cities over their forms of government.5 Under Chapter 160A, every North Carolina municipality and its voters have the right to select the structure and form of the municipality's government.6 Section 160A–101 allows every municipality to choose the style of the municipal corporation and its governing board;7 the number, terms of office, and mode of election of council members;8 the method of conducting municipal elections;9 the method of choosing the mayor;10 and the form (mayor-council or council-manager) of municipal government.11 It also requires that city councils draw the boundaries of any districts and divide council seats between the districts and at-large seats, if any.12
Each city council is authorized to change between and among options identified in § 160A–101 by adopting an ordinance amending the city's charter, subject to notice and procedural requirements.13 Councils can, if they choose, require approval by the people before adopting the ordinance.14
If a city council enacts such a change without approval by a vote of the people, public notice is required15 and the change is subject to a referendum if the required number of voters submit a timely petition.16 If a petition meeting the numerical requirements is presented to the council within thirty days of public notice, the council must submit its proposed change to a referendum before it can go into effect.17
Each city's municipal voters can also change city governance by initiative.18 There are procedural requirements, but an initiative can cover any topic in § 160A–101 except for drawing district boundaries.19 After receiving an initiative petition, the council must call a special election to consider the proposed change.20
Since 1983, Greensboro has chosen, pursuant to Chapter 160A, to use the mayor-council form of government, with the mayor and three council members elected at-large and five council members elected from single-member districts.21 At the time the General Assembly passed the legislation at issue here, all council members and the mayor were elected to two-year terms.22
In early July 2015, days before the filing period for the 2015 Greensboro City Council election was scheduled to open,23 the North Carolina General Assembly passed Session Law 2015–138, referenced here as "the Act."24 The Act made many changes to the way the Greensboro City Council would be elected in 2015 and to the city's governance structure going forward.
As is relevant to the pending motion, the Act prohibits Greensboro voters from making changes to the form of city government by initiative or referendum.25 At the time the Act was passed, one referendum, initiated by the Greensboro City Council, was scheduled for Fall 2015; the issue was whether to increase council member terms from two years to four years.26 The original Act had no expiration date on the prohibition of changes by its citizens.27 In late September 2015, as part of a "technical corrections" bill, the General Assembly amended the Act to prohibit alterations and amendments to the City of Greensboro's form of government only "until after the return of the 2020 federal decennial Census."28
The plaintiffs, including the City of Greensboro and several Greensboro citizens, filed this lawsuit on July 13, 2015, alleging that the Act violated the equal protection clauses of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions in two ways, including the prohibition on initiative and referendum petitions.29 In addition to seeking preliminary injunctive relief,30 the plaintiffs sought to permanently enjoin the implementation of the Act as unconstitutional, restore the previously existing election procedures, and recover attorney's fees.31
On July 23, 2015, after notice to the defendant Guilford County Board of Elections and the Attorney General and after a hearing, the Court entered a preliminary injunction that enjoined the Board from implementing elections according to the Act.32 The plaintiffs filed an initial amended complaint in February 2016, adding a third equal protection claim based on racial gerrymandering.33
The sole defendant here, the Board, has indicated that it has only a "ministerial" role in elections and that taking a position on the constitutional issues raised would be inconsistent with its duty to administer elections in an impartial and nonpartisan manner.34 The Board has not defended the Act, though it has participated in the litigation in other ways.35
Before the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, the Attorney General was given notice of this lawsuit pursuant to state law.36 The Attorney General decided not to participate in the litigation,37 and no one from the attorney general's office appeared at the preliminary injunction hearing,38 submitted evidence, or filed a brief in opposition to an injunction. Since the preliminary injunction, the Attorney General has not substantively participated in this litigation39 and has not defended the Act.40 Legislative leaders within the General Assembly appear to have standing to intervene, but have not asked to do so.41
In August 2015, just a few weeks after the Court issued the injunction, several Greensboro residents moved to intervene as defendants in support of the Act,42 and the Court allowed them to intervene soon thereafter.43 The intervenors participated in discovery,44 and filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party.45 The Court denied that motion pursuant to Wright v. North Carolina .46 The intervenors did not file any summary judgment motions or respond to the pending dispositive motion.47 The Court ultimately allowed them to withdraw in late 2016 at their request.48
With the Court's permission, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on December 8, 2016.49 This complaint substituted one of the individual plaintiffs and included no substantive changes.50 The Board filed an updated answer on December 22, which made no substantive changes from its earlier answers.51
On October 21, 2016, the plaintiffs jointly filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.52 The plaintiffs sought judgment in their favor on their first claim for relief,53 which alleged that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause by depriving the citizens of Greensboro of the statutory right to seek an initiative or referendum, which remained available to the citizens of every other municipality in the state.54 The Board filed a response indicating that it would not dispute the merits of this claim.55 The defendant-intervenors did not respond to the motion and withdrew from the case six weeks after the motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed.56
At a hearing on December 13, 2016, the Court converted the motion to a motion for partial summary judgment, without objection from the parties, and it held the motion open for submission of evidence.57 The plaintiffs presented additional evidence in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d).58 The parties agreed that additional briefing was not required.59 Consistent with the standard in Rule 56, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.60
"[I]f a state chooses to confer the right of referendum to its citizens, it is ‘obligated to do so in a manner consistent with the Constitution.’ " Molinari v. Bloomberg, 564 F.3d 587, 597 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Meyer v. Grant , 486 U.S. 414, 420, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988) ). Similarly, if the state creates an initiative procedure, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brandon v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 18-1123
...be inconsistent with its duty to administer elections in an impartial and nonpartisan manner." City of Greensboro v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Elections , 248 F.Supp.3d 692, 697 (M.D.N.C. 2017).As the district court acknowledged, a defendant’s good faith is not enough, standing alone, to warrant......