League of Women Voters of N.C. v. State
Decision Date | 01 October 2014 |
Docket Number | Nos. 14–1845,14–1856,14–1859.,s. 14–1845 |
Citation | 769 F.3d 224 |
Parties | LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA; A. Philip Randolph Institute; Unifour Onestop Collaborative; Common Cause North Carolina; Goldie Wells; Kay Brandon; Octavia Rainey; Sara Stohler; Hugh Stohler, Plaintiffs, and Louis M. Duke; Charles M. Gray; Asgod Barrantes; Josue E. Berduo; Brian M. Miller; Nancy J. Lund; Becky Hurley Mock; Mary–Wren Ritchie; Lynne M. Walter; Ebony N. West, Intervenors/Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. 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; Patrick L. McCrory, in his official capacity as Governor of the state of North Carolina, Defendants–Appellees. United States Of America, Amicus Curiae, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Amicus Supporting Appellants, Judicial Watch, Incorporated; Allied Educational Foundation; Christina Kelley Gallegos–Merrill, Amici Supporting Appellees. North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the Naacp; Rosanell Eaton; Emmanuel Baptist Church; Bethel A. Baptist Church; Covenant Presbyterian Church; Clinton Tabernacle Ame Zion Church; Barbee's Chapel Missionary Baptist Church, Inc.; Armenta Eaton; Carolyn Coleman; Jocelyn Fergusonkelly; Faith Jackson; Mary Perry; Maria Teresa Unger Palmer, Plaintiffs—Appellants, and New Oxley Hill Baptist Church; Baheeyah Madany; John Doe 1; Jane Doe 1; John Doe 2; Jane Doe 2; John Doe 3; Jane Doe 3, Plaintiffs, v. Patrick L. McCrory, in his official capacity as Governor of 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, Defendants–Appellees. United States of America, Amicus Curiae, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Amicus Supporting Appellants, Judicial Watch, Incorporated; Allied Educational Foundation; Christina Kelley Gallegos–Merrill, Amici Supporting Appellees. League of Women Voters of North Carolina; A. Philip Randolph Institute; Unifour Onestop Collaborative; Common Cause North Carolina; Goldie Wells; Octavia Rainey; Hugh Stohler; Kay Brandon; Sara Stohler, Plaintiffs–Appellants, and Louis M. Duke; Charles M. Gray; Asgod Barrantes; Josue E. Berduo; Brian M. Miller; Nancy J. Lund; Becky Hurley Mock; Mary–Wren Ritchie; Lynne M. Walter; Ebony N. West, Intervenors/Plaintiffs, v. 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; Patrick L. McCrory, in his official capacity as Governor of the state of North Carolina, Defendants–Appellees. United States of America, Amicus Curiae, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Amicus Supporting Appellants, Judicial Watch, Incorporated; Allied Educational Foundation; Christina Kelley Gallegos–Merrill, Amici Supporting Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge WYNN wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge FLOYD joined. Judge MOTZ wrote a dissenting opinion.
The right to vote is fundamental. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). And a tight timeframe before an election does not diminish that right.
“In decision after decision, Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972). Congress sought to further ensure equal access to the ballot box by passing the Voting Rights Act, which was aimed at preventing “an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986).
On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court lifted certain Voting Rights Act restrictions that had long prevented jurisdictions like North Carolina from passing laws that would deny minorities equal access. See Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2612, 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013). The very next day, North Carolina began pursuing sweeping voting reform-House Bill 589–which is at the heart of this appeal.
With House Bill 589, North Carolina imposed strict voter identification requirements, cut a week off of early voting, prohibited local election boards from keeping the polls open on the final Saturday afternoon before elections, eliminated same-day voter registration, opened up precincts to “challengers,” eliminated pre-registration of sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds in high schools, and barred votes cast in the wrong precinct from being counted at all.
In response, various Plaintiffs and the United States Government sued North Carolina, alleging that House Bill 589 violates equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution as well as the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs sought to preventHouse Bill 589 from taking effect by asking the district court for a preliminary injunction. Such an injunction would maintain the status quo to prevent irreparable harm while the lawsuit plays itself out in the courts.
But the district court refused. In so doing, the district court laid out what it believed to be the applicable law. Notably, however, the district court got the law plainly wrong in several crucial respects. When the applicable law is properly understood and applied to the facts as the district court portrayed them, it becomes clear that the district court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiffs a preliminary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. v. Raffensperger
...Cardona v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 785 F.Supp. 837, 840 (N.D. Cal. 1992); see also League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Courts routinely deem restrictions on fundamental voting rights irreparable injury.”) (citations omitted). In view of ......
-
Martin v. Kemp
...because of sovereign immunity renders the harm suffered irreparable.")(collecting cases); see also League of Women Voters of N. Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014) ("Courts routinely deem restrictions on fundamental voting rights irreparable injury."); Obama for Am......
-
Robinson v. Ardoin
... ... for the Advancement of Colored People Louisiana State Conference, also known as NAACP; Power Coalition for Equity ... black voters were "packed" into the single ... black-majority ... court for any abuse of discretion. Women's Med. Ctr ... of Nw. Hous. v. Bell , 248 F.3d 411, ... with no remedy. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v ... Perry , 548 U.S ... ...
-
Voter Fraud as an Epistemic Crisis for the Right to Vote
...more likely to possess." McCrory, 831 F.3d at 216-17.82. 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 381.83. League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2014).84. North Carolina v. League of Women Voters of N.C, 574 U.S. 927 (2014) (mem.).85. McCrory, 831 F.3d at 214-15.86. Id......