N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 1:13CV658
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina |
| Citation | 182 F.Supp.3d 320 |
| 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. |
| Decision Date | 25 April 2016 |
182 F.Supp.3d 320
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.
1:13CV658
1:13CV660
1:13CV861
United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.
Signed April 25, 2016
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.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Thomas D. Schroeder, United States District Judge
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FINDINGS OF FACT ... 332
A. North Carolina Voting Laws ...332
1. Voter ID ... 332
2. Early Voting ...332
3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting ...334
4. SDR ... 336
5. Pre-registration ... 336
B. Post-2011 Legislation ... 337
1. Introduction of HB 589 ... 337
2. Revision of HB 589 ... 339
3. Enactment of HB 836 ... 344
C. Procedural History ... 348
D. Evidence of Voter Experience Under Current Law ... 351
1. Voter ID ... 351
a. Voter Education about the Voter-ID Requirement Prior to the Reasonable Impediment Exception ... 351
b. Voter Education After Enactment of the Reasonable Impediment Exception ... 353
c. Voters' Experience in Acquiring Qualifying ID ... 358
d. Evidence of North Carolina Voters Without ID ... 364
e. Availability of the Reasonable Impediment Exception ... 369
2. Change in the Early-Voting Schedule ... 382
3. Elimination of SDR ... 393
4. Elimination of OOP Provisional Voting ... 404
5. Elimination of Pre-Registration ... 407
6. Other Challenged Provisions ... 409
7. 2014 Data ... 411
E. Testimony of Other Experts ... 412
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ... 412
A. Section 2 of the VRA ... 412
1. The Law of Vote Denial and Abridgement Claims. ... 412
2. The Totality of the Circumstances & Gingles ... 422
a. The Success of the Prior Practices in Fostering Minority Political Participation ... 422
b. History of Official Discrimination ... 425
c. Racially-Polarized Voting ... 429
d. Enhancing the Opportunity for Discrimination ... 429
e. Candidate Slating Process ... 430
f. Continuing Effects of Discrimination Hindering Participation ... 430
g. Racial Appeals in Campaigning ... 438
h. Minority Electoral Success ... 438
i. Responsiveness of Elected Officials ... 439
j. Tenuousness of the State's Justifications ... 440
i. Voter ID ... 440
ii. Early Voting ... 445
iii. SDR ... 445
iv. OOP Voting ... 447
v. Pre-Registration ... 463
3. Equality of Opportunity and Social and Historical Conditions ... 465
a. Voter ID ... 466
b. Early Voting ... 472
c. SDR ... 473
d. OOP Voting ... 479
e. Pre-registration ... 483
f. Cumulative Effect ... 484
4. Discriminatory Result: Conclusion ... 486
5. Discriminatory Intent ... 488
6. Additional Problems with the § 2 Results Claim ... 503
B. "Traditional" Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment Claims ... 509
C. Anderson–Burdick Claim ... 509
1. Voter ID ... 511
2. Early Voting ... 513
3. SDR ... 514
4. OOP ... 516
5. Pre-registration ... 518
6. CBOE Discretion ... 520
7. Poll Observers and Challengers ... 520
8. Cumulative Effect of Provisions ... 521
D. Twenty-Sixth Amendment Claim ... 521
E. Remedy ... 525
III. CONCLUSION ... 526
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
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
One Wis. Inst., Inc. v. Thomsen, 15-cv-324-jdp
...there is "a 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. Ju......
-
Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Reagan
...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 candidates ......
-
New Ga. Project v. Raffensperger
...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. Supp. 3d 74......
-
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......