N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. Raymond, 20-1092

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge
• Citation: 981 F.3d 295
• Parties: NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; Chapel Hillcarrboro NAACP; Greensboro NAACP; High Point NAACP; Moore County NAACP; Stokes County Branch of the NAACP; Winston Salem – Forsyth County NAACP, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. Ken RAYMOND, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Stella E. Anderson, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Damon Circosta, in his official capacity as Chair of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Jefferson Carmon, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; David C. Black, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, Defendants - Appellants, Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, and Timothy K. Moore, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Intervenors. Democracy North Carolina; Roy Cooper; National Redistricting Foundation, Amici Supporting Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 20-1092,20-1092
• Decision Date: 02 December 2020

981 F.3d 295

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; Chapel Hillcarrboro NAACP; Greensboro NAACP; High Point NAACP; Moore County NAACP; Stokes County Branch of the NAACP; Winston Salem – Forsyth County NAACP, Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
Ken RAYMOND, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Stella E. Anderson, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Damon Circosta, in his official capacity as Chair of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Jefferson Carmon, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; David C. Black, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, Defendants - Appellants,

Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, and Timothy K. Moore, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Intervenors.

Democracy North Carolina; Roy Cooper; National Redistricting Foundation, Amici Supporting Appellees.

No. 20-1092

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: September 11, 2020
Decided: December 2, 2020

ARGUED: Olga E.V. de Brito, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. David Henry Thompson, COOPER & KIRK PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Intervenors. John Charles Ulin, TROYGOULD PC, Los Angeles, California, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, Paul M. Cox, Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Irving Joyner, Cary, North Carolina; Penda D. Hair, Washington, D.C., Caitlin A. Swain, Kathleen Roblez, FORWARD JUSTICE, Durham, North Carolina; Andrew T. Tutt, James W. Cooper, Jeremy C. Karpatkin, Stephen K. Wirth, Jacob Zionce, Thomas La Voy, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss, COOPER & KIRK PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Nathan A. Huff, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Intervenors. Marc E. Elias, Aria C. Branch, Washington, D.C., Abha Khanna, PERKINS COIE LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Amicus National Redistricting Foundation. Sean Morales-Doyle, Myrna Pérez, NYU SCHOOL OF LAW, New York, New York; Nathaniel B. Edmonds, Washington, D.C., Aaron Charfoos, Chicago, Illinois, Jane H. Yoon, New York, New York, Steven A. Marenberg, PAUL HASTINGS LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Amicus Democracy North Carolina. Robert E. Harrington, Adam K. Doerr, Erik R. Zimmerman, Travis S. Hinman, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Amicus Governor Roy Cooper.

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Reversed by published opinion. Judge Richardson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Harris and Judge Quattlebaum joined.

RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge:

981 F.3d 298

This case challenges the constitutionality of a 2018 North Carolina law requiring voters to present photographic identification ("2018 Voter-ID Law"). This law was passed after this Court found that North Carolina acted with racially discriminatory intent in enacting a 2013 omnibus voting law ("2013 Omnibus Law"), which included a voter-ID requirement. See N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory , 831 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2016). The Challengers allege that the 2018 Voter-ID Law was enacted with the same discriminatory intent as the 2013 Omnibus Law. And the district court preliminarily agreed, finding that the Challengers were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims and issuing a preliminary injunction against the law's enforcement. See N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Cooper , 430 F. Supp. 3d 15, 54 (M.D.N.C. 2019). We must determine whether this was an abuse of discretion.

The outcome hinges on the answer to a simple question: How much does the past matter? To the district court, the North Carolina General Assembly's recent discriminatory past was effectively dispositive of the Challengers’ claims here. But the Supreme Court directs differently. See Abbott v. Perez , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2324, 201 L.Ed.2d 714 (2018). A legislature's past acts do not condemn the acts of a later legislature, which we must presume acts in good faith. Id. So because we find that the district court improperly disregarded this principle by reversing the burden of proof and failing to apply the presumption of legislative good faith, we reverse.

I. Background

From 1965 until the summer of 2013, North Carolina was one of several states required to obtain federal permission under the Voting Rights Act before enacting any voting law. Obtaining that permission required a state to present persuasive evidence that the proposed state law had neither the purpose nor effect of "diminishing the ability of any citizens" to vote "on account of race or color." 52 U.S.C. § 10304 ; see South Carolina v. United States , 898 F. Supp. 2d 30, 33 (D.D.C. 2012).

While under that preclearance regime, the General Assembly introduced a voter-ID bill in 2011. The bill passed both chambers, but the Governor vetoed it. In the spring of 2013, the General Assembly tried again. In preparation, at various points in 2012 and 2013, the General Assembly requested information on the use of voting practices by race. See N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory , 182 F. Supp. 3d 320, 489 (M.D.N.C. 2016). While the General Assembly considered the new voter-ID bill, the Supreme Court rejected the Voting Rights Act's coverage formula that had required that North Carolina obtain preclearance. See Shelby Cnty. v. Holder , 570 U.S. 529, 537, 133 S.Ct. 2612, 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013).

981 F.3d 299

Freed of the preclearance requirement, the General Assembly expanded the proposed voter-ID bill into "omnibus legislation" that included a "number of voting restrictions." McCrory , 831 F.3d at 216–18. The omnibus bill passed along party lines, and the Governor signed it into law. Id. at 218.

In a challenge to this 2013 Omnibus Law, we enjoined five of its voting restrictions: (1) the elimination of preregistration; (2) the elimination of out-of-precinct provisional voting; (3) the elimination of same-day registration; (4) the reduction of the time for early voting; and (5) the requirement of a photo ID to vote. Id. at 242. Reversing the district court, we found that each of these restrictions had been unlawfully enacted with racially discriminatory intent. Id. at 215. Those five restrictions "unmistakably" reflected the General Assembly's motivation to "entrench itself ... by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party," id. at 233, and did so with "almost surgical precision" using the data on voting practices, id. at 214. We noted that after Shelby County the General Assembly expanded the bill's restrictions and amended the voter-ID provision to exclude "many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans," retaining "only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess." Id. at 216. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. North Carolina v. N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1399, 198 L.Ed.2d 220 (2017).

A. The enactment of the 2018 Voter-ID Law

After we enjoined the 2013 Omnibus Law, legislative leaders called for a new voter-ID law. The General Assembly first asked the voters to approve a voter-ID amendment to the North Carolina Constitution. 2018 N.C. Sess. Laws 128.¹ The amendment required that all voters in North Carolina "offering to vote in person [ ] present photographic identification before voting" and directed that the General Assembly "shall enact general laws governing the requirements of such photographic identification, which may include exceptions." N.C. CONST. art VI, § 2 (4). Fifty-five percent of the voters approved the constitutional amendment.

In that same election, the Republicans lost their supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly. During the lame-duck term following the election, the General Assembly enacted the 2018 Voter-ID Law. Its stated purpose was "to implement the constitutional amendment requiring photographic identification to vote." 2018 N.C. Sess. Laws 144. After the Governor vetoed the law, both chambers voted to override the veto and enact the law.

B. The 2018 Voter-ID Law's provisions

Subject to exceptions, the 2018 Voter-ID Law requires North Carolinian voters to produce photographic identification to vote in person or by absentee ballot. 2018 N.C. Sess. Laws 144, § 1.2(a). The law at first listed ten forms of authorized ID:

1. North Carolina driver's licenses;

2. Other nontemporary IDs issued by the Division of Motor Vehicles;

3. United States passports;

4. North Carolina voter photo ID cards;

5. Tribal enrollment cards issued by state- or federally recognized tribes;

981 F.3d 300

6. Certain student IDs issued by post-secondary institutions;

7. Certain employee IDs issued by a state or local government entity;

8. Out-of-state driver's licenses and nonoperator IDs (if the voter is newly registered);

9. Military IDs; and

10. Veterans IDs.

Cooper , 430 F. Supp. 3d at 36 (footnote...