N.C. State Conference, of the Naacp, Emmanuel Baptist Church, New Oxley Hill Baptist Church, Bethel A. Baptist Church, Covenant Presbyterian Church, Clinton Tabernacle Ame Zion Church, Barbee's Chapel Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. v. McCrory

Decision Date08 August 2014
Docket Number1:13CV660,1:13CV861.,Nos. 1:13CV658,s. 1:13CV658
Citation997 F.Supp.2d 322
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
PartiesNORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE, OF the NAACP, Emmanuel Baptist Church, New Oxley Hill Baptist Church, Bethel A. Baptist Church, Covenant Presbyterian Church, Clinton Tabernacle Ame Zion Church, Barbee's Chapel Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., Rosanell Eaton, Armenta Eaton, Carolyn Coleman, Baheeyah Madany, 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, Paul J. Foley, 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 Collaborative; 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.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Bridget K. O'Connor, Christopher J. Maner, Daniel T. Donovan, Jodi K. Wu, Kenneth Winn Allen, Kimberly D. Rancour, Susan Marie Davies, Thomas D. Yannucci, Uzoma N. Nkwonta, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Denise D. Lieberman, Donita Judge, Penda Denise Hair, Advancement Project, Washington, DC, Irving Joyner, N.C. Central University School of Law, Cary, NC, Adam Stein, Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, PLLC, Chapel Hill, NC, for Plaintiffs.

Karl S. Bowers, Bowers Law Office LLC, Columbia, SC, Alexander McClure Peters, N.C. Department of Justice, Thomas A. Farr, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Raleigh, NC, Amy M. Pocklington, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Richmond, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge.

In these related cases, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 barring Defendants from implementing various provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2013–381 (“SL 2013–381”), an omnibus election-reform law.1 (Docs. 96 & 98 in case 1:13CV861; Docs. 108 & 110 in case 1:13CV658; Docs. 112 & 114 in case 1:13CV660.) 2 Defendants move for judgmenton the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Doc. 94.) A trial on the merits is currently scheduled for July 2015. (Doc. 30 at 4.)

Plaintiffs include 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 Intervenors) 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 Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1973. (Doc. 1 in case 1:13CV861; Doc. 52 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 Section 3(a) of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(a). (Doc. 97 at 75–77.) Finally, Plaintiffs move to exclude and strike the testimony of three of Defendants' expert witnesses. (Docs. 146, 148, & 150.)

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. They contend that Plaintiffs have not stated any claims for which relief can be granted under either the Constitution or the VRA and, in any event, have not established entitlement to preliminary relief. (Docs. 94, 95 & 126.)

The court held a four-day evidentiary hearing and argument beginning July 7, 2014. The record is extensive. Throughout the proceedings, there was much debate over the policy merits of SL 2013–381 as an election law and the popularity and desirability of various voting mechanisms it affects. It is important to note that, while these have evoked strongly-held views, this is not the forum for resolving that aspect of the parties' dispute; such considerations are matters for legislative bodies to address. The jurisdiction of this court is limited to addressing the legal challenges raised based on the evidence presented to the court.

After careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied in its entirety. Plaintiffs' complaints state plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and should be permitted to proceed in the litigation. However, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be granted in this circuit only upon a “clear showing” of entitlement. After thorough review of the record, the court finds that as to two challenged provisions of SL 2013–381, Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing they are likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying legal claims. As to the remaining provisions, the court finds that even assuming Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, they have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm—a necessary prerequisite for preliminary relief—before trial in the absence of an injunction. Consequently, the motions for preliminary injunction and the United States' request for federal observers will be denied. This resolution renders the motions to exclude expert testimony moot.

I. BACKGROUNDA. Legislative History

The North Carolina General Assembly began consideration of a voter identification (“voter ID”) requirement in March 2013. On March 12, the House Committee on Elections, chaired by Republican Representative David R. Lewis, held public hearings on voter ID. ( See J.A. at 2388–92.) 3 Over 70 citizens from a wide variety of organizations spoke before the committee. ( Id.) The next day, the committee met and considered the testimony of five individuals representing a wide variety of organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice and the Heritage Foundation. ( See J.A. at 2393–2416.) One of the speakers was Allison Riggs, counsel of record for the League Plaintiffs in case 1:13CV660, who appeared on behalf of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. (J.A. at 2394.) On April 3, the committee heard from Ion Sancho, the Supervisor of Elections for Leon County, Florida, who testified about Florida's experience when it reduced early-voting days in advance of the 2012 general election. (J.A. at 2418, 2420–23.)

The initial version of HB 589 was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 4. (J.A. at 2101–12.) The bill dealt almost exclusively with the implementation of a voter ID requirement beginning in 2016 in portions titled the Voter Information Verification Act.” 4 (J.A. at 2101–06, 2112.) On April 8, it passed “first reading” and was referred to the Committee on Elections.5 (J.A. at 2354.) The committee subsequently held another public hearing on April 10, whereupon over 70 citizens from across the political spectrum had the opportunity to speak. (J.A. at 2424–28.) It further debated the bill and added amendments at a meeting held on April 17. (J.A. at 2432–43.) The bill was also referred to the Committees on Finance and Appropriations. (J.A. at 2354, 2444–45.)

HB 589 advanced, as amended, from the various House committees, and was debated on the House floor on April 24, 2013. (J.A. at 2354, 2446–51.) After three amendments were adopted and six others rejected, the bill passed “second reading” on a roll-call vote of 80–36.6 (J.A. at 2354, 2450.) The bill subsequently passed “third reading” immediately, on a vote of 81–36, and was passed by the House. (J.A. at 2450–51.) Five House Democrats joined all present Republicans in voting for the final voter ID bill (J.A. at 2366, 2573, 2581, 2592), but none of the black members of the House supported it (J.A. at 2655). Representative Rick Glazier, who strongly opposed the bill, testified at the preliminary injunction hearing in this case that he felt that “for a large bill,” HB 589 received up to this point “the best process possible” in the House, one he characterized as “excellent.” (Doc. 165 at 56–57.)

HB 589 was received in the North Carolina Senate the next day, passed first reading, and was assigned to the Senate Rules Committee. (J.A. at 2354.) The committee took no immediate action on the bill. The parties do not dispute that the Senate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • April 25, 2016
    ...this court issued a 125–page opinion denying the motions for preliminary injunction but refusing to dismiss any claims. 997 F.Supp.2d 322 (M.D.N.C.2014).On August 18, 2014, Plaintiffs—except for the United States—and Intervenors filed notice of appeal. (Docs. 172, 174, 175.) Plaintiffs were......
  • Veasey v. Perry
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • October 9, 2014
    ...S.Ct. 2354.519 Frank, 17 F.Supp.3d at 877–78 (citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47, 106 S.Ct. 2752 ); see also N.C. State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 997 F.Supp.2d 322, 348 (M.D.N.C.), aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded on other grounds sub nom. League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North ......
  • N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 29, 2016
    ...election, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction of several provisions of the law. SeeN.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory, 997 F.Supp.2d 322, 339 (M.D.N.C. 2014). The district court denied the motion. Id. at 383. On appeal, we reversed in part, remanding the case with instructio......
  • League of Women Voters of N.C. v. State
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 1, 2014
    ...“who would vote out-of-precinct” to otherwise cast their ballot. North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP v. McCrory, 997 F.Supp.2d 322, 367 (M.D.N.C.2014). That finding rests on the assumption that eliminating a week of early voting still leaves minority voters with “ample ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT