OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Currie v. North Carolina

Case Information

Date Filed: August 12, 2013
State: North Carolina
Issues: Voter ID, Voter Supression, Voting Rights Act
Courts that Heard this Case: North Carolina Orange County Superior Court (Case 13-CV-001419)

Issue:

1. Do Voter ID requirements violate Article VI of the North Carolina Constitution?

2. Do the Photo ID costs violate Article I Section 10 of the North Carolina Constitution?

3. Do the Photo ID property requirements violate Article I Section 11 of the North Carolina Constitution?

4. Do Photo ID requirements impose burdens on classes of voters in violation of Article I Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?

5. Do the Photo ID requirements create an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of Article 1 Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?

6. Does the State purposefully discriminate against African-American voters in violation Article 1 Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?

Status:

Complaint filed 8/12/13. Answer filed 11/14/13. Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Conference filed 9/16/14. Order regarding Motion for Judgment on Pleadings filed 2/24/15. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed 6/30/15. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Motion for Temporary Stay until after primary election filed 7/2/15.

District Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Gerrymandering Is Headed Back to the Supreme Court

Professor Edward Foley was requoted in Mother Jones about a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin on its way to the Supreme Court. Other legal actions on partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and in North Carolina may be bound for the Supreme Court as well.

While previous Supreme Court cases have noted that partisan gerrymanders are “incompatible with democratic principles,” The New York Times originally reported, the court has never officially struck a case down. While it remains unseen how the Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming cases, a 2004 ruling from a previous gerrymandering case could play a pivotal role in how the court stands in the future. 

“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in 2004. Kennedy’s statement is “the most important line” in the decision, Foley told The New York Times, adding,  “He’s going to look at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms District Court: NC Redistricting Unconstitutional

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court, finding that North Carolina\'s Congressional redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution. The Court determined that racial considerations unlawfully predominated the designing of the contested districts. The case is Cooper v. Harris.

more info & analysis...