OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Howard

Case Information

Date Filed: August 12, 2013
State: North Carolina
Issues: Voter ID, Voting Rights Act, Voter Supression
Courts that Heard this Case: Middle District of North Carolina (Case 1:13-cv-00660 ); United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Case 16-1468 and 16-1529); United States Supreme Court (Case 14A358)

Issue:

1. Does the reduction in early voting days, loss of same-day registration, and elimination of out of precinct provisional voting opportunities violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. Did the Generally Assembly have a discriminatory purpose, which would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, in passing H.B. 589?

3. Do the limits on early voting days, same day registration, and out of precinct provisional voting violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1973)?

4. If the Court finds discrimination against African Americans, should North Carolina be covered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act?

Status:

Trial on photo identification requirement held beginning 1/25/16. Opinion upholding voter ID law issued 4/25/16. Notice of Appeal filed 5/6/16. Appellants' brief filed 5/19/16. Brief of U.S. as appellant filed 5/19/16. Court of Appeals order extending District Court's stay filed 6/7/16. Appellees' brief filed 6/9/16. Oral Argument held 6/21/16. Fourth Circuit Decision Reversing District Court filed 7/29/16. Motion for Stay filed 8/3/16. Order Denying Stay filed 8/4/16. Emergency Stay Application filed with U.S. Supreme Court 8/15/16. See North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory for filings.

See related cases: North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory and United States v. North Carolina

District Court Documents

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Documents (second stay application)

 

 

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

Trump Calls for Voter Fraud Probe: A Look at Past Inquiries

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Voice of America about President Donald Trump’s plans to launch a “major investigation” into voter fraud. Trump claims he lost the popular vote because as many as 5 million non-U.S. citizens may have voted illegally.

“As I understand the latest allegations, somewhere between 3 to 5 million improper ballots were cast this past November nationwide, which Trump claims accounts for why Hillary Clinton won the popular vote,” Foley said. “Even if there were 3 to 5 million invalid votes nationwide, we can’t jump to the conclusion that the election result was tainted, because we don’t know who they voted for.”

The odds of a non-U.S. citizen successfully casting a ballot are “extremely low, extraordinarily low,” according to Foley. Instances in which invalid ballots are cast or when voters’ names appear on multiple state voter rolls also don’t necessarily indicate voter fraud either, he added.

“Just because a ballot was cast that was invalid, which is a problem, doesn’t necessarily mean there was a conspiracy to commit voter fraud,” Foley said. “Fraud is a pejorative term that implies intentional deception and manipulation, as opposed to there being mistakes in voter registration lists.”
 


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. District Judge Rules that Ohio Voter Services Website Violates ADA

A U.S. District Judge issued an opinion finding that the Ohio Secretary of State\'s voter services website violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it is not accessible to visually impaired Ohio voters. Judge George C. Smith ordered Secretary of State John Husted to make the site more accessible by September 29, 2017. As discussed in the opinion, the information on the voter services site does not meet established standards of accessibility for visually impaired voters who use screen reading software. The case is Hindel v. Husted.

more info & analysis...