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
Current Court: Middle District of North Carolina (Case 1:13-cv-00660 )

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:

Complaint filed 8/12/13. Answer filed 10/21/13. Motion to Intervene filed 11/25/13. U.S.'s motion to consolidate filed 11/26/13. Case consolidated for discovery purposes with North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory and U.S. v. North Carolina 12/13/13. Motion to Quash Subpoenas to State Legislators filed 1/20/14. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed 1/24/14. Intervenor Complaint against the State filed 1/28/14. Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order filed 2/17/14. Defendants' Answer to Intervenor Complaint filed 2/18/14. Order that Motion to Quash and Motion to Compel granted in part, denied in part filed on 3/27/14. Legislative Movants' Objection to March 27th Order filed 4/2/14. Motion to Stay March 27th Order filed 4/2/14. Order granting motion to stay filed 4/2/14. United States' and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Objection as to Order on Legislative Privilege filed 4/14/14. Order that Legislators' Pending Objections are overruled in part, sustained in part filed 5/15/14. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 5/19/14. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed 6/25/14. Order granting Motion to Expedite and Motion to Compel filed 6/26/14. Plaintiffs' Various Motions to Strike filed 6/30/14. Order denying Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 8/8/14. Order reversing in part and affirming in part District Decision filed 10/1/14. Appellee's Motion to Recall Mandate filed 10/1/14. Order Denying Motion to Recall Mandate filed 10/2/14. Emergency Application for Stay of Fourth Circuit Mandate filed in U.S. Supreme Court 10/2/14. Response to Emergency Application filed 10/5/14.  SCOTUS order granting stay filed 10/8/14. Discovery due 3/23/15. Petition for Writ of Cert denied 4/7/15. Bench trial held on early voting and same-day registration issues in July 2015. Motion for Preliminary Injunction denied 1/15/16. Trial set for photo identification requirement beginning 1/25/16.

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

District Court Documents

Circuit Court of Appeals Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

 

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Publication of new BALLOT BATTLES book

Edward B. Foley

I'm delighted that Oxford University Press has published my new book Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States. I've collected links to last week's blogging related to the book's release. 

more commentary...

In the News

David  Stebenne

Clinton, Sanders and the changing face of the Democratic Party

Professor David Stebenne wrote an op-ed for The Conversation describing how a recent debate between Democratic Party presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders highlighted changes in the Democratic Party over the past half-century.

“Last week’s debate in New Hampshire between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders over who is the “real progressive” said a lot about how they and the Democratic Party have changed over the past half-century,” Stebenne said.

“When Clinton and Sanders first came of age politically during the mid-1960s, neither was a natural fit for the Democrats as the party was then.

“Taking a look at how these two very different people and the party they now want to lead have evolved can help clarify the philosophical divide on display in the Democratic Party today.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

New state voting laws face first presidential election test

more info & analysis...