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

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

Three-Judge Panel Finds Voting Rights Act and Constitutional Violations in Creation of Texas House of Representatives Districts

A little over a month after ruling that Texas\' Congressional redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Consistution, a three-judge panel similarly ruled (2-1) with regard to the creation of Texas\' state-level House of Representatives districts. The court issued a 171-page order in which it ruled for the state on some claims. The court also made separate findings of fact. The case is Perez v. Abbott.

more info & analysis...