Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Last Updated: May 15, 2017 at 10:47 AM

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. The North Carolina State Board of Elections

Case Information

Date Filed: October 31, 2016
State: North Carolina
Issue: Voter Registration
Current Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Case 16-cv-1274)

Issue:

Whether the North Carolina and County Boards of Elections cancellation of the voter registrations of thousands of North Carolina voters, based on a single piece of undeliverable mail, in the final weeks and months before Election Day violates that National Voter Registration Act and other federal laws.

Status:

Complaint filed 10/31/16. Order granting preliminary injunction filed 11/4/16. Answer of NC Board of Elections filed 12/22/16. Answers and Motions to Dismiss of County Defendants filed 1/26/17. NC Board of Elections' Opposition to Motions to Dismiss filed 2/16/17. Plaintiffs' Memo in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss of County Defendants filed 4/14/17. County Defendants' Replies filed 4/27/17, 4/28/17, and 5/12/17.

District Court Documents

Complaint (filed 10/31/16)
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (filed 10/31/16)
Motion to Dismiss (filed 11/1/16)
Memorandum Opinion (filed 11/4/16)
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (filed 11/4/16)
Answer of NC Board of Elections (filed 12/22/16)
Motion to Dismiss of Beaufort County Defendants (filed 1/26/17)
- Memo in Support
Answer of Beaufort County Defendants (filed 1/26/17)
Motion to Dismiss of Cumberland County Defendants (filed 1/26/17)
- Memo in Support
Motion of Moore County Defendants (filed 1/26/17)
- Memo in Support
Answer of Moore County Defendants (filed 1/26/17)
NC Board of Elections' Opposition to Motions to Dismiss of County Defendants (filed 2/16/17)
Plaintiffs' Memo in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss (filed 4/14/17)
Reply of Moore County in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 4/27/17)
Reply of Beaufort County in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 4/28/17)
Reply of Cumberland County in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/12/17)

Commentary

The Vare Precedent in the Senate—and Its Relevance to the Trump-Russia Inquiry

Edward B. Foley

Analysis prompted by McClatchy news report.

more commentary...

In the News

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 to Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a gerrymandering case involving Wisconsin state legislative districts. The court also granted a request by the state to temporarily block the lower court\'s decision until the appeal is resolved. The case is Gill v. Whitford.

more info & analysis...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | electionlaw@osu.edu

Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law @ Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar