OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

United States v. North Carolina

Case Information

Date Filed: September 30, 2013
State: North Carolina
Issues: Early Voting, Voting Rights Act, Voter ID
Courts that Heard this Case: Middle District of North Carolina (Case 13-CV-00861); United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Case 14-1856)

Issue:

Issue 1: Does House Bill 589 deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §1793?

Issue 2: Was House Bill 589 enacted and enforced with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §1793, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Fifteenth Amendment?

Status:

For latest updates, see  League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Howard.

Related cases: League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Howard and North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory.

 

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

Anti-Trumpersí Most Futile Effort Yet to Stop Trump from Being Sworn In

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Law Newz about efforts to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts to decline conducting Donald Trump’s Oath of Office on Inauguration Day. Even though the U.S. Constitution requires the President to take an oath of office, the the Chief Justice is not required to administer it. It is unlikely that such attempts will prevent Trump from being sworn in, Foley said.

“I think the main point is that the oath doesn’t need to be administered by the Chief Justice,” he said. “After Kennedy’s assassination, a federal district judge in Texas administered the oath to Johnson.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal District Court Panel Finds Unconstitutional Gerrymandering in Alabama

In an opinion released today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found unconstitutional gerrymandering in 12 Alabama districts. In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, one judge on the panel would have found more districts unconstitutionally drawn. The case is Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.

more info & analysis...