OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz



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 )


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?


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 filed 4/7/15. Mandate issued 5/5/15.

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



Edward B. Foley

The Constitution Needed a Judicial Assist

Edward B. Foley

“The majority contends that its counterintuitive reading of ‘the Legislature’ is necessary to advance the ‘animating principle’ of popular sovereignty.” With this sentence in his dissent (at page 14), Chief Justice Roberts gets to the heart of the debate in today’s 5-4 decision in the Arizona redistricting case.

more commentary...

In the News

David  Stebenne

Can Kasich win all 88 Ohio counties?

Professor David Stebenne was quoted in an Ohio Watchdog article about the possibility of Governor John Kasich winning all 88 Ohio counties in his re-election bid.

“It’s really hard to do,” he said. “As popular as the governor is and as weak as his opponent is, I doubt he’ll carry all 88 (counties).”

Stebenne said Ohio has some unusual counties, which tend to be really Democratic or really Republican.

He said a good example was the election of 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower carried 87 of 88 Ohio counties.

“He lost one of the Appalachian counties — a poor county where the residents tend to vote Democratic no matter what,” Stebenne said. “There was even some humorous discussion in the Oval Office about that one county.”

Glenn and Voinovich were “the two most popular candidates in modern history,” he added, “and they each only did it once. While Kasich is popular, he really doesn’t have the broad appeal that these two did.”

Stebenne said that both Voinovich and Kasich come from communities that tend to be more Democratic in voter registration, but that Kasich’s first race for governor was more divisive than the races for Voinovich.

“Voinovich had electoral success in Cleveland and as governor because he was able to persuade Democrats to vote Republican,” he said. “Glenn had national appeal across party lines.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Fifth Circuit Affirms that Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act

Today, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the Texas voter ID case of Veasey v. Abbott, affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court\'s decision. The Fifth Circuit disagreed that Texas\' voter ID law is a poll tax under the 14th and 24th Amendments. The Court also vacated the District Court\'s judgment that the law was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose, remanding the case for a determination using the proper legal standard and evidence. However, the Court agreed that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act due to its discriminatory effect. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for the District Court to determine the appropriate remedy.

more info & analysis...