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

Flagging Online Falsehoods

Edward B. Foley

A remedy for foreign disinformation attacks

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

How states can fix the Electoral College and prevent future Trumps

An op-ed written by Professor Edward Foley about repairing the Electoral College was published in USA Today.

“The imperative is to prevent another president who wins the White House without really winning the support of the electorates in the states that determine the outcome,” Foley writes. “The Founding Fathers would see that as a subversion of the Electoral College system. So should we.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Sixth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Ohio ADA Case Alleging Discrimination Against Blind Voters

In an opinion released today, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court dismissing a lawsuit alleging that Ohio\'s absentee voter system discriminates against blind voters. According to the panel, the district court accepted Ohio Secretary of State John Husted\'s \"fundamental alteration\" defense without any evidentiary support. The case, Hindel v. Husted, was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

more info & analysis...