3 THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ) THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD ) OF ELECTIONS; and KIM W. STRACH, ) in her official capacity as ) Executive Director of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge. In these related cases, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 barring Defendants from implementing various provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2013-
381”), an omnibus
(Docs. 96 & 98 in case 1:13CV861; Docs. 108 & 110 in case 1:13CV658; Docs. 112 & 114 in case 1:13CV660.)
Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Doc. 94.) A trial on the merits is currently scheduled for July 2015. (Doc. 30 at 4.) Plaintiffs include the United States of America (the
Throughout the proceedings the parties have referred to the
challenged law as “House Bill 589,” its original designation by the
North Carolina General Assembly. Because it is a duly-enacted law passed by both chambers of the General Assembly and signed by the Governor, the court will refer to the final product as Session Law 2013-381. Prior to passage, the bill will be referred to as HB 589.
Because of the duplicative nature of the filings in these three cases, for the remainder of this Memorandum Opinion the court will refer only to the record in case 1:13CV861 except where necessary to distinguish the cases.