IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE ) OF THE NAACP, CHAPEL HILL
—
CARRBORO ) NAACP, GREENSBORO NAACP, HIGH POINT ) NAACP, MOORE COUNTY NAACP, STOKES ) COUNTY BRANCH OF THE NAACP, ) WINSTON-SALEM
—
FORSYTH COUNTY NAACP, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) 1:18CV1034 ) ROY ASBERRY COOPER III,
in his official capacity
)
as the Governor of North Carolina
; ROBERT CORDLE, )
in his official capacity as Chair of the North Carolina State
)
Board of Elections
; STELLA ANDERSON,
in her official
)
capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina State Board of
)
Elections
; KENNETH RAYMOND, JEFFERSON ) CARMON III, and DAVID C. BLACK,
in their official
)
capacities as members of the North Carolina State Board of
)
Elections
, ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge. Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the above-named Defendants in their official capacities, challenging the validity of specific provisions of
Senate Bill 824, titled “An Act to Implement the Constitutional Amendment Requiri
ng
Photographic Identification to Vote,” (“S.B. 824” or “the Act”). (
See
ECF No. 1); 2018 N.C. Sess. Laws 144. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that portions of S.B. 824 violate § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (
“VRA”
), 52 U.S.C. § 10301, as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
Case1:18-cv-01034-LCB-LPADocument120Filed12/31/19Pae1of60
2
of the United States Constitution. (
Id.
¶¶ 105
–
146.) Before the Court is Plaintiffs
’
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 72.) The Court heard oral argument on December 3, 2019. For the reasons outlined below,
Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted in part and denied in
part.
I.
BACKGROUND
In November 2018, North Carolina voters approved a ballot measure amending the North Carolina State Constitution to require voters to provide photographic identification before voting in person
(the “voter
-
ID amendment”)
.
1
(ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 62, 64.) As the voter-ID amendment is not self-executing,
see
N.C. Const. art. VI, §§ 2(4), 3(2), on December 5, 2018, the North Carolina General Assembly
(the “General Assembly” or the “legislature”)
passed S.B. 824 as implementing legislation.
2
(
See
ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) The Governor vetoed S.B. 824 on December 14, 2018. (
Id.
¶ 78.) Nevertheless, the General Assembly codified S.B. 824 into law
—
Session Law 2018-144
—by an override of the Governor’s veto on December 1
9, 2018. (
Id.
¶ 1); 2018 N.C. Sess. Laws 144. S.B. 824
’s
central requirement is that every voter present a qualifying photo ID before casting a ballot. 2018 N.C. Sess. Laws 144 § 1.2.(a). The instant lawsuit was filed in this Court one day after S.B. 824 became law. (ECF No. 1 at 37.) In their Complaint, Plaintiffs challenge the provisions of S.B. 824 which
“
impose
1
As amended, the North Carolina State Constitution provides as follows: Voters offering to vote in person shall present photographic identification before voting. The General Assembly shall enact general laws governing the requirements of such photographic identification, which may include exceptions. N.C. Const. art. VI, §§ 2(4), 3(2).
2
Broader discussion of the legislative history of S.B. 824 will occur later in this Opinion.
Case1:18-cv-01034-LCB-LPADocument120Filed12/31/19Pae2of60
3
voter-identification requirements,
”
as well as the provisions “that expand the number of poll observers and the number[ ] of people who can challenge ballots.”
3
(
Id.
¶¶ 106
–
07.) Plaintiffs
allege that “[t]hese provisions, separately and together, will have a disproportionatel
y negative
impact on minority voters,” (
id.
¶ 80), ultimately resulting in “the effective denial of the franchise and dilution of [African American and Latino] voting strength,” (
id.
¶ 7). Plaintiffs’
Complaint further alleges that the challenged provisio
ns “impose discriminatory and unlawful
burdens on the right to vote that are not justified by any legitimate or compelling state
interest.”
(
Id
. ¶
8.) Plaintiffs seek this preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants “from
implementing,
enforcing, or giving effect to the [challenged] provisions of S.B. 824.” (
Id.
¶ 147.)
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon
a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.
”
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.
, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To make a sufficient showing, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm will result in the absence of an injunction; (3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public
3
Plaintiffs have organizational standing to bring this suit. “A plaintiff may establish organizational standing ‘when it seeks redress for an injury suffered by the organization itself.’”
Guilford Coll. v. McAleenan
, 389 F. Supp. 3d 377, 388 (M.D.N.C. 2019) (quoting
White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube
, 413 F.3d
451, 458 (4th Cir. 2005)). An organization suffers such an injury “when the plaintiff alleges that ‘a defendant’s practices have hampered an organization’s stated objectives causin
g the organization to
divert its resources as a result.’”
Id.
(quoting
Action NC v. Strach
, 216 F. Supp. 3d 597, 616 (M.D.N.C. 2016)). Here, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that they will need to divert resources away from their planned voter-engageme
nt efforts to respond to S.B. 824’s requirements. (ECF No. 91
-8 ¶¶ 53, 56, 58.) They have further alleged that this diversion of resources will detract from their fundamental mission, which includes advancing the political status of minority groups, to the detriment of all Plaintiffs. (
See id.
; ECF No. 1 ¶ 14.) These allegations suffice to establish organizational standing.
Case1:18-cv-01034-LCB-LPADocument120Filed12/31/19Pae3of60