Case Summary
In 2013, Southern Coalition for Social Justice and co-counsel from the ACLU challenged provisions of North Carolina's monster voter suppression law, HB 589, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute, Unifour OneStop Collaborative, Common Cause North Carolina, and five individual voters (Hugh Stohler, Sara Stohler, Octavia Rainey, Kay Brandon, and Goldie Wells). HB 589 imposed a strict voter ID requirement that excluded college and out-of-state IDs, ended same-day registration, and prohibited “out-of-precinct” voting, eliminated a week of early voting, including eliminating one of two “Souls to the Polls” Sundays, and expanded the ability of poll observers to challenge voters’ eligibility. In their complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Plaintiffs alleged HB 589 violated the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.
On July 29, 2016, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court judgment to find HB 589 was enacted with discriminatory intent in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The Court held the North Carolina General Assembly targeted Black voters with "almost surgical precision" with provisions that were both "inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist."
Why it's Important
The success of this case meant that voters in the 2016 general election were not required to have a DMV-issued photo ID, which voters of color disproportionately lack. In addition, voters had access to same-day registration and more days of early voting, and were able to cast a provisional ballot outside of their resident districts as long as they voted in the correct county, options that historically have been disproportionately utilized by voters of color.
North Carolina voter suppression law falls as U.S. Supreme Court turns down GOP appeal
NC Early Voting Restrictions Draw National Attention
ACLU and SCSJ Condemn Ruling in North Carolina Voting Lawsuit
Changes Made to North Carolina Voter ID Requirements
U.S. Supreme Court declines to immediately hear N.C. voting law case
Voter Suppression: The Same Old Strategy
SCSJ Opposes Voter Suppression in Federal Court
SCSJ to Battle Voter Suppression in Monday Hearing
SCSJ, ACLU Ask Federal Court to Put N.C. Voter Suppression Law on Hold
Judge Says NC Lawmakers Can't Ignore Subpoenas
Federal Court Orders N.C. Lawmakers to Release E-Mail Related to Passage of State's Sweeping Voter Suppression Law
Voting Rights Hearing 2/21/14
Other Related Cases
LULAC of Richmond v. Public Interest Legal Foundation
On behalf of multiple voters, SCSJ sued the Public Interest Legal Foundation for engaging in a multiyear campaign of voter intimidation in Virginia.
Read More LULAC of Richmond v. Public Interest Legal Foundation
Bouvier v. Porter
This was a North Carolina state court defamation case on behalf of four registered voters (Louis M. Bouvier, Jr., Karen Andrea Niehans, Samuel R. Niehans, and Joseph D. Golden) who were wrongfully accused of committing fraud in the 2016 elections by voting in multiple states or being ineligible to vote because of felony convictions.
Read More Bouvier v. Porter
Republican National Committee v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, et. al.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) and the North Carolina Republican Party filed a complaint on Sept. 12 to stop University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) students from using their digital Mobile One Cards as identification cards to vote in the 2024 election.
Read More Republican National Committee v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, et. al.
