Appeal: 16-1468

Doc: 156

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 8

FILED: August 4, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________
No. 16-1468 (L)
(1:13-cv-00658-TDS-JEP)
___________________
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; ROSANELL
EATON; EMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH; BETHEL A. BAPTIST CHURCH;
COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; BARBEE'S CHAPEL MISSIONARY
BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.; ARMENTA EATON; CAROLYN COLEMAN;
JOCELYN FERGUSON-KELLY; FAITH JACKSON; MARY PERRY; MARIA
TERESA UNGER PALMER
Plaintiffs - Appellants
and
JOHN DOE 1; JANE DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JANE
DOE 3; NEW OXLEY HILL BAPTIST CHURCH; CLINTON TABERNACLE
AME ZION CHURCH; BAHEEYAH MADANY
Plaintiffs
v.
PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official capacity as Governor of the state of North
Carolina; KIM WESTBROOK STRACH, in her official capacity as a member of the
State Board of Elections; JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity as a
member of the State Board of Elections; RHONDA K. AMOROSO, in her official
capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; JOSHUA D. MALCOLM, in
his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; PAUL J. FOLEY,
in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; MAJA
KRICKER, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections;

 Appeal: 16-1468

Doc: 156

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 8

JAMES BAKER, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State
Board of Elections
Defendants - Appellees
-----------------------------CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER; STACEY STITT; MARIA
DIAZ; ROBERT GUNDRUM; MISTY TAYLOR; SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION; DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA; UNC CENTER
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS; PEARLEIN REVELS; LOUISE MITCHELL; ERIC
LOCKLEAR; ANITA HAMMONDS BLANKS
Amici Supporting Appellant
JUDICIAL WATCH, INCORPORATED; ALLIED EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION; THOM TILLIS; LINDSEY GRAHAM; TED CRUZ; MIKE LEE;
JUDICIAL EDUCATION PROJECT; LAWYERS DEMOCRACY FUND;
MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS
UNION; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA;
STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE
OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF
WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF WISCONSIN; PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION;
CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY; PROJECT 21
Amici Supporting Appellee
___________________
No. 16-1469
(1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP)
___________________

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA
A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE; UNIFOUR ONESTOP COLLABORATIVE;
COMMON CAUSE NORTH CAROLINA; GOLDIE WELLS; KAY BRANDON;
OCTAVIA RAINEY; SARA STOHLER; HUGH STOHLER
Plaintiffs

 Appeal: 16-1468

Doc: 156

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 3 of 8

CHARLES M. GRAY; ASGOD BARRANTES; MARY-WREN RITCHIE
Intervenors/Plaintiffs
and
LOUIS M. DUKE; JOSUE E. BERDUO; NANCY J. LUND; BRIAN M. MILLER;
BECKY HURLEY MOCK; LYNNE M. WALTER; EBONY N. WEST
Intervenors/Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity
as a member of the State Board of Elections; RHONDA K. AMOROSO, in her
official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; JOSHUA D.
MALCOLM, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections;
PAUL J. FOLEY, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of
Elections; MAJA KRICKER, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board
of Elections; PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official capacity as Governor of the
state of North Carolina
Defendants - Appellees
-----------------------------CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER; STACEY STITT; MARIA
DIAZ; ROBERT GUNDRUM; MISTY TAYLOR; SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION; DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA; UNC CENTER
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS; PEARLEIN REVELS; LOUISE MITCHELL; ERIC
LOCKLEAR; ANITA HAMMONDS BLANKS
Amici Supporting Appellant
JUDICIAL WATCH, INCORPORATED; ALLIED EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION; THOM TILLIS; LINDSEY GRAHAM; TED CRUZ; MIKE LEE;
JUDICIAL EDUCATION PROJECT; LAWYERS DEMOCRACY FUND;
MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS
UNION; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA;
STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE
OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF

 Appeal: 16-1468

Doc: 156

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 4 of 8

OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF
WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF WISCONSIN; PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION;
CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY; PROJECT 21
Amici Supporting Appellee
___________________
No. 16-1474
(1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP)
___________________

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA
A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE; UNIFOUR ONESTOP COLLABORATIVE;
COMMON CAUSE NORTH CAROLINA; GOLDIE WELLS; KAY BRANDON;
OCTAVIA RAINEY; SARA STOHLER; HUGH STOHLER
Plaintiffs - Appellants
and
LOUIS M. DUKE; CHARLES M. GRAY; ASGOD BARRANTES; JOSUE E.
BERDUO; BRIAN M. MILLER; NANCY J. LUND; BECKY HURLEY MOCK;
MARY-WREN RITCHIE; LYNNE M. WALTER; EBONY N. WEST
Intervenors/Plaintiffs
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity
as a member of the State Board of Elections; RHONDA K. AMOROSO, in her
official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections; JOSHUA D.
MALCOLM, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections;
PAUL J. FOLEY, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of
Elections; MAJA KRICKER, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board
of Elections; PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official capacity as Governor of the
state of North Carolina
Defendants - Appellees

 Appeal: 16-1468

Doc: 156

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 5 of 8

-----------------------------CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER; STACEY STITT; MARIA
DIAZ; ROBERT GUNDRUM; MISTY TAYLOR; SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION; DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA; UNC CENTER
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS; PEARLEIN REVELS; LOUISE MITCHELL; ERIC
LOCKLEAR; ANITA HAMMONDS BLANKS
Amici Supporting Appellant
JUDICIAL WATCH, INCORPORATED; ALLIED EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION; THOM TILLIS; LINDSEY GRAHAM; TED CRUZ; MIKE LEE;
JUDICIAL EDUCATION PROJECT; LAWYERS DEMOCRACY FUND;
MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS
UNION; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA;
STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE
OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF
WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF WISCONSIN; PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION;
CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY; PROJECT 21
Amici Supporting Appellee
___________________
No. 16-1529
(1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP)
___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; KIM WESTBROOK STRACH
Defendants - Appellees

 Appeal: 16-1468

Doc: 156

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 6 of 8

and
CHRISTINA KELLEY GALLEGOS-MERRILL; JUDICIAL WATCH,
INCORPORATED
Intervenors/Defendants
-----------------------------CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER; STACEY STITT; MARIA
DIAZ; ROBERT GUNDRUM; MISTY TAYLOR; SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION; DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA; UNC CENTER
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS; PEARLEIN REVELS; LOUISE MITCHELL; ERIC
LOCKLEAR; ANITA HAMMONDS BLANKS
Amici Supporting Appellant
JUDICIAL WATCH, INCORPORATED; ALLIED EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION; THOM TILLIS; LINDSEY GRAHAM; TED CRUZ; MIKE LEE;
JUDICIAL EDUCATION PROJECT; LAWYERS DEMOCRACY FUND;
MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS
UNION; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA;
STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE
OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF
WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF WISCONSIN; PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION;
CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY; PROJECT 21
Amici Supporting Appellee
___________________
ORDER
___________________
After careful consideration, we deny the State’s request to recall and stay our
mandate. As explained in our opinion, the law compels the injunction of the
challenged provisions of SL 2013-381. The State’s arguments to the contrary in the
instant motion do not alter that conclusion.

 Appeal: 16-1468

Doc: 156

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 7 of 8

Moreover, recalling or staying the mandate now would only undermine the
integrity and efficiency of the upcoming election. “Court orders affecting elections,
especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent
incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will
increase.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2006). The State has already notified
its voters that it will not ask them to show ID and that early voting will begin on
October 20. Press Release, N.C. State Bd. Of Elections, Statement regarding Fourth
Circuit Ruling (July 29, 2016), www.ncsbe.gov/pressreleases?udt_2226_param_detail=52. Voters are likely to rely on that announcement.
At oral argument, the State assured us that it would be able to comply with any
order we issued by late July. As to early voting locations and staffing, we were told
that at a minimum the State could conduct early voting at the Board of Elections office
for each county. As to the photo ID requirement, the State informed us that it would
comply with an injunction of that law by instructing its poll workers not to require
photo ID. And, as the State acknowledges, its SEIMS system is already prepared to
implement same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. The State told us that the
proofs for its voter guide were not due until August 5, and that its election official
training would not begin until August 8. We issued our opinion, injunction, and
mandate a week in advance of those dates. Because of these assurances, we are
confident that North Carolina can conduct the 2016 election in compliance with our
injunction.

 Appeal: 16-1468

Doc: 156

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 8 of 8

Furthermore, the balance of equities heavily weighs against recalling the
mandate or granting a stay. Voters disenfranchised by a law enacted with
discriminatory intent suffer irreparable harm far greater than any potential harm to the
State. For the Supreme Court has long recognized that “[t]he right to vote freely for
the candidate of one’s choice is the essence of a democratic society, and any
restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.” Reynolds v.
Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
Finally, we observe that our injunction merely returns North Carolina’s voting
procedures to the status quo prevailing before the discriminatory law was enacted.
Entered at the direction of Judge Motz with the concurrence of Judge Wynn and
Judge Floyd.
For the Court
/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk