Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 57-2 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC
PARTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN
PARTY, DONALD J. TRUMP FOR
PRESIDENT, INC., ROGER J.
STONE, JR., and STOP THE STEAL
INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-CV-1288

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a motion for temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff North Carolina Democratic Party. (Doc. 4).
The plaintiff contends that the defendants are acting in concert to disrupt the upcoming
election by intimidating voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Ku Klux
Klan Act of 1871. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from
encouraging individuals to serve as unofficial poll watchers, from monitoring polling
places, from gathering or loitering within 50 feet of a polling place, and from
photographing or otherwise intimidating voters.
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 prevail in the preliminary injunction motion, the
plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it will likely

Case 1:16-cv-01288-CCE-JEP Document 30 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 4

 Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 57-2 Filed 05/18/18 Page 2 of 4

suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction; (3) the balance of equities weighs in its
favor; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20.
Tomorrow, November 8, 2016, is Election Day, when voting will take place in
North Carolina for the president, a United States senator, the governor, and numerous
other public officials. The plaintiff has presented evidence that the defendants are each
organizing or encouraging volunteers to go to polling locations in North Carolina for the
ostensible purposes of identifying and stopping voting fraud and conducting exit polling.
The plaintiff has presented evidence from which it asks the Court to infer that the real
purpose and effect of these volunteer activities will be to intimidate minority voters.
While the statements of the defendant Roger Stone, the defendants’ presidential
nominee, and the nominee’s surrogates, taken in context, may be susceptible to the
interpretation that Mr. Stone and the Trump campaign are encouraging their supporters to
intimidate voters, there is little evidence that supporters are acting on these indirect
suggestions. There have been only a handful of hearsay reports that purported supporters
of the defendants’ presidential nominee may have threatened or intimidated voters in
North Carolina during several weeks of early voting. The only evidence that the plaintiff
has presented as to North Carolina are statements to news media by Mr. Stone that
volunteers will conduct exit polling in Charlotte and Fayetteville, (Doc. 6-5 at 1); a report
on a social media website that two supporters of the defendants’ presidential nominee
were seen near the Board of Elections office in Lee County with a baseball bat
emblazoned with the nominee’s name, (Doc. 6-30); and a handful of hearsay reports from
a few counties that individuals purporting to be supporters of the defendants’ presidential
2

Case 1:16-cv-01288-CCE-JEP Document 30 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 4

 Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 57-2 Filed 05/18/18 Page 3 of 4

nominee have harassed voters at early voting polling places. (Doc. 8 at ¶¶ 3-9). The Lee
County incident has been explained under oath and does not appear to have been
intimidating conduct. (Doc. 11-1). The only evidence that any of this conduct has
intimidated a voter or suppressed the vote is a hearsay report that one voter in Wake
County left a polling place without voting in order to avoid persons telling voters waiting
in line to vote for the defendants’ nominee “or else.” (Doc. 8 at ¶ 4). While there are
additional reports nationwide, the evidence of such troubling “outlier statements” in other
states is not particularly indicative that intimidation will occur in North Carolina. See
Ariz. Democratic Party v. Ariz. Republican Party, No. 2:16-CV-3752, slip op. at 17 n.9
(D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2016) (order denying preliminary injunction).
Even if all this evidence is credited, it is insufficient to establish a likelihood of
success on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims of a conspiracy by the defendants to train
and encourage volunteers to intimidate voters in North Carolina. Nor is it sufficient to
establish the degree of irreparable harm required to obtain the broad injunctive relief the
plaintiff seeks.
Moreover, these statements by the nominee and others are also susceptible to the
interpretation that these defendants are encouraging their supporters to report potential
voter fraud. There is nothing inherently intimidating about persons observing spaces
outside polling places and reporting possible fraud to appropriate officials or to a hotline
in a peaceful, non-threatening, and non-disruptive manner. Supporters of particular
candidates have long been allowed to encourage persons coming to the polls to vote a
particular way, subject to reasonable space restrictions applicable to all. Trust and
3

Case 1:16-cv-01288-CCE-JEP Document 30 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 4

 Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 57-2 Filed 05/18/18 Page 4 of 4

confidence in election results is important, and restricting persons supporting one
candidate or party from access to spaces near polling sites when there is not substantial
evidence that the persons will act to or have been trained or encouraged to intimidate
voters is not conducive to such trust and confidence and raises significant First
Amendment concerns. Intimidation of voters, intentional or otherwise, is already against
the law, and persons violating those laws are already subject to criminal prosecution and
civil damages.
That said, voters are entitled to cast their ballots without fear of reprisal or threat
of physical harm. See 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b) (making it illegal for any person, “whether
acting under color of law or otherwise,” to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce . . . any person
for voting”); 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). On Election Day, if it becomes apparent that agents of
any defendant or supporters encouraged by any defendant are making an effort to
intimidate minority voters or to further incite intimidation of voters, the plaintiff may
renew the motion.
It is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order
and/or preliminary injunction, (Doc. 4), is DENIED, without prejudice should
circumstances change.
This the 7th day of November, 2016.

__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:16-cv-01288-CCE-JEP Document 30 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 4