IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Adams, in her Official capacity as Chairman of the Moore BOE, Carolyn M. McDermott, in her Official capacity as Secretary of the Moore BOE; William R.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-1274-LCB-JLW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-1274-LCB-JLW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-1274-LCB-JLW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-1274-LCB-JLW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Case: 2:16-cv GCS-EPD Doc #: 84 Filed: 10/17/16 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 23383

November 29, Rhonda Amoroso Secretary. Judge James Baker Member

Case 1:17-cv TWP-MPB Document 63 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1776

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA GREENSBORO DIVISION Case No.: 1:17-cv WO/JLW

Case: 3:17-cv GFVT-EBA Doc #: 32-1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 1 of 14 - Page ID#: 217

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs the North Carolina State Conference for the National Association for the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (L) (1:13-cv TDS-JEP)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO. 1:13-CV-658

v. Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-861

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 4:12cv285-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Cory J. Swanson Anderson and Baker One South Montana Avenue PO Box 866 Helena, Montana Phone: (406) Fax: (406) (fax) Attorney

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency. Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 2.) The Court heard oral

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA ********************** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS } } } } } EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (L) (1:13-cv TDS-JEP)

Case 0:16-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2016 Page 1 of 10

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/15/10 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 117

Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

BOARDBOOK CONTENTS. Additional Items: Correspondence from the N.C. Democratic Party and Roy Cooper for N.C.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

Case: 3:17-cv GFVT-EBA Doc #: 32 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 1 of 7 - Page ID#: 210

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., CASE NO. C JLR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Case4:09-cv CW Document417 Filed12/01/11 Page1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Ohio Republican Party, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In The Supreme Court of the United States

r-q r.:: n u li n-:f THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Exhibit A Case 1:13-cv TDS-JEP Document 28-1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. Civil Action Number C2: JUDGE SMITH

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Now comes Plaintiff, the Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union

Case 4:05-cv HLM Document 47-3 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 1 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CIVIL ACTION No. 1:15-CV-559 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV- COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 2:12-cv JLH-LRS-SWW Document 88 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:17-cv TCB Document 29 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Case 5:17-cv D Document 12 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 11-C-1128 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL HAAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

BACKGROUNDER. Election Reform in North Carolina and the Myth of Voter Suppression. Key Points. Hans A. von Spakovsky

Case: 2:16-cv GCS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 04/08/16 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 117

Case 1:12-cv WJZ Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2012 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:16-cv NGG-VMS Document 13 Filed 12/10/16 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 87

Case 2:18-cv DDC-TJJ Document 22 Filed 11/01/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case: 3:17-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/14/17 Page: 1 of 15 - Page ID#: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

Case 2:08-cv SJM-RSW Document 39 Filed 10/27/2008 Page 1 of 37 UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/10 Page: 1 of 16 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 4:05-cv TSL-LRA Document 224 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv RJL Document 152 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Redistricting and North Carolina Elections Law

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 35 Filed: 12/30/10 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 830 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 35 Filed: 12/30/10 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 830 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Transcription:

Case 1:16-cv-01274-LCB-JLW Document 43 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, MOORE COUNTY BRANCH OF THE NAACP, JAMES EDWARD ARTHUR, SR., JAMES MICHAEL BROWER, GRACE BELL HARDISON, and JAMES L. COX, Plaintiffs, v. 1:16CV1274 THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, A. GRANT WHITNEY, JR., in his official capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Elections, RHONDA K. AMOROSO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the State Board of Elections, KIM WESTBROOK STRACH, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the State Board of Elections, JOSHUA D. MALCOLM, in his official capacity as Member of the State Board of Elections, JAMES BAKER, in his official capacity as Member of the State Board of Elections, MAJA KRICKER, in her official capacity as Member of the State Board of Elections, the BEAUFORT COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAY MCROY, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Beaufort County Board of Elections, JOHN B. TATE, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Beaufort County Board of Elections, THOMAS S. PAYNE, II, in his official capacity as Member of the Beaufort County Board of Elections, KELLIE HARRIS HOPKINS, in her official capacity as Director of the Beaufort County Board of Elections, the MOORE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SUSAN T. ADAMS, in her official capacity as Chairman of the Moore County Board of Elections,

Case 1:16-cv-01274-LCB-JLW Document 43 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 5 CAROLYN M. MCDERMOTT, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Moore County Board of Elections, WILLIAM R. PARKE, in his official capacity as Member of the Moore County Board of Elections, GLENDA M. CLENDENIN, in her official capacity as Director of the Moore County Board of Elections, the CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES H. BAKER, in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Cumberland County Board of Elections, ROBERT KEVIN HIGHT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Cumberland County Board of Elections, HARVEY RAYNOR III, in his official capacity as Member of the Cumberland County Board of Elections, and TERRI ROBERTSON, in her official capacity as Director of the Cumberland County Board of Elections, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Before the Court is Plaintiffs Amended Application for Temporary Restraining Order 1 (ECF No. 21 filed by North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Moore County Branch of the NAACP, James Edward Arthur, Sr., James Michael Brower, Grace Bell Hardison, and James L. Cox. 1 Where, as in this case, the opposing parties have notice of the Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and have had the opportunity to be present at a hearing on the motion, as well as present evidence, the court treats the motion as a request for preliminary injunction. Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Van Hollen, 963 F. Supp. 2d 858, 864 (W.D. Wis. 2013; see U.S. Dep t of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Co., 452 F.3d 275, 284 (4th Cir. 2006 (concluding that the defendant had a fair opportunity to oppose the injunction and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in electing to enter a preliminary injunction in lieu of a TRO. 2

Case 1:16-cv-01274-LCB-JLW Document 43 Filed 11/04/16 Page 3 of 5 For the reasons, including this Court s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as set forth in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously with this Order, which Opinion is incorporated herein as if fully set forth, the Court further finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Specifically, Plaintiffs have established that Defendants challenged conduct likely violates the change of residence provisions of the National Voter Registration Act ( NVRA, 52 U.S.C. 20507(d(1, in that it systematically removes the names of eligible voters from the State s voter rolls, in violation of 52 U.S.C. 50207(c(2(A. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED IN PART to the extent as set forth herein. employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, shall take all steps necessary to restore the voter registrations that were canceled during the 90-day period preceding the November 8, 2016 election through application of the challenge procedure set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 163-85 and 163-86, and to ensure that those voters are able to vote in the upcoming November 8, 2016 election as they would prior to the challenge and subsequent cancellation of their voter registrations. Defendants and their participation with them, are HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from preventing or otherwise interfering with these individual s right to vote, as well as any other individual 3

Case 1:16-cv-01274-LCB-JLW Document 43 Filed 11/04/16 Page 4 of 5 whose right to vote was challenged pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 163-85 and 163-86 within 90 days of the November 8, 2016 election. employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, shall issue directives and take all other measures to ensure that any challenged voters are restored to their status prior to the challenge and subsequent removal so that they may be allowed to vote on or before November 8, 2016 and in future elections, including prohibiting any same day challenges to such voters under N.C. Gen. Stat. 163-87 if they appear to vote in person on November 8, 2016. employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, are HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from canceling the registration of voters through the challenge procedures set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 163-85 and 163-86, when those challenges are based on change of residency and the State has neither received written confirmation from the voter of a change in residency outside of the county, nor complied with the NVRA s notice requirement and two-election cycle waiting period; from using the challenge procedure set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 163-85 and 163-86 to remove voters from the rolls based on change of residency information in the 90 days preceding a Federal election; and from holding hearings or taking any other action(s to process challenges filed under those provisions in the circumstances identified above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any challenged voter has already cast a provisional or challenged ballot, for purposes of counting those ballots, Defendants and their 4

Case 1:16-cv-01274-LCB-JLW Document 43 Filed 11/04/16 Page 5 of 5 participation with them, shall treat the status of those voters as registered in their respective counties on the date the votes were cast. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any challenged voter has requested and been denied an absentee ballot for the November 8, 2016 election on the ground that the voter is not registered in the county, Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, shall immediately take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the voter receives and absentee ballot and is able to cast it on time and have the vote counted, unless the voter voluntarily chooses to vote in person at the polls. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any challenged voter has been or is provided an absentee ballot for the November 8, 2016 election and has voted, Defendants and their participation with them, shall not reject the ballot on the ground that the voter is not registered in the county or precinct, but rather shall treat the ballot as having been cast by a voter whose registration status is that which existed prior to having been challenged and removed from the voter rolls. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Strach shall take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure statewide compliance with the NVRA consistent with this Court s Memorandum Opinion and this Order. This, the 4 th day of November, 2016. 5 /s/ Loretta C. Biggs United States District Judge