Amy Howe

Aug 26 2016

Challengers respond to North Carolina’s emergency voting rights request

Earlier this month, North Carolina asked the Justices to halt a lower-court ruling that blocked the implementation of its controversial 2013 election law – including provisions requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID, reducing the number of days when voters can go to the polls before Election Day, and eliminating preregistration for young voters. The state told the Court that, unless it is allowed to apply those three provisions to the November 2016 general elections, there would be “voter confusion” and “consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.”

Yesterday the Obama administration and civil rights groups fired back. They told the Justices that in fact the exact opposite is true: because North Carolina has already made preparations for the election to take place under the terms of the lower-court’s order, granting the state’s request would “dramatically increase, not reduce, the risks of mistakes and confusion.” By contrast, requiring the November election to go forward under the order’s terms – for example, without the photo-ID requirement and with the extra days for early voting – would simply maintain the status quo.

To the extent that North Carolina is seeking emergency relief because the general election is looming, the challengers insisted, the problem is entirely one of its own making. First, the state expressly told the Fourth Circuit that it would be able to comply whatever the court ordered as long as the court’s ruling was issued by late July – which it was. Second, the challengers emphasized, the state waited seventeen days after the Fourth Circuit issued its decision to go to the Supreme Court. The state does not explain, the Obama administration noted pointedly, “why, if there was a genuine ‘emergency,’ they waited so long to seek relief.”

The challengers dismissed the state’s suggestion that allowing the lower court’s decision to stand would place virtually all other voter ID laws in jeopardy. The Fourth Circuit based its decision blocking the law on “a careful appraisal of overwhelming evidence specific to North Carolina,” the Obama administration explained. The only other voter ID laws that would be at risk, the administration suggested, are those “for which the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that they were enacted with a racially discriminatory intent.”

The application is now in the hands of Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for emergency appeals from North Carolina and the other states in the Fourth Circuit. Roberts can either act on the request on his own or refer the issue to the full eight-Justice Court. The state would need at least five Justices to vote in its favor to prevail in its request that the Court stay the lower court ruling and allow the law to take effect.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies