## Facts

- After changes to federal voting-law enforcement, North Carolina enacted omnibus election legislation (H.B. 589) altering multiple voting mechanisms.
- Plaintiffs included voting-rights organizations and individual voters; defendants were North Carolina and state election officials.
- Plaintiffs challenged, among other changes, three measures affecting the 2014 election:
  - elimination of same-day registration during early voting;
  - a rule requiring rejection of provisional ballots cast outside a voter’s assigned precinct, even if cast in the correct county; and
  - reduction of the early-voting period from 17 to 10 days, while requiring the same total number of early-voting hours statewide.
- The record at the preliminary-injunction stage indicated African-American voters disproportionately used same-day registration, out-of-precinct provisional voting, and early voting (including heavily used days/times such as the first week and certain Sundays).
- Plaintiffs alleged the challenged changes would interact with historical and socio-economic conditions linked to race in North Carolina and would impose disproportionate burdens on African-American voters.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs had not shown the required likelihood of success or that equitable factors favored relief.
- Plaintiffs appealed, seeking preliminary relief before the 2014 general election.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success under VRA § 2 that eliminating same-day registration and rejecting out-of-precinct provisional ballots would result in minority voters having less opportunity than others to participate in the political process under the totality of circumstances.
2. Whether plaintiffs met the requirements for preliminary relief, including irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest, given the proximity to the election and asserted administrative burdens.
3. Whether plaintiffs showed a sufficient likelihood of success and irreparable harm to preliminarily enjoin the early-voting period reduction despite the statute’s requirement to maintain total early-voting hours.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
- The court reversed the denial of preliminary relief as to:
  - the elimination of same-day registration; and
  - the prohibition on counting out-of-precinct provisional ballots.
- The court directed entry of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of those two provisions for the 2014 election.
- The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction as to the early-voting change.
- The court held the district court gave insufficient weight to evidence of disparate burdens and overemphasized generalized concerns about voter confusion and administrative inconvenience.
- A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part without altering the majority’s core disposition granting relief for same-day registration and out-of-precinct ballot counting.

## Legal Principles

- VRA § 2 prohibits voting practices that, under the totality of circumstances, result in racial minorities having less opportunity than other voters to participate in the political process and elect candidates of choice.
- Section 2 liability may be shown through discriminatory results; a facially neutral rule can violate § 2 when it interacts with social and historical conditions to produce unequal electoral opportunity.
- In evaluating “results,” courts may consider evidence of racially disparate use of voting mechanisms, the state’s history of voting discrimination, and continuing effects that bear on access to voting.
- For preliminary relief, likely denial or abridgment of the right to vote constitutes irreparable harm not fully repairable after an election.
- Generalized concerns about election administration and voter confusion do not automatically defeat preliminary relief where the record shows a substantial likelihood of a federal voting-rights violation.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on VRA § 2 challenges to eliminating same-day registration and rejecting out-of-precinct provisional ballots and that equitable factors supported preliminary relief for those provisions, while concluding the record did not justify preliminarily enjoining the early-voting period reduction.


League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014)