Democracy North Carolina v. North Carolina State Board of Elections
Case Summary
The League of Women Voters of North Carolina, Democracy North Carolina, and several North Carolina voters filed a lawsuit in federal court asserting several restrictions on voter registration, absentee voting, and polling place administration violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act by forcing voters to risk infection from COVID-19 to vote.
On May 22, 2020, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, Democracy North Carolina, and six individual plaintiffs with preexisting conditions making them highly vulnerable to COVID-19 complications filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The League and its co-plaintiffs asserted that several restrictions on voter registration, absentee voting by mail, and polling place hours and staffing effectively forced voters to risk being infected by COVID-19 while voting, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
The challenged restrictions included: (1) a requirement that persons seeking to register to vote via the Department of Motor Vehicles website and certain state agencies do so at least 25 days before Election Day; (2) limits on who could assist voters with completing and returning mail ballot request forms; (3) a requirement that two adult witnesses or a notary public sign a mail ballot; (4) an absence of a service to request absentee ballots by phone, email, or online; (5) the lack of ballot drop boxes for absentee ballots or notice and cure provisions for absentee ballots with errors; (6) a requirement that a majority of poll workers reside in the precinct they serve on Election Day; and (7) a law requiring uniform hours for all early voting sites in a county other than the county Board of Elections office.
The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction forbidding enforcement of the restrictions on assisting with absentee ballot applications, the absentee ballot witness requirement, the uniform precinct hours requirement, and poll worker residency requirement. The plaintiffs also requested the court establish online voter registration, a notice and cure process for absentee ballots, a mechanism to request absentee ballots by phone, email, or online, absentee ballot drop boxes, and education for voters on these changes, among other remedies.
On August 4, 2020, the court issued an order forbidding election officials to reject absentee ballots with correctable material errors without due process. The injunction would remain in effect until a law or rule was adopted giving voters notice and an opportunity to be heard before their absentee ballots were rejected for such errors. The court also granted relief to a plaintiff who resided in a nursing home and required assistance with filling out and submitting his ballot. The court denied the plaintiffs’ remaining requests for relief.
In response to the ruling, the North Carolina State Board of Elections issued guidelines for local election officials, instructing them to implement a notice and cure process for mail ballots. This guidance was later modified by the court to forbid acceptance of absentee ballots without witness or assistance signatures or allowing a voter to cure a lack of these signatures with a certification. Further appeals by the North Carolina General Assembly, which intervened as a defendant, were rejected by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. The modified guidelines were in effect for the November 2020 election.
On July 8, 2021, the League, Democracy North Carolina, and five North Carolina voters filed a fourth amended complaint asking the court to strike down several restrictions on assisting voters with requesting and voting an absentee ballot, require North Carolina to establish a notice and cure process for fixing deficiencies in absentee ballots and requests for absentee ballots, allow voters with disabilities to receive assistance in voting absentee, and require the state to educate voters on their options to vote.
The League was represented in this matter by the Fair Elections Center, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, and Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, and Dorr LLP.
LWV Timeline
LWV of North Carolina files complaint
LWV of North Carolina and co-plaintiffs sue in federal court, asserting several restrictions on voter registration, absentee voting and polling place administration violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act and disenfranchise voters by forcing them to risk being infected by COVID-19.
North Carolina General Assembly intervenes as defendant
The court grants the Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly’s motion to intervene as a defendant to defend the voting regulations at issue.
Court partially grants plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction
The court issues an order forbidding the defendants from rejecting absentee ballots with correctable material errors without due process and waives the restrictions on assisting and returning absentee ballots for one of the plaintiffs with disabilities.
NCSBE issues guidance on absentee ballots in response to court’s order
In response to the court’s order from August 4, the North Carolina State Board of Elections issues guidance to county election officials on implementing a notice and cure process for voters using mail ballots.
Court modifies NCSBE’s guidelines
After several revisions to the guidance provided by the NCSBE, the plaintiffs and the North Carolina General Assembly file competing motions requesting the court to further modify the NCSBE’s guidelines or forbid them from being used, respectively. The court issues a new order forbidding acceptance of absentee ballots without witness signatures or the signature of the person assisting the voter and allowing a voter to cure a lack of these signatures with a certification.
Fourth Circuit denies defendants’ appeal
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denies the North Carolina General Assembly’s appeal of the district court’s decision through a vote of the full court, finding the legislature was unlikely to succeed on the merits and that under Purcell, it was too late to modify the state’s election laws.
Defendants request emergency relief from Supreme Court
The North Carolina General Assembly, asserting that the NCSBE’s guidance usurped the authority of the legislature, undermined the equal protection rights of voters, and violated Purcell, requests the United States Supreme Court to issue an injunction on the guidance.
League moves to file amicus brief
The League moves for leave to file an amicus brief arguing in favor of upholding the NCSBE’s guidance, asserting that the defendants lacked standing.
Supreme Court denies defendants’ request for relief
In an unsigned order, the United States Supreme Court denies defendants’ request for an injunction. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch vote to grant the application on the issue of the ballot-receipt deadline. Justice Barrett does not participate in considering the application.
League files fourth amended complaint
The League and co-plaintiffs file a fourth amended complaint, asking the court to strike down several restrictions on assisting voters with requesting and voting an absentee ballot, order the creation of a notice and cure process, and grant other relief.
Court issues order dismissing remaining claims
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their First Amendment claim. The plaintiffs’ remaining claims are also dismissed. The court rules that the plaintiffs’ remaining notice and cure claim was not ripe because the process secured ahead of the 2020 election was still in place. Plaintiff’s' motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal is denied. Plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling, and the notice and cure process remains in place for absentee voters.
Court modifies dismissal order
The court modifies its order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. The procedural due process claim is dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to file it again in the future. The case is dismissed.