Voting Rights and Democracy

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory

In North Carolina State Conference v. McCrory, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether a North Carolina law known as HB 589 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).


Case Summary

Enacted shortly after the Supreme Court invalidated Section 5 of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, HB 589 eliminates common voting practices disproportionately relied on by minority voters and requires a voter to have either a photo ID from a limited list of acceptable IDs or a difficult-to-obtain state-issued voter ID card in order to vote. The District Court nonetheless ruled for the state, concluding that HB 589 does not violate Section 2 of the VRA because it does not deny anyone the right to vote.

On May 26, 2016, Constitutional Accountability Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the law’s challengers and arguing that the Fifteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to prohibit laws that not only deny racial minorities the vote, but also make it more difficult for them to vote, and that is exactly what Congress did when it enacted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. HB 589 violates Section 2 because it imposes arbitrary and discriminatory burdens on minority voters, impeding their ability to vote. While a state is entitled to protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process, it may not do so by drawing arbitrary lines that result in racial discrimination.

On June 21, 2016, the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in the case. On July 29, 2016, in an important victory for voting rights, the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the District Court’s decision and held that HB 589 violates both the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. According to the Fourth Circuit, “the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” deliberately removing methods of voting disproportionately used by racial minorities in order to “target[] voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party.” Accordingly, the court struck down the provisions “regarding photo ID, early voting, same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and preregistration” and directed the District Court to issue an order prohibiting those provisions from being implemented.

On December 27, 2016, North Carolina filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, and on May 15, 2017, the Court denied that petition.

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
November 9, 2022

False claims about Pennsylvania mail-in ballot deadline circulate online

Social media posts claim a court ruling in the US state of Pennsylvania allows the...
By: David H. Gans, by Natalie Wade, Manon Jacob
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 26, 2022

RELEASE: New Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief Shows That the So-Called Independent State Legislature Theory Is a Fabrication that Cannot Be Squared with Constitutional Text and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier today, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) filed a brief at the...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 19, 2022

Why US Courts Are Allowing Voters in 4 States to Use Rejected Congressional Maps

Voice of America
WASHINGTON — When midterm elections get under way next month, voters in several Republican-controlled states will...
By: David H. Gans, by Masood Farivar
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2022

Justice Jackson Takes Originalist Approach on Voting Rights

Bloomberg Law
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson invoked the original meaning of the US Constitution in her first...
By: David H. Gans, by Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2022

Further erosion of voter protections signaled by Supreme Court

Courthouse News Service
Weary of attacks on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the justices appeared more...
By: David H. Gans, by Kelsey Reichmann
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2022

RELEASE: Thanks to Justice Jackson, Progressive Originalism Emerged at the Supreme Court This Morning: CAC Reacts to Oral Argument in Alabama Redistricting Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Merrill v....
By: David H. Gans