Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • NAACP v. McCrory 1468

NAACP v. McCrory 1468

NAACP v. McCrory 1468

Page 1: NAACP v. McCrory 1468

Category:

Number of Pages:31

Date Created:June 16, 2016

Date Uploaded to the Library:July 18, 2016

Tags:1468, Causation, McCrory, Crawford, requirement, Appellants, naacp, Voting, Registration, Voters, Voter ID, PAGES, carolina, north, appeal, Frank, filed, COUNTY, Supreme Court, states, district


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(1 31)
No. 16-1468 (L), 16-1469, 16-1474, 16-1529
_____________________________________ THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________________
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONF. NAACP, al.,
Plaintiffs Appellants,
PATRICK MCCRORY, al.,
Defendants Appellees.
____________________________________ Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District North Carolina, Case
Nos. 1:13-cv-00660 (TDS-JEP), 1:13-cv-00658 (TDS-JEP), 1:13-cv-00861 (TDS-JEP).
_____________________________________
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. AND
ALLIED EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION SUPPORT
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMATION
____________________________________
Chris Fedeli
Lauren Burke
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
Bradley Schlozman
HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC
301 North Main Street
Suite 2000
Wichita, 67202-4820
(316) 660-6296 Christopher Coates
LAW OFFICE CHRISTOPHER COATES
934 Compass Point
Charleston, 29412
(843) 609-7080
June 16, 2016
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(2 31)
TABLE CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................
IDENTITY AND INTERESTS THE AMICI ......................................................
SUMMARY ARGUMENT .................................................................................
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. Show Violation Section the Voting Rights
Act, Appellants Are Required Satisfy Robust Causation
Requirement ........................................................................................................................................5 Heightened Causation Requirement................................................. Substantial Injury Standard ................................................................ Causation and Injury Elements Needed Support Violation
Section are not Shown Here .........................................................
II.
Appellants Theory Liability Improperly Imports Section
Standards into Section Analysis...............................................................................12
III.
The District Court Appropriately Applied the Causation Requirement
Under Section 2..............................................................................................................................17
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................
CERTIFICATE SERVICE AND ELECTRONIC FILING ..............................
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(3 31)
TABLE AUTHORITIES
CASES
PAGE
Arizona Inter Tribal Council Ariz., Inc., 133 Ct. 2247 (2013) .....................
Bartlett Strickland, 556 U.S. 24-25 (2009) .....................................................
Beer United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976) .........................................................3,
Brooks Gant, No. 12-5003, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139070,
(D.S.D. Sept. 27, 2012) ..................................................................................
Brown Detzner, 895 Supp. 1236 (M.D. Fla. 2012) .....................................
Chisom Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991) ..................................................................
Crawford Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) ........2,
Frank Walker, F.Supp.3d 837 (E.D. Wis. 2014) ..............................................
Frank Walker, 768 744 (7th Cir. 2014) ............................................3,
Georgia Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003) ..............................................................
Gonzalez Ariz., 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................
Holder Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994) ......................................................................
Lowery Deal, 850 Supp. 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2012) ........................................
Mark Wandering Medicine McCulloch,
906 Supp. 1083 (D. Mont. 2012) ......................................................
Ortiz City Phila. Office the City Comm rs, F.3d 306 (3rd Cir.1994) .............................................................................
Osburn Cox, 369 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) .......................................................
Reno Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320 (2000) ..................................
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(4 31)
Shelby Cnty. Holder, 133 Ct. 2612 (2013) ...............................................12,
Smith Salt River Project Agric. Improvement Power Dist.,
109 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 1997) ......................................................................
Spirit Lake Tribe Benson Cnty., No. 2:10-cv-095, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
116827 (D.N.D. Oct. 21, 2010) ......................................................................
Thornburg Gingles, 478 U.S. (1986) .....................................................6,
U.S. Blaine Cnty., 157 Supp. 1145 (D. Mont. 2001) .................................
U.S. Blaine Cnty., 363 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................
Univ. Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013) .................
White Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973) ....................................................................
STATUTES U.S.C. 10301 ..................................................................................3, 13,
iii
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(5 31)
IDENTITY AND INTERESTS THE AMICI
Judicial Watch non-partisan, public interest organization headquartered Washington, DC. Founded 1994, Judicial Watch seeks promote
accountability, transparency and integrity government and fidelity the rule
law. furtherance these goals, Judicial Watch regularly files amicus curiae
briefs, and prosecutes lawsuits well amicus curiae briefs relating election
integrity and voting.
The Allied Educational Foundation AEF nonprofit charitable and
educational foundation based Englewood, New Jersey. Founded 1964, AEF dedicated promoting education diverse areas study, including electoral
law. AEF regularly files amicus curiae briefs means advance its purposes,
and has previously filed amicus curiae briefs election law matters before federal
courts.
Judicial Watch and AEF appeared 2014 this case before this Court,
filing amicus curiae brief supporting the North Carolina Appellees and
Undersigned counsel contacted all parties for their consent this amici
curiae brief, and all parties have given their consent.
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(6 31)
opposing preliminary injunction September 17, 2014. This brief submitted
pursuant Rule 29(b) the Federal Rules Appellate Procedure.2
Amici interest this case ensure North Carolina elections are
conducted with integrity and ensure that all citizens have confidence the
legitimacy election results. Amici are concerned that the relief requested
Plaintiffs-Appellants this case, granted, would have chilling effect voter
confidence the integrity elections, both North Carolina and nationwide.
North Carolina prohibited from requiring voter and compelled reinstate
same-day registration, extend the early voting period, and permit out-of-precinct
provisional ballots, many North Carolina citizens could have their votes diluted
unlawful ballots cast the names false duplicate registrations. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs-Appellants requested relief will undermine the confidence integrity
elections among citizens. the Supreme Court has noted, public confidence
the integrity the electoral process encourages citizen participation the
democratic process. Crawford Marion County Election Board, 553 181, 197
(2008). Conversely, lack integrity undermines confidence the electoral
system and discourages citizen participation democracy. party counsel authored the brief whole part; party
party counsel contributed money that was intended fund preparing
submitting the brief; and person other than the amici curiae their counsel
contributed money that was intended fund preparing submitting the brief.
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(7 31)
SUMMARY ARGUMENT
The fundamental purpose the Voting Rights Act 1965 VRA
U.S.C. 10301 seq., guarantee effective exercise the electoral franchise
for minorities. Beer United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976). not meant
specially protect minorities from the usual burdens voting. Crawford, 553 U.S. 198. Protections provided Section the VRA, U.S.C. 10301 Section provide assurance that rule practice shall not burden minorities
more than other voters, regardless whether the rule practice slightly impairs
the ability register vote. See Crawford, 553 U.S. 198. Section violation must show that the disproportionate impact results
from the interaction the voting practice with the effects the past present
discrimination and not merely product chance. Frank Walker,
Supp. 837, 877 (E.D. Wis. 2014). the Seventh Circuit recently noted, [i]t
would implausible read Section sweeping away almost all registration
and voting rules. better understand 2(b) equal treatment requirement
(which how reads) than equal-outcome command (which how the
district court took it). Frank Walker, 768 744, 754 (7th Cir. 2014). Crawford, the Supreme Court emphasized that the inconvenience
associated with obtaining voter identification card does not qualify
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(8 31)
significant increase over the usual burdens voting. 553 U.S. 198. Section
indeed, forbids discrimination race color, but does not require states
overcome societal effects private discrimination that affect income wealth
potential voters. Frank, 768 F.3d 753. There denial abridgment unless
the restriction imposes burden more than usual. Crawford, 553 U.S. 198.
The Seventh Circuit finding Section violation Frank upheld
Wisconsin voter requirement. The Court determined that Wisconsin voter
identification requirement did not draw any racial lines, nor was there any finding
that racial minorities had less opportunity than whites obtain valid photo
identification. Frank, 768 F.3d 753. Instead, Frank concluded that because
minorities are more impoverished, they are less likely use that opportunity. Id.
But there less opportunity available them than anyone else. Id. The court Frank concluded that mere disparate impact does not show denial
anything the state, which, course, required Section Id. The
Wisconsin voter requirement extends every citizen equal opportunity
get photo ID.
Similarly, the changes the voting laws North Carolina extend equal
opportunity register and cast ballot everyone. individuals are able
reach voting places but choose not to, wholly inaccurate describe the
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(9 31)
requirement travel the polls legal obstacle causing disenfranchisement.
See Frank, 768 749.
The essential inquiry this appeal whether the political process equally
open all. law practice does not hinder equal access for minority voters,
even imposes slight burden, there Section violation. Unless state
has made needlessly hard register and vote, has denied nothing any
voter. Frank, 768 F.3d 744. The ruling Frank strongly supports the ruling
the District Court this appeal.
Furthermore, statistical evidence showing that law bears more heavily
minorities does not necessarily violate Section See Smith Salt River Project
Agric. Improvement Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 595 (9th Cir. 1997). The inquiry
must continue determine whether the disproportionate impact results denying abridging minorities right vote. the District Court correctly found, the
answer this question no.
ARGUMENT Show Violation Section the Voting Rights Act, Appellants
Are Required Satisfy Robust Causation Requirement.
Section the Voting Rights Act forbids State from imposing
applying voting qualifications, practices, procedures manner which results denial abridgment the right any citizen the United States vote
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(10 31)
account race color U.S. 10301. This means that challenged
practice must have caused the result prohibited the statute. U.S.C. 10301;
see also Thornburg Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, (1986).
Section does not proscribe practices that merely affect voting. The statute
sets much higher liability standard. violation occurs only where voters
protected class have less opportunity than other voters participate the
political process and elect representatives their choice. U.S.C. 10301.
Establishing violation Section requires more than showing that law
practice results disparate impact. Frank, 768 F.3d 753. requires
additional showing that any disparate impact causally connected the denial equal opportunity participate elections and elect representatives
choice. Id. minor inconvenience that affects one racial group more than another
insufficient show the necessary discriminatory result. Crawford, 553 U.S.
183. There must competent showing that minorities face needlessly difficult
burden conform the changes. See Gingles, 478 U.S. 47. the statutory
language makes clear, the particular result that Section prohibits consists
two elements, each which must established. More specifically, [t]he plain
text 10301 and the cases applying require plaintiffs prove both
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(11 31)
unequal access and inability elect representatives their choice. Mark
Wandering Med. McCulloch, 906 Supp. 1083, 1088 (D. Mont. 2012),
vacated moot other grounds, 544 App 699 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing, inter
alia, Chisom Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 397-98 (1991)) (plaintiff burden
show that its members had less opportunity participate the political
processes and elect legislators their choice (emphasis added Chisom);
accord White Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 766 (1973).
Generalized studies addressing social and historical conditions are not
enough shed light whether particular changes deprive minorities the
opportunity participate the franchise. See Gingles 478 U.S. 36-37. While
disparities might make more burdensome for voters some circumstances,
simple disparities are not necessarily the result discrimination. the District
Court observed, [h]istorical discrimination unpersuasive basis for claiming
that any witnesses needed wanted use same day registration, and this case,
voters race played role their failure vote. (Op. 353, 355). Heightened Causation Requirement
Vote-denial claims like those issue here require sufficient showings
regarding causation and injury. Several courts appeal have emphasized that
vote-denial claim requires proof that challenged practice caused the harm
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(12 31)
proscribed Section These same courts repeatedly have stressed that not
enough merely show that challenged practice had disproportionate impact particular race. See Gonzalez Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 406 (9th Cir. 2012) (en
banc), aff sub nom., Arizona Inter Tribal Council Ariz., Inc., 133 Ct. 2247
(2013) (even though Latinos had suffered history discrimination
socioeconomic disparities [and] racially polarized voting, there was proof
causal relationship between [the challenged] Proposition 200 and any alleged
discriminatory impact Latinos. Smith, 109 F.3d 595 bare statistical
showing disproportionate impact racial minority does not satisfy the
results inquiry Ortiz City Phila. Office the City Comm F.3d 306,
308 (3d Cir.1994) (although African-American and Latino voters are purged
disproportionately higher rates than their white counterparts, plaintiff failed
prove that the purge statute caused this disparity). short, Section plaintiffs must show causal connection between the
challenged voting practice and the prohibited discriminatory result. Ortiz,
F.3d 312. Overcoming this substantial legal hurdle possible only the
plaintiff can show that the right vote being impaired because of,
account of, race. See Univ. Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. Nassar, 133 Ct.
2517, 2527 (2013).
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(13 31) Substantial Injury Standard cases that have granted relief for vote denial, the harm caused the
challenged voting practice almost invariably substantial. For example, Brooks Gant, No. 12-5003, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139070 *23 (D.S.D. Sept. 27,
2012), the residents Shannon County, who were predominantly Native
Americans, had travel one three hours another county engage early
voting. The court found this opportunity was substantially different from the
voting opportunities afforded the residents other counties South Dakota
and the majority white voters. See also Spirit Lake Tribe Benson County,
No. 2:10-cv-095, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116827 (D.N.D. Oct. 21, 2010)
(closure polling sites single county with large Native American
population will have disparate impact members the Spirit Lake Tribe
because significant percentage the population will unable get the
remaining location); Brown Detzner, 895 Supp. 1236, 1249-50 (M.D. Fla.
2012) (vote denial based denial meaningful access the polls)
(emphasis added) (citing, inter alia, Osburn Cox, 369 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir.
2004)).
The important factor Section cases whether challenged practice
imposes burden greater than the usual burden voting. See Crawford, 553 U.S.
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(14 31) 209 (burden voter identification does not rise above the usual burdens
voting Causation and Injury Elements Needed Support Violation
Section are not Shown Here.
The injuries that have given rise findings Section results violations
are different kind from the inconveniences imposed the voting practices
challenged this lawsuit. The difference may expressed terms two
primary dimensions: the significance requirement faced voters, and the
control the voters have over whether they comply with the voting requirement
issue.
For example, traditional vote dilution case, community voters may
have practical chance elect even single member legislature. The
affected voters the minority community, moreover, have control over this
situation. They cannot modify their own behavior way that allows them
elect preferred candidate, long they are minority the age-eligible voters jurisdiction with at-large voting.3 classic example United States Blaine County, 157 Supp. 1145
(D. Mont. 2001), aff 363 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2004). The County Commission
there relied at-large elections and staggered terms office. 363 F.3d 900.
Despite Native American population 45.2%, id., Native American [had]
served County Commissioner the eighty-six year history Blaine County.
157 Supp. 1147.
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(15 31) contrast, the changes made 2013-381 apply equally throughout the
state every voter and, therefore, the demands are simply not burdensome. Under
the challenged law, North Carolina voters must (1) register days before
election; (2) forgo same-day registration (which most states not even have and
which North Carolina only instituted 2007); (3) early vote during the adjusted
ten-day period; and (4) vote their own precinct. The voters North Carolina
are complete control these outcomes. They can adjust the new law
changing their own voting behaviors. the turnout from the primary and general
elections held after the enactment 2013-381 demonstrate emphatically, that exactly what North Carolina voters, including African American voters, did. beyond serious dispute that the changes the voting laws North
Carolina not interact with current conditions and historical discrimination
result inequality opportunity for African Americans exercise their right vote violation Section Despite the elimination same-day registration
and out-of-precinct voting, and despite the reduction the days available for early
voting, registration and voting including registration and voting minority
voters the primary and general election increased 2014 compared
2010. The District Court found that African Americans did not need the
eliminated mechanisms and that they are adaptable the many remaining easy
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(16 31)
ways for North Carolinians register and vote. (Op. 349, 374, and 376,). There showing that African Americans lack opportunity register and vote
otherwise. That some minority voters may prefer use same-day registration,
early voting, and out-of-precinct voting over other available methods does not
mean that without each these options minority voters lack equal opportunity.
II.
Appellants Theory Liability Improperly Imports Section
Standards into Section Analysis.
Section the VRA, which was rendered unenforceable the Supreme
Court ruling Shelby County Holder, 133 Ct. 2612 (2013), had
retrogression standard. Violation Section could found showing the
status minority had retrogressed grown worse when compared the status
quo before the changes under challenge were made. See Beer, 425 U.S. 130;
Reno Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320 (2000). However, claiming that
there statistical impact upon minority voters greater than the impact under the
previous voting practices does not mean there Section violation. Unlike
Section Section does not contain retrogression standard. See Holder Hall,
512 U.S. 874, 883-84 (1994) retrogression not the inquiry Section dilution
cases unlike Section cases benchmark does not exist definition
Section dilution cases.
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(17 31)
Quite simply, the inquiry under Section not whether elimination
practices changes will worsen the position minorities compared preexisting
voting standard, practice, procedure. The Appellants, however, essentially
argue that Section violation established the racially disparate preference
minority voters for modes voting changed 2013-381. Perhaps because
they know that they cannot make the requisite showing, the Appellants make
effort demonstrate, would comport with Section core requirement, that
members protected class have less opportunity than other [voters]
participate the political process and elect representatives their choice.
U.S.C. 10301.
Failing acknowledge this requirement, the Appellants contend that, once
any racial disparity shown affect voters preferences regarding (e.g., same-day
registration), Section violation has been established. But the Appellants focus too narrow. Showing that there such disparity, even one shaped
interaction with history, not the same making the mandated showing that
minority voters cannot participate equally the political process and elect
candidates their choice.
Disregarding the increase black turnout and registration November
2014, which was higher than white turnout and registration under the challenged
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(18 31)
provisions 2013-381, Appellants contend that Section still violated
because more black voters than white voters prefer same-day registration, early
voting, and out-of-precinct voting. They insist the best evidence for determining
whether 2013-381 has racially disparate effects not the actual turnout data
regarding minority voters, but the fact that African Americans disproportionately
relied the eliminated practices for multiple election cycles. Appellants argue,
other words, that the disparate use same-day registration, early voting, and outof-precinct voting determinative their claim and that actual registration and
turnout data are not.
This simply backwards. The only reason assess racially disparate use modes voting determine whether factors that vary race will,
some point, depress metric political participation like turnout registration.
Actual results are more significant than predictions. Elections since the enactment 2013-381 have provided real life proof that the challenged provisions
2013-381 not cause any discernible disadvantage minority voters. Rather,
both black and white voters adapt the new rules and continue turn out vote rates higher than under the former voting rules changed 2013-381.
Under Appellants theory, Section would stretch beyond proscribing
electoral practices that significantly burden disadvantage voters the basis
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(19 31)
their race. Rather, any electoral practice that racial group voters prefers and
that has any differential impact different races will subject Section
challenge. Ultimately, Appellants theory would authorize courts use Section
results claims vehicle advance, not maximize, the political fortunes particular minority groups. one foreseeable consequence, state and local
governments might conclude that unwise make any changes their existing
electoral laws for fear that any subsequent change would lead Section
litigation.
Another effect Appellants approach Section results claims
elevate the electoral preferences minority voters unassailable rights. the
District Court properly noted:
Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that the removed mechanisms were
conveniences and fail-safes the ordinary rules for voting.
definition, therefore, any repeal modification results marginal
reduction modification options for those who preferred them.
(Op. 469). Appellants theory holds that long minority voters take advantage procedures like same-day registration, early voting, out-of-precinct voting
rates higher than white voters, those procedures cannot repealed amended
without violating Section Again, this improperly reads retrogression standard
into Section the VRA.
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(20 31) prevailed, Appellants theory Section liability would effectively
reinstitute something highly similar the statutory standard under Section that
existed prior Shelby, 133 Ct. 2612. Appellants approach this litigation
appears favor such outcome because they argue that, while the absence
same-day registration, extended early voting, and out-of-precinct voting would not
violate Section the repeal these provisions does. However, inappropriate use Section surrogate for Section the statutes have very different
purposes. See Bartlett Strickland, 556 U.S. 24-25 (2009); Georgia
Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 478 (2003); Lowery Deal, 850 Supp. 1326, 1334
(N.D. Ga. 2012). practical matter, Appellants Section claims are upheld, the ruling
could have the effect altogether freezing state and local electoral laws place.
Any repeal existing laws could lead challenge like the one before this Court. noted earlier, States would also discouraged from experimenting with new
electoral laws because they would know that such laws may become impossible
repeal. They would logically conclude that the best course action simply
stop changing voting laws altogether. Judicial acceptance Appellants position
would deter experimentation and change the state and local level area
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(21 31)
the law where experimentation must encouraged. Such unwarranted end
not required Section and should avoided.
III.
The District Court Appropriately Applied the Causation Requirement
under Section
The District Court appropriately undertook case-specific analysis
determine whether changes North Carolina voting laws deny minorities fair
and reasonable opportunity vote. Such analysis requires consideration any
competent evidence that the changes make needlessly difficult comply with
registration and other voting requirements. The District Court found evidence
showing real disenfranchisement minority voters.
The District Court demonstrated length its opinion that the provisions 2013-381, considered the larger context North Carolina electoral
system, not impose burdens voters that warrant Section relief. Discussing
same-day registration, the District Court noted that the Appellants own experts
confirmed that black registration North Carolina exceeds that white. (Op.
158, 470). addition, the Appellants failed show that black voters currently
lack equal opportunity easily register vote, given the alternative possibility registering mail, the extensive voter registration services offered
numerous State agencies, the lenient laws concerning voter registration drives, and
the option updating certain registrations within the 25-day cut-off. (Op. 165).
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(22 31)
Because all this evidence, the lack same-day registration was not
actionable burden. the District Court correctly determined, minorities enjoy
equal and constitutionally-compliant opportunity participate the electoral
process. (Op. 471).
The District Court broad approach, which considers all available facts
within the context totality circumstances analysis, the proper one for
Section claim. contrasts sharply with the unduly restrictive and thus incorrect
approach advanced Appellants. the District Court, the Appellants relied theory Section liability
that contrary the governing law. The basic premise the Appellants case
that greater proportion black voters use same-day registration, early voting,
and out-of-precinct voting. But Gingles did not hold that any inequality will
support Section claim. Rather, the Gingles Court language makes clear that
the inequality must implicate Section core requirement that members
protected class have less opportunity than other [voters] participate the
political process and elect representatives their choice. U.S.C. 10301.
The District Court properly held that the slight inconveniences imposed 2013-381 (such voting within ten-day rather than seventeen-day period) not give rise Section results claim. Otherwise, there would
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(23 31)
practical principled limit the reach the statute. Again, Section requires
additional showing that any disparate impact causally connected the denial equal opportunity participate elections and elect representatives
choice. its well-reasoned opinion, the District Court carefully examined the
pertinent questions regarding trade-offs, alternatives, and mitigating factors
necessary under totality circumstances analysis its determination that the
changes North Carolina voting laws imposed 2013-381 not cause
racial minorities deprived the opportunity participate equally the
political process. There is, accordingly, sound basis for disturbing the District
Court opinion.
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(24 31)
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, amici respectfully urge the Court affirm the
District Court Judgment entered favor Defendants-Appellees.
Dated: June 16, 2016
Respectfully submitted, Bradley Schlozman
Bradley Schlozman
HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC
301 North Main Street, Suite 2000
Wichita, 67202-4820
(316) 660-6296
Chris Fedeli
Lauren Burke
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172 Christopher Coates
LAW OFFICE CHRISTOPHER
COATES
934 Compass Point
Charleston, South Carolina 29412
(843) 609-7080
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-1
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(25 31)
CERTIFICATE SERVICE AND ELECTRONIC FILING hereby certify, pursuant Fed. App. 25(d)(2), that electronically
filed the foregoing with the Clerk the United States Court Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system. certify that the parties the
case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will accomplished the
appellate CM/ECF service.
Dated: June 16, 2016 Bradley Schlozman
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-2
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(26 31)
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-3
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(27 31)
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-3
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(28 31)
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-4
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(29 31)
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-4
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(30 31)
Appeal: 16-1468
Doc: 130-5
Filed: 06/16/2016
Pg:
Total Pages:(31 31)
UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NAACP al. McCrory al.
Caption: __________________________________________________
No. 16-1468
_______
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 28.1(e) 32(a)
Type-Volume Limitation, Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements Type-Volume Limitation: Appellant Opening Brief, Appellee Response Brief, and
Appellant Response/Reply Brief may not exceed 14,000 words 1,300 lines. Appellee
Opening/Response Brief may not exceed 16,500 words 1,500 lines. Any Reply Amicus
Brief may not exceed 7,000 words 650 lines. Counsel may rely the word line count the word processing program used prepare the document. The word-processing program
must set include footnotes the count. Line count used only with monospaced type.
This brief complies with the
32(a)(7)(B) because:
type-volume limitation Fed. App. 28.1(e)(2)
4,260
this brief contains
[state number of] words, excluding the parts
the brief exempted Fed. App. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii),
this brief uses monospaced typeface and contains
[state number
of] lines text, excluding the parts the brief exempted Fed. App.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii). Typeface and Type Style Requirements: proportionally spaced typeface (such Times
New Roman) must include serifs and must 14-point larger. monospaced typeface
(such Courier New) must 12-point larger (at least characters per inch).
This brief complies with the typeface requirements Fed. App. 32(a)(5) and the type
style requirements Fed. App. 32(a)(6) because:
this brief has been prepared proportionally spaced typeface using
Microsoft Word
[identify word processing program]
[identify font size and type style]; point Times New Roman
this brief has been prepared monospaced typeface using
[identify word processing program]
[identify font size and type style].
(s) Bradley Schlozman
Attorney for Amici Judicial Watch, Inc. al.
Dated: June 16, 2016
Print
04/13/2012
SCC
Save
Reset Form