Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

4 

BERGER v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE 
CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP 
Opinion of the Court 

by  overriding  that  veto,  and  S. B.  824  went  into  effect  on
December 19, 2018. 

The next day, the National Association for the Advance-
ment of Colored People (NAACP) sued the Governor and the
members  of  the  State  Board  of  Elections  (collectively,
Board).  The Governor appoints the Board’s members and 
may remove them under certain circumstances.  See N. C. 
Gen.  Stat.  Ann.  §§ 143B–16,  163–19,  163–40.    In  its  law-
suit, the NAACP alleged that S. B. 824 offends the Federal
Constitution.  The  State’s  attorney  general  assumed  re-
sponsibility for defending the Board.  See § 114–2.  Like the 
Governor, the attorney general is an independently elected 
official.  See  N. C.  Const.,  Art.  III,  § 7(1).    Much  like  the 
Governor, too, while serving as a state senator the attorney
general  voted  against  an  earlier  voter-ID  law  and  filed  a 
declaration in support of a legal challenge against it.  See 
North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 997 
F. Supp. 2d 322, 337–338, 357–359 (MDNC 2014). 

Soon, the speaker of the State House of Representatives 
and president pro tempore of the State Senate (legislative 
leaders)  moved  to  intervene.    App.  52.    They  noted  that
North Carolina law expressly authorizes them “to intervene
on behalf of the General Assembly as a party in any judicial
proceeding challenging a North Carolina statute or provi-
sion of the North Carolina Constitution.”  N. C. Gen. Stat. 
Ann. § 1–72.2(b).  They observed that, in cases of this sort,
state law further provides that “both the General Assembly
and the Governor constitute the State of North Carolina.” 
§ 1–72.2(a).   And  the  legislative  leaders  suggested  that,
without their participation, important state interests would 
not be adequately represented in light of the Governor’s op-
position to S. B. 824, the Board’s allegiance to the Governor,
and the attorney general’s opposition to earlier voter-ID ef-
forts.  App. 65–70.  Finally, the legislative leaders pointed 
to  parallel  state-court  proceedings  in  which  they  claimed
the  Board  had  offered  only  a  “tepid”  defense  of  S. B.  824.