Source: https://ncbarblog.com/case-summary-nc-state-conference-of-naacp-v-mccrory/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:06:38+00:00

Document:
SL 2013–381, the law at question in this case, was originally filed in the House as HB 589. Initially, the bill only sought to create photo ID provisions for voting. However, while the bill sat in the Senate Rules Committee, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder. The Court in Shelby County struck down the preclearance coverage formula in § 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act because the Court found the formula to be based on outdated data. Without the formula, the preclearance requirements of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act no longer apply to any jurisdiction in the United States. North Carolina was subject to § 5 prior to the Shelby County decision. After Shelby County, the General Assembly requested data on voting methods and photo ID’s by race. The General Assembly then changed the bill by adding provisions that “restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.” Those challenged provisions include the following: the requirement of a photo ID with restrictions as to which type of ID could be used; the reduction of in-person early voting from seventeen days to ten days; the elimination of same-day registration; the elimination of out-of-precinct provisional voting; and the elimination of preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds.
In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the [district] court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the [district] court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.
The revised version of the bill also moved through the General Assembly in just three days, with only “one day for a public hearing, two days in the Senate, and two hours in the House.” The bill lost its prior Democratic support, and the House was not allowed an opportunity to offer amendments. While the General Assembly did not break its procedural rules, a point that satisfied the district court’s decision, the court here noted that “a legislature need not break its own rules to engage in unusual practices.” The court noted that the debate, which occurred prior to the Shelby County decision, was not probative since that debate did not include the provisions added to the bill. The court noted that “this sequence of events—the General Assembly’s eagerness to, at the historic moment of Shelby County’s issuance, rush through the legislative process the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow–bespeaks a certain purpose.” The court ultimately found that the sequence of events by the General Assembly cut in favor of a finding of discriminatory intent.
The court also noted that it did not have access to minutes of legislative meetings about SL 2013-381, as they are protected by legislative privilege. The 4th Circuit, like the district court, did not place significant weight on statements made by individual legislators during and after passage of the bill. However, the 4th Circuit did find significant “the General Assembly’s requests for and use of race data in connection with SL 2013-381.” “This data revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting, same-day registration, and out-of-precinct voting, and disproportionately lacked DMV-issued ID.” Additionally, there was data “that African Americans did not disproportionately use absentee voting; whites did.” The General Assembly did not alter any provisions affecting absentee voting. The court concluded that the General Assembly relied on racial data and only restricted voting practices that were disproportionately used by African Americans.
Aggregating its analysis of the Arlington Heights factors, the court found that, “at least in part, discriminatory racial intent motivated the enactment of the challenged provisions in SL 2013–381. The district court clearly erred in holding otherwise.” The court emphasized the importance of viewing the evidence by the totality of the circumstances.
Since race was found to be a motivating factor for passing SL 2013-381, the burden shifts, and “[the] court must carefully scrutinize a state’s non-racial motivations to determine whether they alone can explain enactment of the challenged law.” The court found “[t]he record evidence plainly establishes race as a ‘but-for’ cause of SL 2013-381.” The General Assembly argued that its various voting provisions in SL 2013-381 were created to combat voter fraud, promote public confidence in the electoral system, correct inconsistencies in the availability of early voting, avoid administrative burdens during the end of the early voting and avoid confusion. All in all, the General Assembly argued, it wanted to reset the law back to its original form.
Ultimately, the five provisions at issue in SL 2013-381 (photo ID requirement, changes to early voting, same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and preregistration) were all found to be unconstitutional, and the district court’s judgment was reversed and remanded.
 The author interned for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice while the organization represented the League of Women Voters Plaintiffs during the July 2015 district court trial.
 North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, 214 (4th Cir. 2016).
 Shelby Cty., Ala. V. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 186 L. Ed. 2d 651 (2013).
 831 F.3d 204 at 214.
 Id. at 220 (quoting Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266, 97 S. Ct. 555).
 Id. at 220 (emphasis in original).
 Id. at 220-21 (quoting Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-67, 97 S. Ct. 555) (alterations in original).
 Id. at 227 (quoting Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267, 97 S. Ct. 555).
 Id. at 228 (emphasis in original).

References: v. 
 § 4
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 V.