Opinion ID: 2738874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Preliminary Injunction Denied On Certain

Text: House Bill 589 Provisions At the outset, we determine that Plaintiffs have failed to establish at least one element necessary to win a preliminary injunction with respect to the following provisions of House Bill 589: (i) the reduction of early-voting days; (ii) the expansion of allowable voter challengers; (iii) the elimination of the discretion of county boards of elections to keep the polls open an additional hour on Election Day in “extraordinary circumstances”; (iv) the elimination of pre-registration of 24 sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds who will not be eighteen years old by the next general election; and (v) the soft roll-out of voter identification requirements to go into effect in 2016. With respect to early voting, we are convinced that the significant risk of a substantial burden to the State tips the balance of hardships in its favor. Were we to enjoin House Bill 589’s reduction in early-voting days, early voting would need to begin in approximately two weeks. We conclude that this very tight timeframe represents a burden not only on the State, but also on the county boards of elections. The balance of hardships thus favors denying a preliminary injunction as to early voting. With respect to pre-registration of sixteen- and seventeenyear-olds, as the district court correctly noted, only citizens eighteen years and older may vote. The State’s refusal to preregister sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds will, therefore, not harm citizens who may vote in the upcoming general election. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in determining that, while Plaintiffs could well succeed on this claim at trial, they have not shown that “they will be irreparably harmed before trial absent an injunction.” McCrory, 997 F. Supp. 2d at 378. Regarding the elimination of the discretion of county boards of elections to keep the polls open an additional hour on 25 Election Day in “extraordinary circumstances,” the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs have failed to show that they will be irreparably harmed by this provision in the upcoming election. This is particularly true, as the district court noted, given that the State Board of Elections “retains the ability to make up significant losses in time by ordering the polls to remain open on the event of a delay.” Id. at 380. Again, this is not to say that Plaintiffs will not ultimately succeed with their challenge to this provision at trial. They simply have not shown irreparable harm for purposes of the preliminary injunction. With respect to the soft roll-out of voter identification requirements to go into effect in 2016, as the district court noted, Plaintiffs did provide evidence that a husband and wife were improperly advised that they needed a photo identification in order to vote in the May 2014 primary. McCrory, 997 F. Supp. 2d at 377. While that couple was certainly misinformed, and while that fact raises a red flag, Plaintiffs cannot escape the fact that even that couple was, in fact, allowed to vote. Id. While we share Plaintiffs’ concern that requiring poll workers to implement the soft rollout without adequate training might result in some confusion, we are unable to find that the district court committed clear error in deeming this argument “speculative.” McCrory, 997 F. Supp. 2d at 377. Again, 26 Plaintiffs may well succeed with their challenge to the identification law at trial. We hold only that, for purposes of the upcoming election, they have not shown irreparable injury. Finally, with respect to House Bill 589’s poll challenger and observer provision, we agree with the district court that “African-American voters in North Carolina and elsewhere have good reason to be concerned about intimidation and other threats to their voting rights. Any intimidation is unlawful and cannot be tolerated, and courts must be vigilant to ensure that such conduct is rooted out where it may appear.” McCrory, 997 F. Supp. 2d at 380. Nevertheless, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs have not shown that any such irreparable harm is likely to occur in the upcoming election. The district court found that “Plaintiffs have provided no basis to suggest that poll observers or any challenger(s) will abuse their statutory power.” Id. Although we are skeptical as to the ultimate accuracy of this prediction, we cannot say that the district court committed clear error. We do not mean to suggest that Plaintiffs cannot prove and eventually succeed on their challenges to all of these provisions when their case goes to trial. Indeed, a proper application of the law to a more developed factual record could very well result in some or all of the challenged House Bill 589 provisions being struck down. At this point in time, however, 27 we hold that, for purposes of a preliminary injunction as to this November’s election and based on the facts as found by the district court for the limited purpose of addressing Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Plaintiffs have not shown that the balance of hardships tips in their favor as to early voting or that they will suffer irreparable harm as to the other provisions discussed above.