NC Voter Registration Deadline is Oct 9, 25 days before Nov 3, 2020.
- Stage 3 -- No excuse required for vote by mail.
Online registration available only recently
• North Carolina: The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to take up an en banc appeal of a three-judge panel's rejection of a preliminary injunction issued by a district court last year against the North Carolina GOP's voter ID law. Consequently, barring an appeal to the Supreme Court that would be unlikely to succeed, the plaintiffs' quest for a preliminary injunction is probably over, but the case will still proceed in lower court on the underlying merits.
While success at the federal level is in doubt given the increasingly hostile stance of the federal judiciary toward voting rights, a separate lawsuit ongoing in state court may stand a better chance given that Democrats hold a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court. That case saw a lower court issue a preliminary injunction of its own that blocked the law last year.
Roy Cooper won
Cal Cunningham lost
Moe Davis lost
Patricia Timmons-Goodsend lost
Marcia Morgan lost
• North Carolina: The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, with all 15 judges sitting en banc, has upheld a settlement made by the Democratic majority on the North Carolina Board of Elections extending the absentee ballot receipt deadline from three days after Election Day to nine days after (ballots must still be postmarked by Election Day). Republicans are appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile in a separate state-level lawsuit, the Democratic majority on North Carolina's Supreme court has rejected issuing a stay in the GOP's attempt to overturn the state board's settlement in state court, leaving provisions in place making it easier for voters to fix purported signature problems on mail ballots. Republicans have not indicated if they will also appeal this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• North Carolina: Two separate federal court rulings have resulted in a mixed outcome for voting advocates regarding absentee voting procedures. In one case, a district court blocked part of a settlement in a separate state lawsuit that would have allowed voters to sign an affidavit in case a witness signature was missing, thus requiring a witness signature for all such ballots.
However, a district court in a separate case refused to overturn an agreement by the state to count ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and received by Nov. 12 while also allowing voters to fix certain other problems on mail ballots regarding voter signatures or incomplete witness information. Additionally, the second federal ruling means dropping off mail ballots at polling places remains allowed.
Republicans are appealing that second federal ruling as well as the settlement in the state lawsuit, which saw the state Court of Appeals issue a short-term stay of the settlement and give the parties until Monday to respond on whether to more permanently block it.
• North Carolina: A federal judge has temporarily blocked a settlement approved by a North Carolina state court between voting rights advocates and the state Board of Elections requiring that ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within nine days be counted. The agreement also effectively waived a requirement that absentee voters have their ballots witnessed.
• North Carolina: A GOP-majority panel of state Court of Appeals judges has ruled 2-1 along party lines to overturn a lower court ruling and uphold two constitutional amendments that Republicans had placed on the ballot in 2018, which were approved by voters, rejecting the NAACP's argument that the GOP legislature had lacked the authority to amend the state constitution because they had relied on unconstitutional gerrymanders that had been struck down and redrawn. The NAACP is appealing to the state Supreme Court, which has a 6-1 Democratic majority, to overturn the two amendments, which required voter ID and capped the maximum income tax rate.
Regardless, the voter ID requirement was already not in effect for 2020 due to separate federal and state litigation that temporarily blocked the implementing statute itself while those cases proceed on the merits.
• North Carolina: Civil rights groups have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to block a state law making it a serious crime for people with felony convictions that render them disenfranchised to impermissibly vote before their rights are restored, even if it's unintentional, a move that comes after a state court recently struck down a law that required the payment of court fines and fees for certain people to be able to regain their voting rights.
• North Carolina: A state court has approved a settlement allowing officials to count ballots postmarked by Election Day and received by Nov. 12, leading GOP legislators to announce they would appeal. The agreement also makes it easier for voters to cure problems with their ballots and expands the availability of ballot return drop boxes. Separately, a federal court has blocked the Democratic-controlled state Board of Elections from issuing instructions saying election officials should count mail ballots received without a witness signature.
• North Carolina: North Carolina voters have filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to waive the requirement that absentee mail ballots be witnessed in households with only one adult; require prepaid postage; let counties expand the early voting period; count ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and received up to nine days afterward; require officials to notify voters and give them a chance to fix problems with their mail ballot signature; and let individuals or community groups assist with filling out or delivering a voter's mail ballot.
Most of those demands overlap with those in other lawsuits ongoing at both the federal and state levels in North Carolina.
Meanwhile in a separate lawsuit, a state court has rejected a request to block the use of electronic voting machines based on the possible risk that their use could spread COVID this fall. Election security advocates have been challenging the use of these machines, which print paper ballot records, because they produce a printed barcode that voters cannot read to confirm that their votes were tallied accurately.
• North Carolina: A panel of three judges on the North Carolina Court of Appeals has unanimously denied Republicans' motion to revoke the court's preliminary injunction blocking the GOP's voter ID requirement for November. The judges rejected Republican arguments that a new voting law passed subsequent to the injunction, which eased voting access during the pandemic but included a provision expanding the types of IDs acceptable under the voter ID requirement, undermined the court's finding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their argument that the new law was discriminatory.
Consequently, the voter ID law will remain suspended for November as the case proceeds on the merits. A separate federal case is also proceeding on the merits after a district court issued its own preliminary injunction early in 2020 to block the ID requirement.
• North Carolina: U.S. District Judge William Osteen has declined to impose most of the requests made by voting rights advocates in a lawsuit challenging a number of North Carolina's election laws, concluding that plaintiffs had failed to meet the necessary legal burdens to obtain the relief they had sought. However, Osteen warned defendants that if they "believe these issues may now be discounted or disregarded for purposes of the impending election" as a result of his ruling, "they would be sorely mistaken."
The plaintiffs had asked that the court block enforcement of eight different state laws, chief among them the requirement that absentee voters have their ballots witnessed, as well as order state officials to take almost a dozen different steps to make voting easier, such as setting up ballot drop boxes.
Osteen rejected most of these requests, but he did grant one key piece of relief, ruling that officials had to give absentee voters the opportunity to "cure" any issues with their ballots that might otherwise cause them to be rejected, such as a signature mismatch or incorrect contact information for a witness. Plaintiffs told the court that 15% of absentee ballots were rejected in the state's March primary and say that as many as 100,000 ballots that will be cast for the November general election might now be saved thanks to Osteen's decision.
• Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia: Florida's GOP Secretary of State Laurel Lee has reached an agreement with advocates for blind voters in a federal lawsuit that will require Miami-Dade, Nassau, Orange, Pinellas, and Volusia Counties, which are home to one-fourth of Florida's registered voters, to protect visually impaired voters' right to vote a secret ballot. Such voters will be able to obtain their ballots electronically and fill them out using special software before printing them out and mailing them in, a system that is already available to military and overseas voters. Florida also agreed to implement the same system statewide by 2022.
Meanwhile, blind voters have also filed federal lawsuits in North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia challenging absentee voting inaccessibility in those states and seeking remedies similar to the one agreed to in Florida. Advocates for blind voters have met success in court in several other states since the start of the pandemic.
• North Carolina: North Carolina's Board of Elections has issued a rule that every county this fall must have at least one early voting location for every 20,000 registered voters and that smaller counties only operating one location must provide for a backup location and extra staff as a precaution.
North Carolina: Earlier this month, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper signed a bill passed almost unanimously by North Carolina's Republican legislature to undo one of the GOP's many gerrymandering schemes, specifically one involving gerrymandering along racial lines in district court elections in Mecklenburg County. The GOP's about-face came as Republicans were facing a near-certain loss in state court for infringing on Black voters' rights in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Mecklenburg County is a Democratic stronghold that's home to Charlotte and more than one million residents. In 2018, Republican lawmakers changed Mecklenburg's procedures for judicial elections from a countywide system to one in which the county is split into separate judicial districts, even though all of the elected judges still retain countywide jurisdiction. The GOP's 2018 law gerrymandered the districts in an attempt to elect more white Republicans in place of multiple Black Democratic incumbents—precisely what came to pass that November.
Republicans had already agreed to revert back to countywide elections for 2020 while their case proceeded, but the lawsuit is moot now that Republicans have repealed the law in question. This GOP defeat means Republican legislators this past decade have lost lawsuits over their gerrymandering once or even multiple times at virtually every level of government in North Carolina, including for Congress, state legislature, county commission, city council, local school board, and, as here, judicial districts.
North Carolina: Voters who are suing North Carolina in state court to make it easier to vote absentee have amended their lawsuit to include a request for 21 extra days of in-person early voting. The case remains pending before a lower court.
Separately, the ACLU has filed a new lawsuit in state court to suspend the requirement that absentee voters have someone witness their ballot in-person. The GOP legislature with the support of Democrats passed a law earlier this year to require only one witness instead of two witnesses or a notary. However, even one required witness is more than most states mandate and has been waived by courts this year in other states with such requirements on their books.
Bottom line: Republicans can flip the North Carolina Supreme Court from Democrats
Composition: 6 Democrats, 1 Republican
2020 elections: 3 seats up (partisan)
Democratic Chief Justice Cheri Beasley, first elected in 2014 and appointed chief justice in 2019 by Gov. Roy Cooper (D), faces Republican Associate Justice Paul Newby, first elected in 2004
Democratic Justice Mark Davis, appointed in 2019 by Gov. Roy Cooper (D), faces former Republican state Sen. Tamara Barringer
OPEN (Republican Paul Newby, first elected in 2004, is running for chief justice against Beasley); Republican Court of Appeals Judge Phil Berger Jr. faces fellow Democratic Court of Appeals Judge Lucy Inman
North Carolina is another evenly divided swing state where Republicans have gone to great extremes trying to undermine democracy. Democrats currently hold a 6-1 majority on the Supreme Court, but it’s only guaranteed until 2022 unless they sweep all three races on the ballot this November. If they can, that would extend their majority until at least 2026.
In a worst-case scenario, however, Republicans could whittle the Democrats’ advantage down to just 4-3 this year. And such a scenario could grow worse still, because it means Republicans may have also unseated Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper (who is up for election this fall) and held the legislature. In that case, they’ll be able to take advantage of existing law to pack the court with two additional members.
That would give the GOP an immediate 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, which in turn would happily sign off on any new Republican gerrymanders. But if Democrats can preserve or expand their majority on the bench, the court will stand ready to scrutinize maps for the coming decade.
• North Carolina: Phil Berger, the Republican leader of North Carolina's state Senate, has rejected ideas put forth by the state's Board of Elections to make mail voting easier and to make Election Day a holiday. Meanwhile, the board has partnered with the state's DMV and will now, for the first time, allow voters with state IDs to register to vote online. Nine states representing 1 in 7 Americans still do not allow online registration along the lines that North Carolina now will.
• North Carolina: North Carolina's Board of Elections has asked Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and the Republican-run legislature to make a number of changes that would make absentee voting easier. The board's recommendations include:
allowing voters to request absentee ballots online, or to return applications via email or fax;
relaxing the state's requirement that absentee ballots be witnessed by two people or a notary, either by reducing the requirement to one witness or eliminating it entirely;
having the state provide postage-paid return envelopes for absentee ballots; and
making Election Day in November a state holiday so that a wider part of the workforce would be able to serve as poll workers.
• North Carolina: On Tuesday, North Carolina's Court of Appeals rejected Republicans' request for all 15 judges on the court to review of a February ruling by three judges that had overturned a lower court ruling and temporarily blocked the GOP's voter ID statute. The case is currently proceeding on the merits, with plaintiffs arguing that Republicans acted with the intent to discriminate against black voters in enacting their voter ID law. GOP legislators could appeal to the state Supreme Court, but given its 6-1 Democratic majority, a reversal appears unlikely.
Earlier this year, a federal court issued its own preliminary injunction in a separate case ahead of an upcoming trial, and a panel of three judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling on Friday to allow GOP legislative leaders to intervene as defendants.
Democratic state Attorney General Josh Stein had previously announced he would wait until after the March 3 primaries to appeal the federal ruling (Stein has a general obligation to defend state laws in most instances), so the voter ID requirement was already on hold in this month's vote. However, this latest state-court decision means the law could remain suspended for the November general election while the case proceeds.
• North Carolina: An African American voting rights advocacy group has filed a lawsuit in state court arguing that a bipartisan 2019 law to tighten absentee ballot requests in the wake of 2018's GOP election fraud scandal violates the state constitution. That scandal centered around a Republican operative who tampered with absentee ballots to fraudulently cast votes for the GOP candidate in the 9th Congressional District and may have discarded votes cast for the Democrat. In response, lawmakers near-unanimously enacted measures as part of a larger package of reforms to prevent a repeat occurrence in future elections.
However, the plaintiffs argue that by restricting who may assist voters with requesting an absentee ballot to only relatives, it prevents get-out-the-vote campaigns from encouraging absentee voting and therefore violates the state constitution's guarantee of the right to vote.
• North Carolina: The good-government group Common Cause has asked the North Carolina Supreme Court to review a recent state Court of Appeals ruling that rejected the organization's challenge to a series of power grabs Republicans pushed through during the lame-duck session of the legislature following the 2016 elections. Last month, the appellate court rebuffed the plaintiffs' argument that the GOP's legislative blitzkrieg was executed so quickly that it violated the state constitution's guarantee of the people's right to instruct their legislature.
As we've previously explained, the case has its origins in the 2016 elections, when Democratic Roy Cooper ousted Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and broke the GOP's grip on state government. In response, Republicans passed a law that removed the governor’s power to appoint a majority on the state Board of Elections and its county-level counterparts. McCrory’s administration had used its control over the boards to cut early voting and remove polling places from college campuses and heavily black communities. Removing Cooper’s power to appoint new majorities blocked Democrats from reversing those cuts.
Republicans also passed another law subjecting Cooper's cabinet appointees to confirmation by the GOP-dominated state Senate, a burden they had not placed on McCrory. Furthermore, they slashed the number of executive branch appointees from 1,500 to just 425, a reversal from the increase in such positions Republicans had pushed through after McCrory replaced his Democratic predecessor in 2012.
This madcap legislative session also saw the GOP transfer powers from the state Board of Education, whose members are chosen by the governor, to the state's superintendent of public instruction, a Republican elected official. In addition, they eliminated the governor’s ability to appoint members to the University of North Carolina’s board of trustees, instead granting that power to the legislature itself.
The Board of Elections power grab was eventually struck down, passed by the GOP once more and then struck down yet again multiple times, but Cooper finally was able to appoint a Democratic majority after the 2018 elections. However, most of the GOP's other power grabs are still in effect, as is another provision of the lame-duck legislation that made elections for the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals elections partisan again after a period during which they were nonpartisan (a move that backfired on Republicans in 2018).
If the Supreme Court hears the case and the plaintiffs prevail, all of these other changes would also be struck down. The high court has a 6-1 Democratic majority, though that does not offer a guarantee of a different outcome, particularly seeing as the appeals court panel that heard the case was bipartisan.
• North Carolina: On Tuesday, a panel of three judges on North Carolina's Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a lower court's ruling and ordered it to block Republicans' voter ID law until the case can be decided on the merits. The appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in demonstrating that Republicans had enacted the law with the unconstitutional intent of discriminating against black voters.
Earlier this year, a federal court issued its own preliminary injunction in a separate case ahead of an upcoming trial. Democratic state Attorney General Josh Stein previously announced he would wait until after the March 3 primaries to appeal the federal ruling (Republicans aren't party to that case, but Stein has a general obligation to defend state laws in most instances), so the voter ID requirement was already on hold for next month's vote. However, this latest state-court ruling could suspend the law through the November general election, too.
A second court has temporarily blocked North Carolina’s new voter identification law on the argument that it discriminates against African Americans. The ruling reduces the likelihood that the rule will be in effect in a key swing state during November’s elections.
North Carolina: Republican legislative leaders have asked the federal court that recently blocked their voter ID law to stay its decision pending appeal. However, these GOP leaders aren't defendants in this case, and Democratic state Attorney General Josh Stein has said over Republican opposition that he would delay appealing until after the March 3 primary to avoid confusion. But because the GOP is appealing the court's previous ruling that rejected their petition to intervene as defendants, Republicans are now arguing for a stay on the grounds that their appeal to intervene is still pending.
• North Carolina: A federal district court has issued a preliminary injunction blocking North Carolina's GOP-backed voter ID requirement, finding that the statute was likely enacted with discriminatory intent. A trial is expected to take place in the coming months.
This ruling comes three years after a previous voter ID law was struck down for what a federal court described as an effort to target black voters "with almost surgical precision." Republicans responded by placing a vaguely worded constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2018 to establish a new ID requirement. After voters approved the amendment, GOP lawmakers passed a statute implementing it in the lame-duck session of the legislature, over Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto.
In this latest court ruling, Judge Loretta Biggs said Republicans had sought to "circumvent" prior legal decisions. She noted that the current voter ID law excluded forms of identification that black voters were more likely to possess, such as certain types of government and public assistance IDs. She further observed that even nominally free IDs take time and access to transportation to obtain, which could be burdensome for low-income voters especially.
Democratic state Attorney General Josh Stein announced that he will appeal the ruling. However, he said he would wait until after the March 3 primary to avoid any voter confusion, noting that absentee voting is set to begin in just under two weeks. While ordinarily an attorney general is tasked with defending state laws in court, Cooper, who was Stein's predecessor, declined to appeal the 2016 ruling striking down the GOP's original voter ID law to the Supreme Court, who in turn declined GOP legislators' pleas to hear the case. Meanwhile, the state Board of Elections has already begun informing the public that ID won't be required for the primary.
In addition, the amendment itself is facing a lawsuit. In a separate case, the NAACP has argued that because the legislature was improperly constituted since its members had been elected under illegally gerrymandered maps that were later struck down by the courts, lawmakers lacked the authority to amend the constitution. A state court agreed last year and struck down the amendment, but the state Court of Appeals has stayed the ruling while GOP legislators appeal.
December 2019 Redistricting
• North Carolina: Last last month, Republicans agreed to a legal settlement that will block yet another one of their gerrymanders, this time regarding their redrawing of the district court map in Mecklenburg County.
The consent order will see Mecklenburg County, a Democratic stronghold home to Charlotte and 1.1 million people, revert to electing every judge countywide. Last year, the GOP's gerrymander had broken up that at-large election system and drawn a number of heavily white districts designed to elect Republican judges in place of black Democrats.
The plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit argued that this gerrymander violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against black voters. The consent order only applies to 2020 and makes no legal conclusion as to whether the 2018 redistricting was illegal, but the fact that Republicans capitulated for this election cycle suggests the plaintiffs have a strong argument on the ultimate merits of the case.
This development now means that, since Republicans won the state legislature in 2010, their gerrymanders have been invalidated once or more at literally every level of government: Congress, the legislature, county commission, city council, even school board—and now judicial districts.
Meanwhile, although state-level litigation recently concluded that resulted in North Carolina Republicans passing a new and modestly fairer congressional map, the GOP had still been pursuing a federal lawsuit seeking to revive their previous gerrymander for 2020. However, a district court judge rejected the GOP's argument, ruling that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Republicans have declined to pursue this suit further, meaning the new map is final.