`
`GINSBURG, J., dissenting
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`1
`
`_________________
`No. 14A358
`_________________
`NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL. v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN
`
`VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL.
`
`
`
`ON APPLICATION TO RECALL AND STAY
`
` [October 8, 2014]
`The application to recall and stay the mandate of the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in
`case Nos. 14-1845, 14-1856 & 14-1859, presented to The
`Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted
`and the preliminary injunction entered by the United
`States District Court for the Middle District of North
`Carolina on October 3, 2014, is hereby stayed pending the
`
` timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of
`certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be
`denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the
`event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the
`stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judg-
`
`ment of this Court.
`Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins,
`dissenting.
`I would deny the stay application.
`
`For decades, §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
`through its preclearance requirement, worked to safe-
`guard long obstructed access to the ballot by African-
`American citizens. In Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S.
`___ (2013), this Court found the Act’s §4 coverage formula
`obsolete, a ruling that effectively nullified §5’s preclear-
`ance requirement. Immediately after the Shelby County
`decision, North Carolina enacted omnibus House Bill 589,
`which imposed voter identification requirements, cut short
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NORTH CAROLINA v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN
`
`VOTERS OF N.C.
`
`GINSBURG, J., dissenting
`
`
` early voting by a week, prohibited local election boards
`
`from keeping the polls open on the final Saturday after-
`noon before elections, eliminated same-day voter registra-
`tion, terminated preregistration of 16- and 17-year olds in
`high schools, authorized any registered voter to challenge
`ballots cast early or on Election Day, and barred votes cast
`
`in the wrong precinct from being counted at all. These
`measures likely would not have survived federal preclear-
`ance. See 2014 WL 4852113, *15 (CA4 2014). The Court
`of Appeals determined that at least two of the measures—
`elimination of same-day registration and termination of
`out-of-precinct voting—risked significantly reducing op-
`portunities for black voters to exercise the franchise in
`violation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act. I would not dis-
`place that record-based reasoned judgment.
`
`North Carolina places heavy reliance on the fact that
`
`African-American turnout during the 2014 primary elec-
`tion, governed by House Bill 589, increased compared to
`the 2010 primary election, governed by the prior law.
`Application 29. As the District Court recognized, however,
`that comparison “is of limited significance because of the
`many noted differences between primaries and general
`elections.” North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
`v. McCory, 997 F. Supp. 2d 322, 375, n. 72 (MDNC 2014).
`Unlike turnout in general elections during Presidential
`election years, turnout in off-year primary elections is
`highly sensitive to factors likely to vary from election to
`election. For example, in the 2014 primary election, North
`Carolina had contests for three open congressional seats,
`including in one of North Carolina’s two majority-
`nonwhite congressional districts. There were no contests
`for open seats in 2010. An unprecedented $2 million was
`spent on a 2014 primary race for the State Supreme
`Court. And the race for the U. S. Senate seat that year
`drew significant attention and higher campaign spending
`in anticipation of a general election expected to be contested
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
` Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
`
`GINSBURG, J., dissenting
`more vigorously than was the Senate seat in 2010. See
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Joint App. to Reply Brief in No. 13–658 (MDNC),
`Doc. 164, pp. 2783–2788, 2805–2806.
`
`Accordingly, I would retain, pending full adjudication of
`
`this case, the preliminary injunction ordered by the Court
`of Appeals.