throbber
Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
`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.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket