- The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments Monday in a lawsuit pitting state and national Republican groups against the North Carolina State Board of Elections and Democratic National Committee. The suit challenges 225,000 voter registrations in the Tar Heel State.
- US Chief District Judge Richard Myers dismissed part of the lawsuit on Oct. 17. Myers ruled that the case's state constitutional claims should be resolved in North Carolina's state courts.
- Federal appellate judges will discuss whether the case should remain in federal court. Republicans support Myers' ruling. The state elections board, Democratic National Committee, and NAACP all filed paperwork urging the federal courts to keep the case.
The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments Monday in a lawsuit Republican groups filed against the North Carolina State Board of Elections. The suit challenges the process the elections board used to register 225,000 voters.
US Chief District Judge Richard Myers dismissed part of the suit on Oct. 17. Myers called for the rest of the case to head back to state court. He said state judges should decide whether the elections board’s action violated the state constitution.
Federal appellate judges are considering whether the case should remain in the federal courts or return to state court.
The Republican National Committee and North Carolina Republican Party filed a brief Thursday urging the 4th Circuit to uphold Myers’ ruling.
“Contrary to the hyperbolic characterizations replete in the opening briefs, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not seek to ‘purge nearly a quarter million voters from the State’s voter rolls,'” GOP lawyers wrote. “Instead, due to Defendants’ refusal to comply with state law, Plaintiffs seek a court-ordered plan requiring Defendants to do what they should have done months ago: confirm registrant eligibility.”
Myers “correctly remanded” the case back to state court, “observing the novel issues of North Carolina law presented,” the Republican court filing continued. “Indeed, state courts — not federal courts — should determine unsettled questions of state law. The district court properly recognized the significant comity concerns and declined Defendants’ invitation. Now, Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant ask this Court to overlook those realities and inject itself into the fray based on little more than hyperbole and alarmism.”
The state elections board, Democratic National Committee, and NAACP all filed briefs Wednesday night objecting to the move.
“That was error,” lawyers for the state elections board wrote about Myers’ refusal to address the case’s state constitutional claims. “[E]ven if the district court did not have mandatory jurisdiction over Count Two, it certainly had supplemental jurisdiction over it. Given the need for expeditious resolution of this litigation and the fact that the district court is most familiar with the issues raised, it should have retained jurisdiction.”
The District Court “abused its discretion” by ruling that the case should head back to state court, according to the DNC court filing. Democrats intervened in the case to oppose the Republican groups.
The DNC urged the 4th Circuit to direct that Myers dismiss the rest of the GOP group’s case. “Plaintiffs have no viable cause of action, and they ask for relief that would itself violate federal law — including the constitutional right to due process and a statutory ban on systematically removing voters from the rolls shortly before any federal election. They also have yet to identify a single person whose eligibility the State Board has not confirmed or who is otherwise not eligible to vote,” Democratic lawyers wrote.
“[L]ike many other lawsuits filed in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada, this lawsuit is so marred with defects that it is best understood as an effort simply to sow doubt about the integrity of North Carolina’s elections, in which over 1 million votes have already been cast,” the Democrats’ court filing claimed.
The NAACP and two individual voters filed paperwork asking to submit a friend-of-the-court brief in the case supporting North Carolina elections officials.
“The removal of 225,000 voters from the rolls will undo all the hard work that North Carolina NAACP has done ahead of the 2024 General Election,” the organization’s lawyers wrote. “Furthermore, North Carolina NAACP will have to divert significant organizational resources away from other planned activities, including voter mobilization, to assist its members and other eligible voters should a massive purge occur before election day.”
Myers issued his decision in the case after a hearing in Wilmington.
He first rejected a request from state and national Republican groups to send the entire case back to state court. The judge then determined that he could address one of two claims GOP groups made in their initial lawsuit in state court.
The RNC and NCGOP filed their first claim under a state law — NC Gen. Stat. § 163-82.11 (c) — alleging that the State Board of Elections failed to maintain its voter registration list in compliance with the federal Help America Vote Act.
Myers determined that the Republican groups had no right to bring the suit.
“In reaching its conclusion that Count One fails on the merits, the court is not insensitive to Plaintiffs’ concerns about election integrity and voter disenfranchisement,” Myers wrote in his 44-page order. “Nor is its decision in any way a stamp of approval on Defendants’ conduct. But ‘[r]aising up causes of action where a statute has not created them’ is ‘for common-law courts,’ not this ‘federal tribunal[].’”
“In the absence of any indication that North Carolina’s General Assembly intended for private litigants to enforce the provisions of Section 163-82.11, this court may not appoint itself as ‘oversee[r]’ of ‘executive action,’ which ‘would significantly alter the allocation of power … away from a democratic form of government.’”
Myers refused to rule on the Republican groups’ second complaint, “a direct claim under the North Carolina Constitution, alleging that ‘Defendants’ actions directly interfere with North Carolinian’ s fundamental right to vote.’”
That claim “raises a ‘novel’ issue of North Carolina law (whether the State’s noncompliance with state and federal election law can give rise to state constitutional injury).” Myers cited “compelling [federalism] reasons for declining” to address that issue. “[S]tate courts should decide the scope and extent of state constitutional rights,” he wrote.
“Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Two and remands that claim to state court, which will ‘best promote the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,’” Myers concluded.
The voter registration lawsuit filed in August argued that the elections board failed to require identification from prospective voters to prove citizenship. GOP groups argued that by violating the Help America Vote Act and not checking the identification of approximately 225,000 voters, the agency opened the door for noncitizens to vote.
According to the suit, the NCSBE used a voter registration form before December 2023 that failed to require HAVA-required identification information, such as a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number.
The RNC and NCGOP argued that the elections board “has refused to take remedial action and did not reach out to these voters to collect the required information. The agency has offered a half-hearted promise to North Carolinians that those ineligible to register, but were allowed to anyways, will naturally filter themselves out.”
The suit called for the State Board of Elections to remove affected voters from the voting rolls or to force them to cast provisional ballots in this fall’s election.