- Top legislative leaders and the North Carolina State Board of Elections both urge a federal judge to rule in their major against plaintiffs challenging a provision of state law linked to same-day voter registration.
- An injunction prevented the "undeliverable mail provision" from taking effect during the 2024 election cycle.
- Lawmakers filed a court document Friday rebutting plaintiffs' arguments that the law was designed to target young voters.
State legislative leaders and the North Carolina State Board of Elections urge a federal judge to rule in their favor in one of three lawsuits challenging a provision in state law affecting same-day voter registration.
An earlier court ruling blocked the provision from taking effect during the 2024 election cycle.
Plaintiffs led by activist group Democracy North Carolina challenged the section in 2023 legislation, Senate Bill 747, called the “undeliverable mail provision.”
Before SB 747, elections officials could remove a same-day voter’s ballot after receiving two pieces of undeliverable mail sent to the voter’s address. SB 747 would have cut the number of undeliverable mailings from two to one.
The Democracy NC suit accused lawmakers of targeting young voters in violation of the 26th Amendment. The complaint also argued that the change in state law violated voters’ due process rights and created an undue burden on the right to vote.
The law’s actual goal was “enhancing public confidence in elections,” according to a court filing Friday from legislative leaders. Lawmakers and the State Board of Elections both filed motions for summary judgment in the case.
If US District Judge Thomas Schroeder grants summary judgment, he would not proceed with a trial scheduled for “late summer.”
“The Undeliverable Mail Provision stemmed from concerns with difficulties in verifying addresses close in time to the election,” the court filing continued. “Under the pre-747 scheme, there was little time for completion of two mailers before canvass — especially for voters using [same-day registration] towards the end of early voting.”
“Indeed, the normal lag time with two mailers frequently meant the second mailer was returned as undeliverable after canvass, resulting in counted votes from unregistered persons,” legislative lawyers wrote.
“Plaintiffs attempt to minimize these real concerns and paint a picture of legislation designed to target 18–25-year-olds,” the court filing added. “The undisputed facts show otherwise. It is undisputed that the NCSBE, after careful thought, suggested moving to a one verification mailing system, which the General Assembly adopted.”
“Plaintiffs also ignore several substantive recommendations made by NCSBE which were adopted in full that enhanced the Undeliverable Mail Provision’s administrative practicability — including a specific recommendation that a [Help America Vote Act] document serve as proof of residence, which was aimed at helping college students.”
“Central to Plaintiffs’ case are allegations that the General Assembly enacted S.B. 747 in order to obstruct or limit young voters from utilizing SDR. But the factual record shows that age was never a consideration when drafting S.B. 747,” lawmakers’ lawyers argued.
Schroeder placed on hold two other lawsuits challenging the same election law provision. One suit lists the Democratic National Committee and North Carolina Democratic Party as plaintiffs. The other lists Voto Latino and other left-of-center activist groups. Lawyers from Democratic operative Marc Elias’ law firm help represent Voto Latino plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in the other cases agreed with legislative defendants to put the cases on hold.
Democracy NC plaintiffs did not accept state legislative leaders’ request to pause their complaint.
Schroeder issued an injunction in January 2024 blocking the challenged provision from taking effect. The State Board of Elections then adopted temporary rules designed to address Schroeder’s concerns.
“Here, Plaintiffs are likely to show that the undeliverable mail provision of S. 747 imposes a substantial burden on SDR voters because it lacks notice and opportunity to be heard before removing the votes of a cast ballot from the count,” Schroeder wrote when issuing his injunction.
“For SDR voters, the lack of notice and opportunity to be heard is inconsistent with the State’s interest in counting all eligible voters’ ballots,” Schroeder concluded. “Moreover, given the lack of showing of an administrative burden on county boards of elections, the risk of irreparable injury, the balance of equities, and the public interest all weigh in favor of requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
Schroeder rejected all other arguments plaintiffs offered to block other sections of the new election law.