Several parties on the losing side of the Monday’s federal court decision upholding North Carolina’s 2013 election reforms wasted little time filing an appeal to the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder.

The North Carolina NAACP announced Tuesday that it would appeal the decision by Schroeder, who dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs.

Schroeder ruled that the legislation introduced as House Bill 589, which included a requirement for most voters to present state-authorized photo identification at the polls, does not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution or the federal Voting Rights Act.

“In short, North Carolina has provided legitimate state interests for its voter-ID requirement and electoral system that provides registration all year long up to 25 days before an election, absentee voting for up to 60 days before an election, 10 days of early voting at extended hours convenient for workers that includes one Sunday and two Saturdays, and Election Day voting,” Schroeder said in his opinion.

He also said North Carolina is not moving to an election system that is outside the mainstream of other states.

While Schroeder dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, he temporarily left in place a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals injunction allowing same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. Schroeder allowed those provisions to stay in place through the June 7 congressional and judicial primaries, citing the “Purcell doctrine,” which says that courts should refrain from issuing an opinion too close to an election if doing so would cause confusion.

Josh Lawson, general counsel for the State Board of Elections, said Schroeder’s ruling means the state’s election law is valid on all counts.

“That ranges from photo ID, the early-voting period is going to run for the same compacted period as it has since 2014, you’ve got to register by the deadline, and you’ve got to vote in your properly assigned precinct,” Lawson said. “That’s pending anything different happening.”

A lot different could happen between now and the November general election.

Since the plaintiffs have said they’ll appeal, the case likely will be assigned to a three-judge appeals panel from the 4th Circuit, Lawson said. After the three-judge panel rules, the case could be appealed to the full 4th Circuit, he said. Once those appeals are exhausted, parties have the option of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

Lawson said Schroeder’s 485-page opinion was filled with findings of fact, which could be crucial when the case gets to the Appeals Court.

“Every bit of law gets reviewed,” Lawson said, regarding the work done at the Appeals Court level.

But challenging facts is a different matter, Lawson said. “They’re only kicked out if the appellate judges find that there was clear error.” Lawson said the facts Schroeder cited were “really, really relevant.”

Lawson said that if the Appeals Court decides to block part of Schroeder’s ruling, he hopes the judges would do it sooner rather than later so that the State Board of Elections will have time to implement the order for the November general election.

“On our end, our last training for all the [county election officials] prior to the November election is in August,” Lawson said. He added that the state board is contractually obligated in August to send to the printer a judicial voter guide, which is mailed to 4.3 million North Carolina households.

Soon after the North Carolina NAACP said it would appeal Schroeder’s ruling, Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, issued a statement supporting the appeal.

“As soon as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina rushed to lead our nation in denying voting rights to its own people,” Henderson said. “As a country that prides itself on being a beacon of democracy to the world, that is a national disgrace.”

The ACLU also criticized the ruling.

“The sweeping barriers imposed by this law undermine voter participation and have an overwhelmingly discriminatory impact on African-Americans,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “This ruling does not change that reality.”

Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Deborah Ross used the ruling to seek campaign donations. In an email, Ross, a former state representative from Raleigh, referred to incumbent GOP U.S. Sen. Richard Burr’s inability to cast a traditional ballot in the primary because he did not have proper identification.

“Republicans in North Carolina have been trying to roll back voting rights and enact oppressive restrictions for years,” Ross said. “I saw it first hand when I was in the General Assembly where I stood against their efforts to silence voters and passed a measure with bipartisan support that allowed same-day voter registration during early voting.”

Republican Gov. Pat McCrory applauded the decision.

“This ruling further affirms that requiring a photo ID in order to vote is not only common-sense, it’s constitutional,” McCrory said. “Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and thankfully a federal court has ensured our citizens will have the same protection for their basic right to vote.”

The leaders of the Joint Legislative Election Oversight Committee, Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, and Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, issued a joint statement praising the ruling.

“Despite the small but shrill opposition who continue to abuse the courts in an attempt to overturn the will of the voters, another reasonable, common-sense law supported by a majority of North Carolinians has been upheld,” Rucho and Lewis said. “We are glad the court recognized the law provides all voters an equal opportunity to vote and stopped this politically motivated overreach from the Obama Justice Department.”

Lewis also pointed out that the photo ID law was in effect during the March 15 North Carolina primary.

“For all intents and purposes, it worked great,” Lewis said. “People have more confidence in the system because of this common-sense reform.”