N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory - 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016)

Rule:

When considering whether discriminatory intent motivates a facially neutral law, a court must undertake a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available. Challengers need not show that discriminatory purpose was the sole or even a primary motive for the legislation, just that it was a motivating factor. Discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts, including the fact, if it is true, that the law bears more heavily on one race than another. But the ultimate question remains: did the legislature enact a law because of, and not in spite of, its discriminatory effect.

Facts:

These consolidated cases challenge provisions of a recently enacted North Carolina election law. The district court rejected contentions that the challenged provisions violate the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. Voting in many areas of North Carolina is racially polarized. In North Carolina, restriction of voting mechanisms and procedures that most heavily affect African Americans will predictably redound to the benefit of one political party and to the disadvantage of the other. After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 186 L. Ed. 2d 651 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an "omnibus" election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

Issue:

Were the challenged provisions enacted with discriminatory intent?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court held that the district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing the historical background evidence, refusing to draw the obvious inference from the sequence of events leading to passage of 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 381, and refusing to acknowledge the import of the undisputed impact of the challenged provisions. After assessing the Arlington Heights factors, the appellate court concluded that provisions requiring photo ID, reducing the days of early voting, and eliminating same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and preregistration were enacted with racially discriminatory intent in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and § 2, 52 U.S.C.S. § 10301(a), of the Voting Rights Act. The State's proffered explanation was rejected where the only clear factor linking the various reforms was their impact on African American voters.