N.C. State Conference of the Naacp v. Cooper

397 F.Supp.3d 786

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF the NAACP, Chapel Hill—Carrboro NAACP, Greensboro NAACP, High Point NAACP, Moore County NAACP, Stokes County Branch of the NAACP, Winston-Salem—Forsyth County NAACP, Plaintiffs,

v.Roy Asberry COOPER III, in his official capacity as the Governor of North Carolina; Robert Cordle, in his official capacity as Chair of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Stella Anderson, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Kenneth Raymond, Jefferson Carmon III, and David C. Black, in their official capacities as members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections,¹ Defendants.

1:18CV1034

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.

Signed July 2, 2019

Andrew T. Tutt, James W. Cooper, Ralf O. Dunn, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Caitlin Swain-McSurely, Penda Denise Hair, Forward Justice, Washington, DC, John C. Ulin, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Leah J. Kang, Forward Justice, Durham, NC, Irving L. Joyner, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Cary, NC, for Plaintiffs.

Brian D. Rabinovitz, Amar Majmundar, Olga E. Vysotskaya De Brito, Paul M. Cox, Stephanie A. Brennan, N. C. Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit against the above-named Defendants, named only in their official capacities, challenging the validity of specific provisions of Senate Bill 824, titled "An Act to Implement the Constitutional Amendment Requiring Photographic Identification to Vote," ("S.B. 824" or "the Act"). (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the challenged provisions of S.B. 824 which they allege violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (the "VRA"), 52 U.S.C. § 10301,² as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.³ (Id. ¶¶ 105–46.) The following motions are before the Court: (i) Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay filed by State Board of Elections Chair Robert Cordle, State Board of Elections Secretary Stella Anderson, and State Board of Elections members Ken Raymond, Jefferson Carmon III, and David Black (collectively "State Board Defendants"), (ECF No. 42); (ii) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for a Stay filed by Roy Asberry Cooper III (the "Governor" or "Governor Cooper"), (ECF No. 44); and (iii) Plaintiffs' Motion for Scheduling Conference and Order, (ECF No. 54). For the reasons that follow, State Board Defendants' motion is denied, the Governor's motion is granted, and Plaintiffs' motion is denied as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 2018, North Carolina voters approved a ballot measure amending the North Carolina State Constitution to require voters to provide photographic identification before voting in person.⁴ (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 62, 64.) The ballot measure was placed on the November 2018 ballot following the North Carolina General Assembly's ("General Assembly") passage of Session Law 2018-128. (ECF No. 43-5 ¶¶ 12–13, 22.)

On December 5, 2018, the North Carolina General Assembly ("General Assembly") passed S.B. 824, which was thereafter vetoed by the Governor, on December 14, 2018. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 78.) The General Assembly nevertheless codified S.B. 824 into law—Session Law 2018-144—by an override of the Governor's veto on December 19, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 79.)

The instant lawsuit was filed in this Court on December 20, 2018 against the Governor and members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections in their official capacities. (See id. at 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiffs challenge the provisions of S.B. 824 which impose voter photo identification requirements, as well as the provisions "that expand the number of poll observers and the number[ ] of people who can challenge ballots." (Id. ¶¶ 106–07.) Plaintiffs allege that "[t]hese provisions, separately and together, will have a disproportionately negative impact on minority voters," (id. ¶ 80), ultimately resulting in "the effective denial of the franchise and dilution of [African American and Latino] voting strength," (id. ¶ 7). Plaintiffs' Complaint further alleges that the challenged provisions "impose discriminatory and unlawful burdens on the right to vote that are not justified by any legitimate or compelling state interest." (Id . ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent Defendants "from implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the [challenged] provisions of S.B. 824." (Id. ¶ 147.) All Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.⁵ (ECF Nos. 42, 44.) In the alternative, Defendants seek a stay of this action pending resolution of two state court proceedings—namely, Holmes, et al. v. Moore, et al. , Case No. 18 CVS 15292 ("Holmes "),⁶ currently pending in Wake County Superior Court, and North Carolina State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al. v. Tim Moore, et al. , Case No. 18 CVS 9806 ("NAACP "),⁷ currently pending before the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may seek dismissal based on the court's "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that relates to the court's power to hear a case and must be decided before a determination on the merits of the case. Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ. , 411 F.3d 474, 479–80 (4th Cir. 2005). A motion under Rule 12(b)(1) raises the question "whether [the plaintiff] has a right to be in the district court at all and whether the court has the power to hear and dispose of [the] claim." Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc. , 669 F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012). The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind. , 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936) ; Adams v. Bain , 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, a court should grant the motion "only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States , 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint," including whether it meets the pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2). Francis v. Giacomelli , 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), thereby "giv[ing] the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ).

"A district court should dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff's favor, the complaint does not allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co. , 708 F.3d 527, 539 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). A claim is plausible when the complaint alleges facts that suffice to allow "the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Johnson v. Am. Towers, LLC , 781 F.3d 693, 709 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). A complaint may fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in two ways: first, by failing to state a valid legal cause of action, i.e. , a cognizable claim, see Holloway , 669 F.3d at 452 ; or second, by failing to allege sufficient facts to support a legal cause of action, see Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown , 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013).

While a court's evaluation of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is "generally limited to a review of the allegations of the complaint itself," a court may also "consider a document submitted by the movant that was not attached to or expressly incorporated in a complaint, so long as the document was integral to the complaint and there is no dispute about the document's authenticity." Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd. , 822 F.3d 159, 165–66 (4th Cir. 2016). Here, no party has challenged the authenticity or relevance of the documents attached to Defendants' motions to dismiss. Therefore, in addition to considering the Complaint, the Court will also consider the exhibits attached to the instant motions to dismiss. See id.

III. DISCUSSION

A. State Board Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

State Board Defendants first argue that "[t]he ongoing [state court] proceedings in [the] NAACP and Holmes litigation suggest that this Court should, at this point, decline to or at least temporarily abstain from the exercise of federal jurisdiction based upon federalism concerns." (ECF No. 43 at 9.) They contend that the two state court proceedings "currently underway ... may resolve the outstanding issues related to the Act and thereby obviate the need for the Court's adjudication of the Act's validity." (Id. ) Thus, according to State Board Defendants, "[t]he facts of this case are appropriate for application of the Pullman abstention doctrine." (Id. ) Plaintiffs argue, in response, that "abstention would be inappropriate here" because Defendants have failed to "identif[y] a single provision in S.B. 824 that could be construed in a way to obviate the need to address Plaintiffs' federal law challenges to S.B....