A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE et al

Filing 124

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 10/27/2016. For the reasons, as set forth in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously with this Order, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 34) is GRA NTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant Strach shall issue a directive within five (5) days of the entry of this Order to all North Carolina county boards of election as set out. Defendants Thomas and Tennyson shall make available any written dec lination requested by any county board of elections in this state. Defendants Strach, Thomas, and Tennyson shall take all reasonable steps necessary to effectuate this Courts Order. Defendant Strach's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice and Additional Declarations (ECF No. 116) is DENIED. Defendant Strach's Objection to the Notice of Amended Proposed Order (ECF No. 111) is SUSTAINED, in that Plaintiffs' Amended Proposed Order will not be considered by the Court.(Powell, Gloria)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ACTION NC, DEMOCRACY NORTH
CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA A.
PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, SHERRY
DENISE HOLVERSON, ISABEL NAJERA,
AND ALEXANDRIA MARIE LANE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KIM WESTBROOK STRACH, RICK
BRAJER, KELLY THOMAS, AND NICK
TENNYSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-1063

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 34) filed
by Action NC, Democracy North Carolina, North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute,
Sherry Denise Holverson, Isabel Najera, and Alexandria Marie Lane.
For the reasons, including this Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as set
forth in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously with this Order, which Opinion
is incorporated herein as if fully set forth,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 34) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Strach shall issue a directive within
five (5) days of the entry of this Order to all North Carolina county boards of election. The

directive shall direct each county board of elections within the state to treat as registered to
vote any voter who satisfies the following criteria:
1. the voter has completed a covered transaction at DMV following DMV’s institution
of its 2015 declination policy requiring that declinations be in writing, 1 and the
covered transaction took place before the state’s voter registration deadline; 2
2. the voter casts a provisional ballot on November 8, 2016, attesting that he or she
submitted a voter registration application to DMV or updated his or her address at
DMV;
3. the relevant county board of elections, in addition to confirming that a covered
transaction took place after DMV implemented its 2015 declination policy, shall
also request that DMV provide any written declination of voter registration with
respect to that voter; and
4. if for any reason, DMV fails to produce such written declination and the voter
satisfies all other criteria under state and federal law to qualify as a registered voter,
that voter shall be deemed registered to vote in the November 8, 2016 General
Election.

1

(ECF No. 107-3 at 46:5–48:25; ECF No. 69-1 ¶¶ 9–10.)

North Carolina’s voter registration deadline is 25 days before an election. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 16382.6(c). This year that day fell on October 14, 2016. However, 36 counties in eastern North Carolina
had their registration deadline extended to October 19, 2016, due to the effects of Hurricane Matthew.
See North Carolina State Board of Elections, available at http://ncsbe2.azurewebsites.net/ (last visited Oct.
26, 2016).
2

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants Thomas and Tennyson shall make
available any written declination requested by any county board of elections in this state.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Strach, Thomas, and Tennyson shall
take all reasonable steps necessary to effectuate this Court’s Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Strach’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’
Notice and Additional Declarations (ECF No. 116) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Strach’s Objection to the Notice of
Amended Proposed Order (ECF No. 111) is SUSTAINED, in that Plaintiffs’ Amended
Proposed Order will not be considered by the Court.
This, the 27th day of October, 2016.

/s/ Loretta C. Biggs
United States District Judge

3