[EL] North Carolina

[Rick Hasen]

    No North Carolina Ruling from #SCOTUS Yet: What Does It Mean?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66469>

Posted onOctober 7, 2014 3:05 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66469>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

It is the end of the work day on the East Coast, and the day has come 
and gone with no order from the Supreme Court on North Carolina's 
request to stop the 4th Circuit's order requiring the restoration of 
same day voter registration and the counting of out-of-precinct ballots 
which the state of NC legislature had cut in a controversial election 
bill passed by the Republican-dominated legislature.

I had expected a ruling by now, primarily because Chief Justice Roberts 
put the case on the extremely fast track for decision--requiring the 
challengers to the North Carolina law to file a response to North 
Carolina's motion by Sunday at 5 pm.  In contrast, Justice Kagan in the 
Wisconsin voter id case, gave the state of Wisconsin until Tuesday to 
file their response.

So why the delay?

There is no way to know from the outside, but here are some 
possibilities, beginning with the most likely.

1. Someone is dissenting, or at least writing something to explain the 
decision.  In the Ohio case, issued last week, the vote was 5-4 but 
there was no explanation from either the (conservative) majority or the 
(liberal) dissenters. Someone may want to say something here, either 
objecting to or explaining what the Court is doing.

2. The Court decided it wants more information and decided to wait. 
Today the trial court held a status hearing in the case and, according 
toa just-filed 
letter<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/14A358-10-7-Letter-from-Respondents.pdf>from 
NC challengers, the state said it would be easy to implement the 4th 
Circuit's order. The challengers promise a transcript and no doubt NC 
will object to this characterization.

3. The Court wants to decide the North Carolina and Wisconsin case 
together, or perhaps a dissenter wants to reference a potential 
inconsistent treatment of the Purcell delay issue in the two cases. That 
would mean waiting until the further briefing came in in the Wisconsin case.

We may have a better sense of which, if any, of this speculation is 
correct when the order arrives. If it comes after 5 pm Eastern tomorrow, 
however, I'll be leaving for a flight and the great Justin Levitt, who 
will be guest blogging, will provide you with all the details.  (What, 
you don't yet follow him on Twitter? Wellfix that right now 
<https://twitter.com/_justinlevitt_>!)

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66469&title=No%20North%20Carolina%20Ruling%20from%20%23SCOTUS%20Yet%3A%20What%20Does%20It%20Mean%3F&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141007/0189b9e5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141007/0189b9e5/attachment.png>