Schroeder Grants Injunction Against Part of S 747

 

The lawsuit against part of S 747, "Same-Day Voter Registration," which the Watauga Voting Rights Task Force initiated (background here) was finally concluded late yesterday when Federal Judge Thomas Schroeder issued an injunction against the mail verification part of that law -- until the General Assembly fixes it by giving a voter "notice and an opportunity to be heard" for why their legitimate vote should not be thrown out.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, are HEREBY ENJOINED from utilizing the procedures of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.6B(d) to remove from the official count the votes of the ballot of any voter who has provided contact information in the registration process and whose first notice required under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.7(c) is returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable before the close of business on the business day before the canvass, without first providing such voter notice and an opportunity to be heard, and, only to this extent, Voto Latino Plaintiff’s motion (VL Doc. 44) and Party Plaintiff’s motion (DNC Doc. 6) are GRANTED. This injunction shall remain in force until such time as a procedure for notice and opportunity to be heard is implemented in accordance therewith.

The judge was obviously moved by the examples provided by Watauga County of valid voters who same-day registered and voted but who did not receive their mandated verification mailing because of clerical or post office error and through no fault of their own. The new law would have canceled their vote and their voter registration with no provision for notifying the voter and allowing them to confirm their true address.

The Ball Bounces Back to Judge Schroeder's Court

 

Previously:

AppState Student Union during Early Voting

On December 28, Federal Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the Middle District of North Carolina heard arguments for and against an injunction to enjoin part of S 747, "Elections Law Changes," the sweeping bill fiddling with ballot access that was ultimately passed by veto override in the General Assembly on October 10th.

Watauga Co Voting Rights Task Force (WCVRT) et al. v State Bd of Elections and Philip E. Berger et al. targets one particular section of S 747, "same-day" voter registration, specifically the "undeliverable mail provision" which can disenfranchise same-day registrants because of stupid postal or clerical errors.

Following the General Election of 2022, the WCVRT tracked same-day registrants whose votes were challenged because a card-mailing to their addresses of record was returned as undeliverable, almost always because of computer or clerical error. The same-day registrants were qualified voters but were in jeopardy because of dumb mistakes. For example, mail was returned that had been directed to Ms. Xxxxx Xxxxx, address "SAME." "Same"? Because there are two lines for addresses on VR forms -- the 1st one for a physical residential address and the second for a mailing address if different from the physical address. When Ms. Xxxxx appeared at her polling location during early voting to update her address and cast a ballot, the poll worker wrote her residential address on the 1st line and wrote "Same" on the second. No post office on earth is going to delliver a piece of mail addressed "Same."

After hearing arguments, which most observers thought tilted favorably to the plaintiffs, Judge Schroeder punted, asked the two sides to work out a compromise that would lift the burden off him of ruling the law unconstitutional because it denied voters due process. Schroeder gave the two sides seven days to work something out.

WRAL reported on Friday that the two sides have failed to reach a compromise (huge surprise, right?). "The matter now lies in Schroeder's hands."

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled Schroeder before on a fair elections case. Don't you think that must be on his mind right now?

Watauga Voting Rights Task Force Goes To Court

 

Next Thursday, December 28, an important request for an injunction to enjoin part of S 747, "Elections Law Changes," goes in front of Federal Judge Thomas D. Schroeder in the Middle District of North Carolina for a ruling. The sweeping S 747 ultimately passed by veto override in the General Assembly on October 10th.

Watauga Co Voting Rights Task Force (WCVRT) et al. v State Bd of Elections and Philip E. Berger et al. targets one particular section of S 747, "same-day" voter registration, specifically the "undeliverable mail provision" which can disenfranchise same-day registrants because of stupid postal or clerical errors. 

Following the General Election of 2022, the WCVRT tracked same-day registrants whose votes were challenged because a card-mailing to their addresses of record was returned as undeliverable, almost always because of computer or clerical error. The same-day registrants were qualified voters but were in jeopardy because of dumb mistakes. For example, mail was returned that had been directed to Ms. Xxxxx Xxxxx, address "SAME." "Same"? Because there are two lines for addresses on VR forms -- the 1st one for a physical residential address and the second for a mailing address if different from the physical address. When Ms. XXXX appeared at her polling location during early voting to update her address and cast a ballot, the poll worker wrote her residential address on the 1st line and wrote "Same" on the second.

Dumb stuff like that can disenfranchise a voter, but S 747 went even further in targeting young voters. The law as passed would not only throw out a ballot of an "undeliverable mail" addressee -- it will do so automatically, with no notice nor means of appeal for the voter -- but also cancel the voter registration itself.

The WCVRT came to the defense of same-day voters. Meanwhile, Judge Schroeder has his own history of rulings on election law changes. In 2016, the Republican bosses in Raleigh, in the same bill mandating voter photo ID, attempted to end same-day registration altogether. That omnibus law also cut early-voting by a week; ended preregistration, which allowed people to sign up before their 18th birthdays; and repealed the provision that counted out-of-precinct ballots. The NAACP sued for an injunction against the entire law, which came before Judge Schroeder, who in April 2016 ruled it all perfectly fine by him. Fortunately, that decision was soon overturned by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled it all unconstitutional.

Judge Schroeder Can't Find the Melody

U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder, the conservative George W. Bush appointee who was famously overturned on NC voting rights by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, has issued a limited (very) injunction against HB2 as it relates to just three people, while keeping the law intact for everyone else. Gee, thanks for clearing that up, Judge.

Schroeder's ruling blocks the UNC system from enforcing the bathroom portion of the controversial law for three transgender residents who have challenged it. Schroeder said the three plaintiffs -- two students and one worker at various UNC-system institutions -- were likely to succeed on claims that HB2 violates federal anti-discrimination law, but the judge -- threading the needle -- also thought the equal protection claims did not seem likely to succeed. Huh?

How confusing is Schroeder's order? The three plaintiffs said they were relieved, while Phil Berger and Tim Moore, the legislative geniuses who rammed HB2 through the General Assembly in less than a day, issued their boilerplate praise that the judge had upheld the law that will keep "grown men out of women's bathrooms." Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Judge Schroeder did manage to point out that Berger-Moore had passed a law with no enforcement mechanism. Governor Squishy likes to brag that HB2 is "commonsense" law meant to protect privacy, but Schroeder wrote in his decision that so far the governor and the other honchos defending HB2 have not provided any evidence that allowing transgender people to use the restroom of their gender identity poses a privacy or public-safety risk.

“Ultimately, the record reflects what counsel for Governor McCrory candidly speculates was the status quo ante in North Carolina in recent years: some transgender individuals have been quietly using bathrooms and other facilities that match their gender identity, without public awareness or incident,” Schroeder wrote.

He also said transgender people “generally seek to avoid having their nude or partially nude bodies exposed in bathrooms, showers, and other similar facilities.”

At times, Judge Schroeder can actually make out the trees; he just never sees the forest.

Judge Schroeder Now Making Decisions About HB2

Thomas Schroeder

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder will be hearing arguments today in Winston-Salem on the constitutionality of HB2. Specifically, Schroeder will be hearing a request from challengers of the law to block its implementation until a trial can be held.

Schroeder ... where have we heard his name before? Oh, yeah. He was the judge whose "hunky-dory" ruling on North Carolina's new election law restrictions was just overturned -- more accurately, pounded into sand -- by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Today, Schroeder will be -- should be -- assessing whether the challengers of HB2 have a "likelihood for success" down the road in a trial, a factor that usually weighs heavily in a judge’s decision to block a law while a legal challenge pends.

Governor McCrory's lawyers are, of course, arguing that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting both the privacy and the safety of citizens from the fantasy predations of transgender people, an argument -- who the hell knows? -- that Judge Schroeder may find himself enamored of.

The challengers of HB2 have tons of evidence on their side that transgender people are the ones who suffer threats to privacy and safety (especially safety) under laws like the one McCrory signed.