Last Updated: May 6, 2016 at 3:47 PM
Currie v. North Carolina
Case Information
Date Filed: August 12, 2013
State: North Carolina
Issues: Voter ID, Voter Supression, Voting Rights Act
Courts that Heard this Case: North Carolina Orange County Superior Court (Case 13-CV-001419)
Issue:
1. Do Voter ID requirements violate Article VI of the North Carolina Constitution?
2. Do the Photo ID costs violate Article I Section 10 of the North Carolina Constitution?
3. Do the Photo ID property requirements violate Article I Section 11 of the North Carolina Constitution?
4. Do Photo ID requirements impose burdens on classes of voters in violation of Article I Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?
5. Do the Photo ID requirements create an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of Article 1 Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?
6. Does the State purposefully discriminate against African-American voters in violation Article 1 Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?
Status:
Complaint filed 8/12/13. Answer filed 11/14/13. Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Conference filed 9/16/14. Order regarding Motion for Judgment on Pleadings filed 2/24/15. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed 6/30/15. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Motion for Temporary Stay until after primary election filed 7/2/15.
District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 8/12/13) - Motion to Designate as Exceptional Case
(filed 8/13/13) - Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
(filed 8/30/13) - Order Granting Extension of Time to Answer
- Amended Complaint
(filed 10/8/13) - Order Designating Case as Exceptional Case
- Answer
(filed 11/14/13) - Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Conference (filed 9/16/14)
- Order regarding Parties' Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
(filed 2/24/15) - Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
(filed 6/30/15) - Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Motion for Temporary Stay
(filed 7/2/15)


Commentary
Gerrymandering as Viewpoint Discrimination: A "Functional Equivalence" Test
Edward B. Foley
A First Amendment test for identifying when a map is functionally equivalent to a facially discriminatory statute.
more commentary...