Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Law With "Surgical Precision" Ruling

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down North Carolina’s comprehensive voter suppression law (HB 589) in a scathing ruling that finds the legislature “target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision.” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz’s opinion exposes how North Carolina Republicans requested racial data on voting practices, then systematically restricted every method disproportionately used by Black voters while preserving methods used by white voters—demonstrating intentional racial discrimination through data-driven suppression.

The Ruling

A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturns North Carolina’s 2013 voter ID law, finding it was enacted with discriminatory intent in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Judge Motz writes in the opinion: “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.”

The “surgical precision” phrase becomes iconic, capturing the court’s finding that North Carolina Republicans used racial data to design restrictions that would specifically suppress Black voter turnout. The opinion documents how legislators requested and received data on voting practices broken down by race, then crafted a law that eliminated or restricted every practice disproportionately used by African American voters.

Data-Driven Discrimination

The court’s opinion reveals the mechanics of modern voter suppression. The North Carolina Legislature “requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices”—including early voting, same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, pre-registration of 16-17 year olds, and forms of identification. Armed with this racial data showing which practices Black voters used at higher rates, legislators then “enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

This represents a sophisticated evolution in suppression tactics. Rather than using explicitly racial criteria (illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment), North Carolina used racial data to identify facially neutral practices that could be restricted to achieve discriminatory effects. The precision of this targeting—eliminating specific practices based on racial usage data—demonstrates intentional discrimination.

The court notes that the law’s provisions are “tailored to exclude African Americans from effective political participation.” Each restriction targets a voting method that data showed African Americans used at higher rates than white voters. This systematic pattern, combined with the legislature’s request for racial data, proves discriminatory intent beyond plausible deniability.

What the Law Restricted

HB 589 imposed multiple restrictions, all targeting practices disproportionately used by Black voters:

Strict Photo ID: Required government-issued photo ID, excluding forms disproportionately held by Black voters while accepting forms (like gun permits) held by white voters.

Reduced Early Voting: Cut early voting from 17 to 10 days, eliminating one of two “Souls to the Polls” Sundays when Black churches organized voting drives.

Eliminated Same-Day Registration: Ended the ability to register and vote during early voting, a method used by 96,000 North Carolinians in 2012, with Black voters using it at significantly higher rates.

Ended Pre-Registration: Eliminated the program allowing 16-17 year olds to pre-register, particularly effective at engaging young Black voters.

Eliminated Out-of-Precinct Voting: Prohibited counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, even for races where the voter was eligible.

Expanded Poll Observer Challenges: Increased partisan poll observers’ ability to challenge voters, creating intimidation in minority precincts.

Timing and Context

HB 589 was enacted in July 2013, immediately after the Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision eliminated Voting Rights Act preclearance. The timing is revealing: North Carolina Republicans had clearly prepared comprehensive voter suppression legislation in anticipation of Shelby County, implementing it within weeks of preclearance ending.

Under preclearance, HB 589 would have required federal approval before implementation. The Department of Justice would have examined the racial data and discriminatory targeting, almost certainly blocking the law. The Republican rush to implement HB 589 after Shelby County demonstrates the continued need for preclearance protections.

The 2016 court ruling comes three years after HB 589’s enactment, meaning the discriminatory law operated through the 2014 midterm elections and affected the 2016 primary season before being struck down. This delay illustrates litigation’s limitations: even when courts eventually provide relief, years of suppression occur first.

“Cures for Problems That Did Not Exist”

Judge Motz’s opinion notes that HB 589 imposes “cures for problems that did not exist.” North Carolina presented no credible evidence of voter fraud, non-citizen voting, or other problems justifying the restrictions. The law was justified with manufactured concerns about election integrity unsupported by evidence.

The court’s language is devastating: the restrictions are “inapt remedies” that don’t address any legitimate problem. This exposes voter suppression’s fundamental dishonesty—claiming to solve fraud that doesn’t exist while actually targeting minority voters based on racial data.

The opinion documents that North Carolina conducted no investigation of fraud before enacting HB 589, requested no data on fraud, and presented no evidence of fraud during litigation. Instead, legislators requested racial data on voting practices—revealing their actual concern wasn’t fraud but the voting behavior of Black residents.

Supreme Court Response

North Carolina Republicans appeal to the Supreme Court, but in May 2017, the Court declines to hear the case, allowing the Fourth Circuit’s ruling to stand. This represents a significant voting rights victory in the post-Shelby County era, though it cannot undo the years of suppression under HB 589.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to revive the law is notable given the Court’s general hostility to voting rights protections during this period. The Fourth Circuit’s finding of intentional racial discrimination based on the “surgical precision” targeting is so clear that even the conservative Supreme Court declines to intervene.

Significance

The Fourth Circuit’s “surgical precision” ruling exposes modern voter suppression’s mechanics. The opinion provides a roadmap for identifying intentional discrimination in facially neutral laws: look for requests for racial data, examine whether restrictions correlate with racial usage patterns, and assess whether justifications are pretextual.

The case demonstrates how the Voting Rights Act’s remaining protections (Section 2) can still remedy discrimination, even after Shelby County eliminated preclearance. However, the three-year delay between HB 589’s enactment and the Fourth Circuit ruling shows the limitations of reactive litigation compared to proactive preclearance.

North Carolina’s use of racial data to design suppression becomes the defining example of modern discriminatory intent. The legislature’s request for racial voting data, followed by restrictions perfectly targeting Black voters, creates a paper trail proving discrimination. This represents both sophisticated suppression (using data to maximize effect) and remarkable sloppiness (documenting discriminatory intent through data requests).

The “surgical precision” phrase enters the voting rights lexicon as shorthand for data-driven racial discrimination. It captures how modern suppression uses analytics and targeted restrictions rather than explicit racial classifications, achieving discriminatory effects while maintaining surface neutrality.

The ruling also validates Justice Ginsburg’s Shelby County dissent. North Carolina proves that removing preclearance unleashes immediate voter suppression in states with discrimination histories. Within weeks of Shelby County, North Carolina implements comprehensive suppression that preclearance would have blocked—confirming that these jurisdictions need federal oversight.

The case demonstrates courts’ crucial but limited role in protecting voting rights. The Fourth Circuit provides thorough analysis of discriminatory intent and strikes down egregious suppression. However, HB 589 operates for three years before being invalidated, affecting multiple elections. The damage done during litigation cannot be remedied—suppressed voters, changed election outcomes, and normalized suppression tactics persist even after legal victories.

Finally, the “surgical precision” ruling shows how discovery and litigation can expose suppression’s racist foundations. North Carolina’s documented requests for racial data provide smoking-gun evidence of discriminatory intent. This transparency proves valuable for advocates challenging similar laws in other states, providing a template for identifying and proving intentional racial discrimination in modern voter suppression.