North Carolina Cases September 09, 2022: Holmes v. Moore
Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
Date: Sept. 9, 2022
Case Description
876 S.E.2d 903 (Mem)
Jabari HOLMES, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, and Paul Kearney, Sr.
v.
Timothy K. MOORE, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; David R. Lewis, in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Select Committee on Elections for the 2018 Third Extra Session; Ralph E. Hise, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Elections for the 2018 Third Extra Session; the State of North Carolina; and the North Carolina State Board of Elections
No. 342PA19-2
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
September 9, 2022
Allison J. Riggs, Attorney at Law, For Holmes, Jabari, et al.
Jeffrey Loperfido, Attorney at Law, For Holmes, Jabari, et al.
Nathan A. Huff, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Moore, Timothy K. (Official Capacity), et al.
Nicole J. Moss, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K. (Official Capacity), et al.
Terence Steed, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina, et al.
Laura H. McHenry, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina, et al.
Mary Carla Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina, et al.
Hilary H. Klein, Attorney at Law, For Holmes, Jabari, et al.
Matthew Nis Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Professor Justin Grimmer.
David Thompson, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K. (Official Capacity), et al.
Peter Patterson, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K. (Official Capacity), et al.
Joseph O. Masterman, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K. (Official Capacity), et al.
Nicholas Varone, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K. (Official Capacity), et al.
John Tienken, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K. (Official Capacity), et al.
Jane B. O'Brien, Attorney at Law, For Holmes, Jabari, et al.
Paul D. Brachman, Attorney at Law, For Holmes, Jabari, et al.
Andrew J. Ehrlich, Attorney at Law, For Holmes, Jabari, et al.
[876 S.E.2d 904]
ORDER
On 14 January 2022, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Discretionary Review Prior to Determination by the Court of Appeals. This Court issued an order allowing the petition on 3 March 2022. On 11 July 2022, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited Hearing and Consideration and legislative defendants filed a response.
In light of the great public interest in the subject matter of this case, the importance of the issues to the constitutional jurisprudence of this State, and the need to reach a final resolution on the merits at the earliest possible opportunity, plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Hearing and Consideration is allowed as follows: This case shall be scheduled for oral argument as soon as practicable, on a date to be determined during arguments scheduled the week of 3 October 2022, or by special setting no later than 18 October 2022.
By order of the Court in Conference, this the 9 day of September 2022.
Chief Justice NEWBY dissenting.
Once more, the majority expedites the hearing of a case where no jurisprudential reason supports doing so. See Harper v. Hall , ––– N.C. ––––, 874 S.E.2d 902 (2022) (mem.) (Barringer, J., dissenting) (order granting motion for expedited hearing). Given the impending November elections, expedited hearing in October on this voter ID matter will likely cause voter confusion, see Purcell v. Gonzalez , 549 U.S. 1, 4-5, 127 S.Ct. 5, 166 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006), especially when this Court recently entered a decision in another case involving voter ID, N.C. NAACP v. Moore, et al. , ––– N.C. ––––, 2022-NCSC-99, 876 S.E.2d 513. Additionally, the trial court's permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs remains intact. Expedited consideration, therefore, will not provide plaintiffs any new relief that they do not already enjoy. Accordingly, nothing suggests that expedited hearing is necessary "[t]o prevent manifest injustice" or to protect "the public interest." N.C. R. App. P. 2.
Justices BERGER and BARRINGER join in this dissent.