Wonky civil procedure decision today (that is, Republicans filed in state courts and would have preferred to stay there; the board removed to federal court and wanted to stay there) in RNC v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections (lightly revised):

The Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the North Carolina Republican Party (“NCGOP”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed two state law claims, one statutory and one constitutional, in a North Carolina superior court against the North Carolina State Board of Elections and its members (“State Board”). Both claims stemmed from the State Board’s alleged noncompliance with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20901 et seq., a federal statute that was intended to improve voting systems and voter access. . . .

Count Two asserts that the State Board violated the Equal Protection Clause of the North
Carolina Constitution, Article 1 § 19, through HAVA violations that “open[ed] the door to
potential” vote dilution. . . .

We disagree with the district court’s conclusion that exercising federal jurisdiction over Count Two would open the floodgates to a wave of state constitutional litigation in federal court. Just as Grable found that “it will be the rare state title case that raises a contested matter of federal law,” we conclude that it will be the rare state equal protection case that turns on a violation of HAVA or the NVRA. In fact, we are aware of no other state constitutional case similar to this one, and Plaintiffs have pointed to none.

Plaintiffs’ Count Two claim may come cloaked in state constitutional garb, but it raises only federal statutory questions. Here, the alleged state constitutional claim necessarily turns on the contested interpretation of provisions of federal laws, HAVA and the NVRA. The viability of the state constitutional claim depends, therefore, on a court’s adopting Plaintiffs’ preferred reading of two federal statutes.

As the district court recognized, consideration of HAVA’s overall statutory scheme “leads to the conclusion that Congress intended for federal courts to resolve core questions of statutory interpretation.” HAVA authorizes the Attorney General to enforce compliance with its requirements “in an appropriate United States District Court.” HAVA § 21111 (emphasis added). We are confident that Congress did not intend to prevent federal courts from deciding cases where the sole issue, the interpretation of a federal statute, may determine who can vote in a federal election. The mere invocation of a state constitutional provision does not unsettle that conclusion.

Chief Judge Diaz concurred to explain why the RNC “barely” met the standing requirement in federal court, citing, among other things, FDA v. AHM.