Court blocks ‘discriminatory’ North Carolina voter ID law
NEWS & RECORD VIA AP
A “NC Voter ID” rules poster hangs at the door of the voting station at the Alamance Fire Station in Greensboro, N.C. on March 15. A federal appeals court today blocked a North Carolina law that required voters to produce photo identification and follow other rules disproportionately affecting minorities, finding that the law was intended to make it harder for blacks to vote in the presidential battleground state.
RALEIGH, N.C. » A federal appeals court today blocked a North Carolina law that required voters to produce photo identification and follow other rules disproportionately affecting minorities, finding that the law was intended to make it harder for blacks to vote in the presidential battleground state.
The Virginia-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the measures violated the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act by targeting black voters “with almost surgical precision.” It marks another ruling in less than two weeks against voter ID laws, along with court decisions regarding Texas and Wisconsin.
Today’s opinion from a three-judge panel states that “the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history” when it rewrote voting laws in 2013.
The appeals court also dismissed arguments by Republican lawmakers that the law was aimed at preventing voter fraud.
“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 opinion states.
Opponents of the law say the ruling should increase participation by black and Hispanic voters on Election Day in the state that also has closely contested races for U.S. Senate and governor. The U.S. Justice Department, state NAACP and League of Women Voters were among those who sued over the restrictions.
“This is a strong rebuke to what the North Carolina General Assembly did in 2013. It’s a powerful precedent that … federal courts will protect voting rights of voters of color,” said Allison Riggs, who served as the League of Women Voters’ lead lawyer.
The Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP, said the ruling was “a vindication of our constitutional and moral critique and challenge to the constitutional extremism of our government.”
The decision was lauded by Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, but decried by Republicans including Gov. Pat McCrory as an effort to tilt the electoral balance in the November elections.
North Carolina legislative leaders Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore, both Republicans, issued a statement that they would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and blasted the judges as “three partisan Democrats.”
“We can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians … to steal the election,” they said.
All three panel members were appointed by Democratic presidents.
However, it’s unlikely that the evenly divided and short-handed Supreme Court would take the case or block Friday’s ruling from governing elections this November, said election-law experts Ned Foley of Ohio State University and Richard Hasen of the University of California at Irvine.
Later in the day, a federal judge in Wisconsin upheld that state’s voter ID law but threw out a number of GOP-written statutes that restricted voting.
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled that Texas’ strict voter ID law is discriminatory and must be weakened by November. That followed a ruling by a federal judge in Wisconsin that residents without a photo ID will still be allowed to vote.
Hasen said the Obama administration took on the North Carolina and Texas cases as a bulwark against voting restrictions.
“If North Carolina and Texas could get away with these voting restrictions, it would have been a green light for other states to do so,” he said. “I think this is a hugely important decision.”
North Carolina’s voting laws were rewritten in 2013 by the General Assembly two years after Republicans took control of both legislative chambers for the first time in a century. It was also shortly after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed the requirement that many Southern states receive federal approval before changing voting laws.
The voter ID mandate, which took effect in March, required people casting ballots in person to show one of six qualifying IDs, although voters facing “reasonable impediments” could fill out a form and cast a provisional ballot.
North Carolina legislators imposed the photo ID requirement, curtailed early voting and eliminated same-day registration and voters’ ability to cast out-of-precinct provisional ballots in their home counties.
The appeals court cited data that these methods were used disproportionately by black voters, who also were more likely to lack a qualifying ID, and it blocked the contested provisions of the law.
The judges wrote that in the years before the North Carolina law took effect, registration and participation by black voters had been dramatically increasing.
“We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination,” the panel said.
The Rev. Moses Colbert, a 61-year-old pastor at a church in Gastonia, said the elimination of same-day registration ensured that he couldn’t vote on Election Day 2014 shortly after moving within North Carolina. He’d sought to change his voter registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles, but the update didn’t get to county officials by the election.
He was told his name wasn’t on the rolls where he’d just moved. But when he drove 20 miles back to the county where he was registered before, election workers turned him away because of the new address on his license.
“I was stunned. I’m only two generations away from slavery,” said Colbert, who is black. “This is a privilege every American needs to be allowed to exercise.”
28 responses to “Court blocks ‘discriminatory’ North Carolina voter ID law”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If this is unconstitutional then the bank secrecy act is unconstitutional. You can’t open a bank account or buy a car without a government issued id. Also, when I used to vote in person I had to provide a government issued ID.
Get a life. You haven’t got a clue about the ID requirements for buying a car or opening a bank account.
You have no clue, I ve been a bank regulator and a bank risk specialist for 30 years I know about the BSA.
Three judges appointed by democrat presidents. Hmmm. Discrimination? Have the judges prove it as voter registration applied to everyone. If Hillary gets elected, she will appoint more liberal judges. Supreme Court judges are old so need to be replaced. She stated that if elected, she will appoint her buddy Obama. And she also stated she will disrupt the 2nd amendment. So very important that you vote for the Donald for at least this reason – 8 years of Obama is enough and another 4-8 years more of her would be diasterous.
First, before you dispenser judicial advice, learn how to spell. Two, the federal district courts involved are routinely considered conservative. Three, at the very least, comment on things you have a modicum of actual knowledge about….
Breath in. Breath out. Feel better now? If you don’t, who cares?
It’s amusing when someone calls out another for a spelling or grammatical error while committing a similar offense…
You said it straight and clear Kiragirl!
I have never voted without picture I.D..
And I have never been able to enter the Federal Building without a photo ID to see members of our Congressional delegation, Democrats who strongly oppose photo ID to vote.
I’m curious as to what the other conditions were, as asking for some sort of photo ID in order to vote seems a minimal requirement.
A photo ID is not required in Hawai’i to vote, and never has been.
I know this will never happen, but there should be some kind of internal rule that commenters follow that would prevent them from writing and posting a comment if they haven’t read the facts of the case – in this case, the Court’s decision.
There’s no question whatever that this law was designed specifically to prevent minorities (mostly black) from voting. No question at all. North Carolina was not able to cite a single case of in-person voter fraud before enacting this. The legislature wanted to prevent the growing minority population in the state from voting. Period.
This was a solution in search of a problem, and the remedy resulted in clear discrimination. The Fourth Circuit is correct.
Actually, in communicating with the SA comment chief, very soon they will indeed be implementating a different screening software package, which would be aimed directly at comments containing derogatory wordage. Words like ” racist”, “ignorant”,”imbecile”, “liar”, etc. Looking forward to an actual return to some degree of civility, forced perhaps, but still a move in the right direction.
Civil Beat’s system is dauntingly cumbersome and I regret their backing off from the policy of trying to use real names but for the most part, one doesn’t see the level of trolling and inflammatory ad hominem commenting that one finds here.
I agree with you. a greater degree of civility would be welcome.
And it’s best if that civility is forced on people. I know that in the old days, adults could make a decision on their own to read something or not, but thankfully, we all have hawaiikone to make those decisions for us. Happy days!
Maybe you could encourage hawaiikone to work up a list of approved books and websites also. And a list of places to go that won’t injure the sensibilities? It’s important to have a stranger make those decisions for other adults.
If you hear of any book burning parties, please tell the rest of us, OK?
In the “old days”, you had to either insult someone to their face or write trash on a bathroom stall. Whether today’s expanded venues are an improvement is another subject entirely.
hawaiikone – So that required you to appoint yourself as the Thought Police? Please….
Censorship is never a good idea in a free society. Never.
Apparently the SA digital editor has thought for quite awhile that blocking personal insults is a good concept for this forum, and, although I did not contact him regarding that subject, I tend to agree. Feel free to walk anywhere you chose and hurl as many as you wish, but it sounds as though your time here doing so may be limited.
And, by the way, your own desire for SA’s censorship as posted above certainly mocks the string of objections you’ve voiced against me.
It’s sad that adults think they need protection like that. But some are more weak than others.
And I’m sure you’re proud of assisting with this censorship. Great work!
I hesitate to drop labels on others, even with abundant evidence, but, if necessary, I will. The big difference between you and is that I would only do it one on one, face to face. It’s called accountability. Continually insulting others anonymously behind a keyboard requires nothing, and accomplishes nothing. A lot of us that comment here feel there’s no justification for a pilau mouth, and, certainly not for one spouting behind a screen.
hawaiikone – Well, thanks again for protecting other adults, and injecting your judgment where it was not requested and is neither wanted or needed.
I’ve suggested this before, but you apparently didn’t understand my suggestion. Just don’t read my comments. I won’t lose any sleep.
Supporting efforts to tone down offensive verbiage may be ridiculed by some, but I’m guessing it’s also encouraged by others. So I’ll take your suggestion for what it’s worth, recognizing it comes from only you..
Well, if something is offensive to you, then obviously, it’s offensive to everyone else. That makes perfect sense.
Well, I can’t say I’ve enjoyed this, as a back and forth with you never ends until I provide definitive proof. Since your now trying to equate censorship with simple civility, which is a subjective decision, then I can only leave that perception to the minds of anyone else following this string. However, should you begin to see that “awaiting moderation” prefix, I suggest you take it up with the SA staff.
Klastri, where is your evidence that this common sense law was designed specifically to prevent minorities from voting? That may have been the opinion of the liberal judges, but where is the evidence? Liberals have no problem getting the homeless and minorities to the the polls to vote, but for some reason they are not able to get photo IDs which they need to do just about every thing in life – except vote.
Please … just read the decision. Do you really need to be spoon fed on every single comment?