Voter ID challenge back in court later this month
Published October 6, 2015
by Michael Hewlett, Winston-Salem Journal, October 5, 2015.
The voter ID law will be back in federal court later this month.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder plans to hold a hearing Oct. 23 to get an update on efforts to settle the legal claims against the photo ID requirement. The N.C. NAACP, the U.S. Department of Justice and others filed a lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s Voter Information Verification Act, which was passed by the Republican-led General Assembly in 2013. The law not only has a photo ID requirement but also includes a number of other provisions, such as the reduction of early voting days and the elimination of same-day voter registration. Plaintiffs allege that the law discriminates against blacks, Hispanics, poor people and college students.
Schroeder presided over a three-week trial in July that dealt with many of those provisions, except the photo ID requirement. Schroeder decided to deal with the photo ID requirement separately after state legislators approved an amendment easing that requirement. The amendment allows voters without a photo ID to sign a declaration saying they had a “reasonable impediment” to getting a photo ID. The amendment also allows voters to use photo IDs that that have been expired less than four years.
State attorneys have already filed a motion to dismiss the legal challenge to the photo ID requirement. Schroeder has not ruled on that motion nor has he ruled on the constitutionality of the other provisions challenged in July.
Tom Farr, one of the attorneys representing the state, declined to comment Monday.
In court papers last month, the plaintiffs said they met with the defendants on Sept. 16. According to the court documents, the meeting followed several letters and emails between plaintiffs and defendants “identifying issues and concerns relating to the State’s interpretation, implementation, and plans for voter education regarding the requirement and the Reasonable Impediment Declaration Exception.” Plaintiffs said they planned to provide state attorneys with a “draft proposed agreement that might resolve Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the State’s voter photo ID requirement.”
Victoria Wenger, a spokeswoman for some of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said the parties are still in discussions and there is nothing substantive to report at this time.
The Rev. William Barber, president of the state NAACP, said in August that attorneys were still examining the implications of the amended photo ID requirement and the legal options. He said the changes may be even more confusing to people and that the amendment represents a 21st century literacy test because blacks are more likely to be illiterate. Literacy tests were used during the Jim Crow era to keep blacks from voting.
