Federal Judge rules NC election law changes can proceed
Published August 9, 2014
by Michael Biesecker and Gary Robertson, Associated Press, published in News and Observer, August 8, 2014
North Carolina's November election can be held under a new voting law approved by Republican lawmakers, a federal judge ruled Friday. The law is considered one of the toughest in the nation and the groups challenging it say it will suppress minority voter turnout.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder denied a motion seeking to hold the November vote under old rules, saying the groups failed to show they would suffer "irreparable harm."
"In the absence of the clear showing for preliminary relief required by the law, it is inappropriate for a federal court to enjoin a state law passed by duly-elected representatives," wrote the judge, who was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush.
A coalition of groups, including the League of Women Voters and the state NAACP, have filed three lawsuits challenging many changes to voting laws approved by the GOP-controlled state legislature in 2013.
The groups say the changes are designed to suppress turnout at the polls among minorities, the elderly and college students — blocs considered more likely to vote for Democrats.
In a weeklong hearing last month, they asked Schroeder to stop implementation of the new law until a trial to determine whether the changes violate the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Schroeder did deny a motion from the state seeking to have the case dismissed, setting the stage for a trial next year.
The law requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID, ends same-day registration, trims the period for early voting by a week and ends a popular high school civics program that encouraged students to register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays.
Supporters of the measure, including GOP lawmakers and Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, said the law was needed to combat in-person voter fraud, which they said is rampant in the state despite only a handful of confirmed cases in recent years.
"Today's ruling is just more evidence that this law is constitutional," said Bob Stephens, a lawyer for McCrory, who signed the law and is one of the defendants.
The groups that sued were pleased with the judge's decision not to dismiss the entire case.
"The judge could have completely tossed this case if he felt the state's argument had any weight," said Allison Riggs, an attorney representing the League of Women Voters of North Carolina.
The voter ID requirement included in the new law doesn't kick in until the next presidential election in 2016. The law specifically bars elections officials from accepting college IDs, even from state-run universities.
Studies show minority and low-income voters are also more likely to lack a driver's license and have access to secure housing, leading to more frequent changes in addresses. Under the new law, voters will no longer be allowed to cast a provisional ballot if they show up at the wrong precinct.
In criticizing the refusal to halt the law's provisions, state NAACP president the Rev. William Barber said the people who have heard about the photo ID requirement and may not show up to vote "will suffer an irreparable harm."
"The court appears to have lost touch with the fears and rumors that pervade poor communities, and it ignores the long history of voter suppression tricks that take advantage of these fears and rumors," Barber said in a release.
Thirty-four states have passed laws requiring an ID to vote. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania's laws were struck down earlier this year by judges who said they could be a burden to voters.
State Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, who shepherded the voting law through the House last summer, said it "feels good to have at least won this small fight."
"I'm very pleased that the judge has not found a reason to impair the commonsense election law that we passed that we've said all along gives everyone a full opportunity to participate in the election process, while at the same time improving the real and the perceived integrity of the election system," Lewis said.
An appeal of Schroeder's ruling is possible, though the plaintiffs' attorneys would have to confer with their clients before making that decision.
Follow Associated Press writer Michael Biesecker at Twitter.com/mbieseck
August 9, 2014 at 11:01 am
Norm Kelly says:
'The law is considered one of the toughest in the nation'. By whom? Even after these changes to voting law in NC, most of our laws are LESS TOUGH than many other states, including New York, that bastion of liberalism. We still have more days of early voting. So who exactly considers these the toughest in the nation. Can you show us states where the voting laws are MORE stringent? Compare our laws to other states that are less tough. Making a statement like this is silly. I expect to see supporting documentation for this statement as I read further.
'The groups say the changes are designed to suppress...'. Wow! Amazing! Who would have thought that 'saying' it makes it so. Every time some lib says something, regardless of how true it may be or how much supporting documentation they produce, we are supposed to pay attention? If we had to listen to every statement that made absolutely no sense at all, we'd all be listening to Debbie W. Shultz. Talk about saying nothing useful. She makes reference to laws & situations that provably do NOT exist, yet for some reason people still listen to what she says. The buffet slayer makes statements about the inability of blacks to be able to vote after the new laws are implemented, yet he can't show how this is true. So why does ANYONE listen to his babbling? Oh, could it be because the lib allies in the media LOVE to listen to what he says, and they want the rest of us to be forced to hear his useless babbling? It's certainly NOT because he says anything useful. Why would ANY black follow this man when virtually everything he says indicates that he believes the average black or even the majority of blacks are incapable of getting through life without the help of kindly, loving, liberal white people? And we all know that the white's who support him do it because of their 'white guilt'. My family came here from Canada. We NEVER participated in black suppression or slavery, so I have no WHITE GUILT. I have no idea if any of my ancestors participated in the underground railroad, so I won't go that far. Unlike Elizabeth Warren, I'll make no claims I can't justify.
'blocs considered more likely to vote for Democrats'. No. Not a true statement. Well, some truth I guess. These blocs have history of voting overwhelmingly for the demon party. Part of that is because they buy votes from these blocs. Part of this is that 'black leaders' tell their constituents that ONLY a black person can represent a black person in any elected office. They constantly tell elderly people that Republicans want to throw them over a cliff. They constantly tell 'minorities' that Republicans want to eliminate their ability to vote, their ability to work a full-time well paying job, their ability to live where they want to live, etc. etc. etc. Just listen, if you can stomach it, to the buffet slayer sometime. What you will hear is that blacks are INCAPABLE. What you will hear is that Republicans and conservatives HATE you. In fact conservatives believe all people are created equal and are equally capable of performing in life. We believe in providing education to EVERY kid that is worth getting. We don't want to trap kids in failing schools. It's not conservatives that want to remove black kids from their neighborhood schools so the parents have difficulty or are unable to participate in school activities. It's libs & blacks that insist minority students are bussed around the county, making it virtually impossible for parents to participate in their kids schools.
'despite only a handful of confirmed cases in recent years'. Could this possibly be because the majority of reported fraud cases are NEVER investigated? Think about the racist Holder for a minute before you answer that one; for libs this is a trick question. When NuBlakPantha party members with billie clubs stood outside a voting place in military garb intimidating white people, how did the racist Holder respond? He claimed it was not possible for his people to intimidate whites. The investigation and potential prosecution was dropped. How many of the reported cases in NC were investigated? How many not-yet-18-year-olds are allowed to register, have their names on the registration lists at the voting booth, but are not legally allowed to vote? Does it make sense to have names on the registration list of people who are NOT legally allowed to vote? Why is it that demon party members ALWAYS stand in the way of purging voter registration lists? You know, people who have moved out of district, people who have died, those kind of list purgings. It's always the demons who claim that this will prevent some lib supporting group from being able to vote. But what dead person should be allowed to vote? Oh, I know, it's because this voting bloc also supports demon candidates, so it's discrimination on the part of Republicans in an attempt to suppress yet another demon voting bloc!
What the reverend buffet slayer neglects to take into account when he claims 'his people' will hear about the need for a state-issued picture ID and not show up to vote is that the state WILL BUY THE PICTURE ID FOR his people! What part of BUYING the picture ID doesn't the buffet slayer understand? See, this is exactly why I say he's a waste of time to listen to.
'with the fears and rumors that pervade poor communities'. So, now we are supposed to make law, or invalidate law, based on rumors? Is this because the rumors exist in 'poor communities'? Or is it more that the source of the rumors is to be taken into account? Let's see where could the rumors possibly start? Could it be the buffet slayer himself? Who was the first person to claim that 'his people' wouldn't be able to vote anymore because they couldn't get a valid state-issued picture id? Who was it that claimed the reduced number of early voting days would prevent 'his people' from having time to get to the polls? I believe it was the buffet slayer himself. So if he only starts the rumors and propagates the rumors, why would we listen to him about using the rumors as an excuse to invalidate a law? This is a circular argument! Thinking people know that the buffet slayer is more appropriately labeled a buffoon!
'Thirty-four states have passed laws requiring an ID to vote'. Which is about the same number of states that passed on socialized medicine. Which is also a majority of the 57 states in the country!
Instead of lib groups attempting to subvert this law, how many of them have taken the time to help 'their people' comply with the law? How many times has the buffet slayer met with groups of 'his people' to explain the law, help them get their supporting documentation together, and bus them from church to the proper location to get a valid picture id? Is he doing anything to help the people HE claims are helpless or is he just trying to make sure voter fraud can continue because it supports his allies in the demon party/socialist party of the US? Instead of ONLY fighting the law, how about helping your own people comply when you are also one who claims your own people are incapable of doing it on their own! Unless you can help solve the problem, why would ANYONE listen to your griping?
