This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Provision | Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Provision |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A federal appeals court decisively struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law on Friday, saying its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls. | A federal appeals court decisively struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law on Friday, saying its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls. |
| The sweeping decision upended voting procedures in a presidential-election battleground state barely three months before Election Day. It tossed out North Carolina’s requirement that voters present photo identification at the polls and restored voters’ ability to register on Election Day, to register before reaching the 18-year-old voting age, and to cast early ballots, provisions the law had fully or partially eliminated. | The sweeping decision upended voting procedures in a presidential-election battleground state barely three months before Election Day. It tossed out North Carolina’s requirement that voters present photo identification at the polls and restored voters’ ability to register on Election Day, to register before reaching the 18-year-old voting age, and to cast early ballots, provisions the law had fully or partially eliminated. |
| The court also restored a provision that ensured that the ballots of people who mistakenly voted at the wrong polling station were deemed valid | The court also restored a provision that ensured that the ballots of people who mistakenly voted at the wrong polling station were deemed valid |
| The ruling by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, was an abrupt reversal of a late April decision in Federal District Court that Republicans had savored after years of bruising legal and political battles. Although the circuit panel praised a federal judge in Winston-Salem, N.C., for his “thoroughness,” it left little doubt about its view of voting practices in North Carolina, where Republicans pushed through a major overhaul beginning in 2013. | The ruling by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, was an abrupt reversal of a late April decision in Federal District Court that Republicans had savored after years of bruising legal and political battles. Although the circuit panel praised a federal judge in Winston-Salem, N.C., for his “thoroughness,” it left little doubt about its view of voting practices in North Carolina, where Republicans pushed through a major overhaul beginning in 2013. |
| “We cannot ignore the record evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,” said the decision, which Republicans said they would appeal. | “We cannot ignore the record evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,” said the decision, which Republicans said they would appeal. |
| “In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees,” the appeals court wrote. “This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.” | “In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees,” the appeals court wrote. “This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.” |
| Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina, who signed the disputed law, did not immediately comment, but the General Assembly’s Republican leadership issued a blistering response to the court. | Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina, who signed the disputed law, did not immediately comment, but the General Assembly’s Republican leadership issued a blistering response to the court. |
| “Since today’s decision by three partisan Democrats ignores legal precedent, ignores the fact that other federal courts have used North Carolina’s law as a model and ignores the fact that a majority of other states have similar protections in place, we can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election,” Senator Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore said in a joint statement that referred to the Democratic presidential nominee and the party’s candidate for governor of North Carolina. “We will obviously be appealing this politically motivated decision to the Supreme Court.” | “Since today’s decision by three partisan Democrats ignores legal precedent, ignores the fact that other federal courts have used North Carolina’s law as a model and ignores the fact that a majority of other states have similar protections in place, we can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election,” Senator Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore said in a joint statement that referred to the Democratic presidential nominee and the party’s candidate for governor of North Carolina. “We will obviously be appealing this politically motivated decision to the Supreme Court.” |
| The three judges who decided the case were nominated to the appeals court by President Bill Clinton or President Obama. (One of them, however, had originally been named by President George W. Bush in 2003 to a vacant seat on the Federal District Court in South Carolina.) | |
| Critics of the state’s voting procedures declared victory after the decision by the appellate panel’s judges. | |
| “We see today as a moral and constitutional vindication of our constitutional critique of this extremist legislature and our extremist governor,” said the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, the president of the North Carolina branch of the N.A.A.C.P. “A political majority doesn’t give you the power to run roughshod over the Constitution.” | “We see today as a moral and constitutional vindication of our constitutional critique of this extremist legislature and our extremist governor,” said the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, the president of the North Carolina branch of the N.A.A.C.P. “A political majority doesn’t give you the power to run roughshod over the Constitution.” |
| Mr. Barber’s group was among the organizations that were joined by the Justice Department in challenging the law. A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which also opposed the law in court, said the panel’s ruling was “a stinging rebuke of the state’s attempt to undermine African-American voter participation.” | Mr. Barber’s group was among the organizations that were joined by the Justice Department in challenging the law. A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which also opposed the law in court, said the panel’s ruling was “a stinging rebuke of the state’s attempt to undermine African-American voter participation.” |
| Attorney General Loretta Lynch praised the decision at a news conference on Friday afternoon in Baton Rouge, La., where she had been meeting with the police and community groups. She said North Carolina’s law “sent a message that contradicted some of the most basic principles of our democracy.” | Attorney General Loretta Lynch praised the decision at a news conference on Friday afternoon in Baton Rouge, La., where she had been meeting with the police and community groups. She said North Carolina’s law “sent a message that contradicted some of the most basic principles of our democracy.” |
| “The ability of Americans, the ability of all of us to have voice in the direction of their country, to have a fair and free opportunity to help write the story of this nation, is fundamental to who we are, to who we aspire be as citizens and as Americans,” she added. “And going forward, the Department of Justice will continue our work to protect this sacred right.” | “The ability of Americans, the ability of all of us to have voice in the direction of their country, to have a fair and free opportunity to help write the story of this nation, is fundamental to who we are, to who we aspire be as citizens and as Americans,” she added. “And going forward, the Department of Justice will continue our work to protect this sacred right.” |
| North Carolina first passed a version of the law in 2013, after a United States Supreme Court decision that diluted the power of the Voting Rights Act. The law’s supporters contended that it was a safeguard against fraudulent elections and voter misconduct. | North Carolina first passed a version of the law in 2013, after a United States Supreme Court decision that diluted the power of the Voting Rights Act. The law’s supporters contended that it was a safeguard against fraudulent elections and voter misconduct. |
| “Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and thankfully a federal court has ensured our citizens will have the same protection for their basic right to vote,” Mr. McCrory said after the Federal District Court’s ruling in April. | “Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and thankfully a federal court has ensured our citizens will have the same protection for their basic right to vote,” Mr. McCrory said after the Federal District Court’s ruling in April. |
| But to critics like Mr. Barber, who addressed the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, Mr. McCrory’s words masked the intent of a law they viewed as discriminatory and as an effort to restrict access to the polls. | But to critics like Mr. Barber, who addressed the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, Mr. McCrory’s words masked the intent of a law they viewed as discriminatory and as an effort to restrict access to the polls. |
| Although the law the Fourth Circuit ruled against on Friday was multifaceted, the most discussed provision was one that offered voters a bitterly disputed choice: produce one of six accepted forms of identification, such as a driver’s license or a passport, or cast a provisional ballot. | Although the law the Fourth Circuit ruled against on Friday was multifaceted, the most discussed provision was one that offered voters a bitterly disputed choice: produce one of six accepted forms of identification, such as a driver’s license or a passport, or cast a provisional ballot. |
| The Fourth Circuit’s decision, announced about a month after the panel heard arguments in Richmond, Va., was of intense interest to both parties, which know that North Carolina could well prove decisive in this autumn’s presidential election. Mrs. Clinton has already advertised heavily in the state, and Donald J. Trump visited on Monday night. | The Fourth Circuit’s decision, announced about a month after the panel heard arguments in Richmond, Va., was of intense interest to both parties, which know that North Carolina could well prove decisive in this autumn’s presidential election. Mrs. Clinton has already advertised heavily in the state, and Donald J. Trump visited on Monday night. |
| The state ended its decades-long history of backing Republican presidential candidates in 2008, when Barack Obama eked out a narrow victory there. But in 2012, Mitt Romney reclaimed the state for the Republicans. | The state ended its decades-long history of backing Republican presidential candidates in 2008, when Barack Obama eked out a narrow victory there. But in 2012, Mitt Romney reclaimed the state for the Republicans. |
| This year, Democrats are resting their hopes on a strong turnout among black voters as they try to counter Mr. Trump’s appeal among North Carolina’s white, working-class voters. | This year, Democrats are resting their hopes on a strong turnout among black voters as they try to counter Mr. Trump’s appeal among North Carolina’s white, working-class voters. |