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 4 Version 5
Federal Courts Strike Down Voter ID Restrictions in North Carolina and Wisconsin Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Requirement
(about 1 hour 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 83-page decision by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upended voting procedures in a battleground state about three months before Election Day. The sweeping 83-page decision by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upended voting procedures in a battleground state about three months before Election Day. That ruling and a second wide-ranging decision on Friday, in Wisconsin, continued a string of recent court opinions against restrictive voting laws that critics say were created solely to keep minority and other traditionally Democratic voters away from the polls.
The ruling 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 partly eliminated. The North Carolina ruling tossed out the state’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 partly eliminated.
The court also held that the ballots of people who had mistakenly voted at the wrong polling station should be deemed valid. The court also held that the ballots of people who had mistakenly voted at the wrong polling stations should be deemed valid.
In another decision on Friday, a federal judge ruled that parts of Wisconsin’s voter ID law are unconstitutional. Noting that “a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, “ the judge, James Peterson, ordered the state to make more forms of identification acceptable. He also overturned certain restrictions on absentee balloting and early and weekend voting. In the Wisconsin decision, Judge James D. Peterson of Federal District Court ruled that parts of Wisconsin’s 2011 voter ID law are unconstitutional. He ordered the state to make photo IDs more easily available to voters and to broaden the range of student IDs that are accepted at the ballot box.
The decision also threw out other rules that lengthened the residency requirement for newly registered voters, banned distributing absentee ballots by fax or email and sharply restricted the locations and times at which municipal voters, many of them Milwaukee blacks, could cast absentee ballots in person.
Judge Peterson’s sharply worded 119-page ruling suggested that Wisconsin’s voter restrictions, as well as voter ID restrictions in Indiana that have been upheld in the Supreme Court, exist only to suppress votes.
“The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” he wrote. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections.’’
The court decisions — the third and fourth federal rulings in recent weeks against Republican-enacted voting restrictions — were made as the two political parties raced from their summer conventions into the critical final months of the campaign, with Wisconsin, like North Carolina, considered a contested state.The court decisions — the third and fourth federal rulings in recent weeks against Republican-enacted voting restrictions — were made as the two political parties raced from their summer conventions into the critical final months of the campaign, with Wisconsin, like North Carolina, considered a contested state.
North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature rewrote the state’s voting rules in 2013 shortly after the Supreme Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had given the Justice Department the power to oversee changes in election procedures in areas with a history of racial discrimination. Forty of the state’s 100 counties had been subject to oversight.North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature rewrote the state’s voting rules in 2013 shortly after the Supreme Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had given the Justice Department the power to oversee changes in election procedures in areas with a history of racial discrimination. Forty of the state’s 100 counties had been subject to oversight.
Civil rights advocates and the Justice Department had sued to block the law, but a Federal District Court judge upheld it in April, writing that the state’s “significant, shameful past discrimination” had largely abated in the last 25 years and that the law was not motivated by bias. Civil rights advocates and the Justice Department had sued to block the law, but a Federal District Court judge upheld it in April, writing that the state’s “significant, shameful past discrimination” had largely abated in the last 25 years.
On Friday, the three-judge panel emphatically disagreed, saying the lower court’s amply documented ruling had failed to consider critical aspects of the legislature’s action, including “the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.” On Friday, the three-judge panel emphatically disagreed, saying the lower court’s amply documented ruling had failed to consider “the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.”
The judges noted that Republican leaders had drafted their restrictions on voting only after receiving data indicating that African-Americans would be the voters most significantly affected by them.The judges noted that Republican leaders had drafted their restrictions on voting only after receiving data indicating that African-Americans would be the voters most significantly affected by them.
“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,” they wrote. “The court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees,” they stated. The panel stopped short of reimposing federal oversight on the state’s elections, saying that striking down the law was enough.“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,” they wrote. “The court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees,” they stated. The panel stopped short of reimposing federal oversight on the state’s elections, saying that striking down the law was enough.
Voting rights advocates called the ruling, which Republicans say they will appeal, a resounding victory. Fresh from speaking Thursday night at the Democratic National Convention, the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, the president of the North Carolina branch of the N.A.A.C.P., which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, called the decision “a moral and constitutional vindication of our constitutional critique of this extremist legislature and our extremist governor. Voting rights advocates called the ruling, which Republicans say they will appeal, a resounding victory. Fresh from speaking Thursday night at the Democratic National Convention, the Rev. William J. Barber II, the president of the North Carolina branch of the N.A.A.C.P., which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, called the decision “a moral and constitutional vindication of our constitutional critique of this extremist legislature and our extremist governor.
“A political majority doesn’t give you the power to run roughshod over the Constitution,” he said.“A political majority doesn’t give you the power to run roughshod over the Constitution,” he said.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who was in Baton Rouge, La., on Friday, also welcomed the decision, saying the law “sent a message that contradicted some of the most basic principles of our democracy.Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who was in Baton Rouge, La., on Friday, also welcomed the decision, saying the law “sent a message that contradicted some of the most basic principles of our democracy.
“The ability of Americans to have a 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,” she said.“The ability of Americans to have a 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,” she said.
Republicans denounced the opinion as wrongheaded and politically motivated, particularly because the three judges who decided the case had been nominated to the appeals court by either 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.)Republicans denounced the opinion as wrongheaded and politically motivated, particularly because the three judges who decided the case had been nominated to the appeals court by either 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.)
“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” in November’s federal and state elections, State Senator Phil Berger and the House speaker, Tim Moore, said in a statement. They pledged to appeal the ruling. “We can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud” in November’s federal and state elections, State Senator Phil Berger and the House speaker, Tim Moore, said in a statement. They pledged to appeal the ruling.
So did Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican who is locked in one of the country’s tightest races for governor. “Photo IDs are required to purchase Sudafed, cash a check, board an airplane or enter a federal courtroom,” Mr. McCrory said. “Yet three Democratic judges are undermining the integrity of our elections while also maligning our state.”So did Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican who is locked in one of the country’s tightest races for governor. “Photo IDs are required to purchase Sudafed, cash a check, board an airplane or enter a federal courtroom,” Mr. McCrory said. “Yet three Democratic judges are undermining the integrity of our elections while also maligning our state.”
Republicans in the state legislature have long justified the law’s restrictions on voting by saying they were aimed at ending rampant voter fraud. The law “re-establishes a confidence in our election process, and therefore our government,” a principal sponsor, State Senator Bob Rucho, said in 2013. Republicans say the restrictions were aimed at ending rampant voter fraud.
On Friday, the appeals court dismissed that argument, saying the restrictions “constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.” Academic studies have repeatedly concluded that fraud at the ballot box — the sort that photo identification requirements might reduce — is already vanishingly rare. But on Friday, the appeals court dismissed that argument, saying the restrictions “constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.” Academic studies have repeatedly concluded that fraud at the ballot box — the sort that photo identification requirements might reduce — is already vanishingly rare.
The North Carolina decision, combined with earlier rulings against voter-identification laws in Texas and Wisconsin, could figure in November’s elections. Friday’s ruling stated pointedly that whether or not the North Carolina restrictions were driven completely by racial bias, they were clearly designed to impede a bloc of minority voters that has long been a major element of the Democratic base. The North Carolina and Wisconsin decisions could figure in November’s elections. Friday’s ruling stated pointedly that whether or not the North Carolina restrictions were driven completely by racial bias, they were clearly devised to keep Democratic voters away from the polls.
North Carolina has become a swing state in national elections in recent years in no small part because the protections of the Voting Rights Act allowed black voter turnout to approach that of whites, the court stated.North Carolina has become a swing state in national elections in recent years in no small part because the protections of the Voting Rights Act allowed black voter turnout to approach that of whites, the court stated.
North Carolina is being sharply contested in the current election: Hillary Clinton is already advertising heavily in the state, and Donald J. Trump held a rally there as the Democrats opened their convention on Monday.
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 for a victory by Hillary Clinton on a strong turnout among black voters as they try to counter Donald J. Trump’s appeal among North Carolina’s white working-class voters.
The clauses that were overturned in the North Carolina law, labeled the Voter Information Verification Act, or V.I.V.A., made voting harder in a number of ways. A much-discussed provision, which took effect this year, required voters either to produce one of six accepted forms of identification, such as a driver’s license, passport or military ID, or cast a provisional ballot. The clauses that were overturned in the North Carolina law, labeled the Voter Information Verification Act, made voting harder in a number of ways. A much-discussed provision, which took effect this year, required voters either to produce one of six accepted forms of identification, such as a driver’s license, passport or military ID, or cast a provisional ballot.
Critics argued that some voters lacked those documents and that the law omitted some forms of identification, such as student IDs, held by blocs of voters who favor Democrats.Critics argued that some voters lacked those documents and that the law omitted some forms of identification, such as student IDs, held by blocs of voters who favor Democrats.
Among the other provisions, which were in effect during the 2014 elections, one of the most criticized shortened the state’s early voting period to 10 days, from 17. Voting rights groups charged that this would crimp African-American voter turnout, in part by eliminating one of the Sunday voting days on which black churches typically transported worshipers to a voting site.Among the other provisions, which were in effect during the 2014 elections, one of the most criticized shortened the state’s early voting period to 10 days, from 17. Voting rights groups charged that this would crimp African-American voter turnout, in part by eliminating one of the Sunday voting days on which black churches typically transported worshipers to a voting site.
Friday’s opinions were just the latest setbacks in recent weeks to advocates of photo IDs and other voting restrictions. The Wisconsin ruling, which appeared likely to be appealed, came only days after a different federal judge issued a separate ruling on that state’s voter ID law, which has been the subject of a legal battle since the Republican-held State Capitol approved it in 2011. Friday’s opinions were just the latest setbacks in recent weeks to advocates of photo IDs and other voting restrictions. The Wisconsin ruling, which appeared likely to be appealed, came only days after a different federal judge issued a separate ruling on that state’s voter ID law, stating that voters without photo identification could vote in November if they presented affidavits swearing to their identities.
In the ruling earlier this month, a judge said Wisconsin voters without photo identification could vote in November if they presented affidavits swearing to their identities. In Texas, a federal appeals court has ruled that the state’s photo ID law, among the nation’s toughest, must be softened to eliminate its discriminatory impact.
In Texas, a federal appeals court has ruled that the state’s photo ID law, among the nation’s toughest, must be softened to eliminate its discriminatory impact. A lower court had said that the law violates the Voting Rights Act and that as many as 600,000 Texans lacked any of the photo IDs the law demands.