SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Court Rules NC Voter ID Law 'Intentionally Discriminatory'
'With surgical precision, North Carolina tried to eliminate voting practices disproportionately used by African-Americans'
Jul 29, 2016
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down North Carolina's controversial voter ID law, ruling that the 2013 law was created "with discriminatory intent."
Civil rights groups hailed the decision as a major victory.
"With surgical precision, North Carolina tried to eliminate voting practices disproportionately used by African-Americans. This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state's attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade," said Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Voting Rights Project. "It is a major victory for North Carolina voters and for voting rights."
"We are happy today that the 4th Circuit's Court of Appeals' decision exposed the racist intent of the extremist element of our government in North Carolina," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.
"In 2013, this government took our voting system--which was a model for the nation in encouraging people to vote, not discouraging them--and they made it into the worst voter suppression act in the country," Barber added. "Today the 4th Circuit's decision gives North Carolinians back an electoral system that allows the people of North Carolina to vote freely this fall."
After the law was enacted in 2013, the "U.S. Justice Department, state NAACP, League of Women Voters and others sued the state, saying the restrictions violated the federal Voting Rights Act and the Constitution," AP notes.
As Common Dreams reported, the legal fight in North Carolina was "watched closely by activists and legal experts nationwide, as it is one of the first tests to a restrictive election reform law passed by a conservative legislature in the wake of the Supreme Court's dismantling of key portions of the Voting Rights Act in 2013."
The decision (pdf) argued that a prior ruling by a federal judge "missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facets bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina." The ruling continued:
[...] on the day after theSupreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an 'omnibus' election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting an registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assuredly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State's true motivation.
Friday's ruling "blocks voter ID and restores preregistration, a week of early voting, same-day registration, and out-of-precinct provisional voting," the ACLU noted.
Allison Riggs, the League of Women Voters' lead lawyer on the case, told AP that the ruling will mean more participation in the November elections.
"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," Riggs said.
The ruling comes on the heels of decisions in Texas and Wisconsin that overturned similar voter ID laws.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down North Carolina's controversial voter ID law, ruling that the 2013 law was created "with discriminatory intent."
Civil rights groups hailed the decision as a major victory.
"With surgical precision, North Carolina tried to eliminate voting practices disproportionately used by African-Americans. This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state's attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade," said Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Voting Rights Project. "It is a major victory for North Carolina voters and for voting rights."
"We are happy today that the 4th Circuit's Court of Appeals' decision exposed the racist intent of the extremist element of our government in North Carolina," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.
"In 2013, this government took our voting system--which was a model for the nation in encouraging people to vote, not discouraging them--and they made it into the worst voter suppression act in the country," Barber added. "Today the 4th Circuit's decision gives North Carolinians back an electoral system that allows the people of North Carolina to vote freely this fall."
After the law was enacted in 2013, the "U.S. Justice Department, state NAACP, League of Women Voters and others sued the state, saying the restrictions violated the federal Voting Rights Act and the Constitution," AP notes.
As Common Dreams reported, the legal fight in North Carolina was "watched closely by activists and legal experts nationwide, as it is one of the first tests to a restrictive election reform law passed by a conservative legislature in the wake of the Supreme Court's dismantling of key portions of the Voting Rights Act in 2013."
The decision (pdf) argued that a prior ruling by a federal judge "missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facets bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina." The ruling continued:
[...] on the day after theSupreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an 'omnibus' election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting an registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assuredly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State's true motivation.
Friday's ruling "blocks voter ID and restores preregistration, a week of early voting, same-day registration, and out-of-precinct provisional voting," the ACLU noted.
Allison Riggs, the League of Women Voters' lead lawyer on the case, told AP that the ruling will mean more participation in the November elections.
"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," Riggs said.
The ruling comes on the heels of decisions in Texas and Wisconsin that overturned similar voter ID laws.
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down North Carolina's controversial voter ID law, ruling that the 2013 law was created "with discriminatory intent."
Civil rights groups hailed the decision as a major victory.
"With surgical precision, North Carolina tried to eliminate voting practices disproportionately used by African-Americans. This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state's attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade," said Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Voting Rights Project. "It is a major victory for North Carolina voters and for voting rights."
"We are happy today that the 4th Circuit's Court of Appeals' decision exposed the racist intent of the extremist element of our government in North Carolina," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.
"In 2013, this government took our voting system--which was a model for the nation in encouraging people to vote, not discouraging them--and they made it into the worst voter suppression act in the country," Barber added. "Today the 4th Circuit's decision gives North Carolinians back an electoral system that allows the people of North Carolina to vote freely this fall."
After the law was enacted in 2013, the "U.S. Justice Department, state NAACP, League of Women Voters and others sued the state, saying the restrictions violated the federal Voting Rights Act and the Constitution," AP notes.
As Common Dreams reported, the legal fight in North Carolina was "watched closely by activists and legal experts nationwide, as it is one of the first tests to a restrictive election reform law passed by a conservative legislature in the wake of the Supreme Court's dismantling of key portions of the Voting Rights Act in 2013."
The decision (pdf) argued that a prior ruling by a federal judge "missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facets bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina." The ruling continued:
[...] on the day after theSupreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an 'omnibus' election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting an registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assuredly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State's true motivation.
Friday's ruling "blocks voter ID and restores preregistration, a week of early voting, same-day registration, and out-of-precinct provisional voting," the ACLU noted.
Allison Riggs, the League of Women Voters' lead lawyer on the case, told AP that the ruling will mean more participation in the November elections.
"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," Riggs said.
The ruling comes on the heels of decisions in Texas and Wisconsin that overturned similar voter ID laws.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.