Count the votes
Published October 7, 2014
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, October 7, 2014.
North Carolina voters are apt to be confused by changes they’ll see at the polls starting later this month. But don’t blame U.S. Court of Appeals Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd.
“Our decision today acts as a safety net for voters confused about the effect of House Bill 589 on their right to vote while litigation proceeds,” Wynn wrote in a footnote to his ruling last week that stopped two parts of the law. He was joined by Floyd.
House Bill 589, enacted last year, scaled back progressive features of state voting law, including same-day registration during early voting, out-of-precinct voting, preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds and public financing for statewide judicial candidates. It also eliminated straight-ticket voting and, beginning in 2016, requires voters to present a photo ID.
The Justice Department, NAACP and other groups sued to block the law; the case will be tried next year. In the meantime, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction blocking it from taking effect. The bid was denied by a U.S. District Court. Last week, a U.S. Court of Appeals panel reversed the earlier decision in two respects: Same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting must be allowed, a 2-1 majority said.
Judge Diana Motz expressed reservations about the law but would not take such a dramatic action so close to an election, believing it would create hardships for election officials. The objection forms the basis of a state appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wynn dismissed the concern: “The continuation of same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting after today’s decision means more opportunity to register and vote than if the entirety of House Bill 589 were in effect for this election. Voters who are confused about whether they can, for example, still register and vote on the same day will have their votes counted.”
Whether more or fewer people vote may have been the point of the legislation. Statistics show that black voters disproportionately utilize same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting, suggesting they would be harmed disproportionately by the elimination of those options.
The court noted the importance of applying “the totality of circumstances” to its analysis.
“By inspecting the different parts of House Bill 589 as if they existed in a vacuum, the district court failed to consider the sum of those parts and their cumulative effect on minority access to the ballot box,” Wynn wrote.
Also relevant is the history of racial discrimination in North Carolina’s voting past.
The court drew an obvious conclusion: “The election laws in North Carolina prior to House Bill 589’s enactment encouraged participation by qualified voters. But the challenged House Bill 589 provisions stripped them away.”
The court examined impact and didn’t assign motives. It didn’t have to. The obvious intent of the voting reforms, as with gerrymandered redistricting, was to gain an electoral advantage for Republicans.
That is not always illegal. The ultimate fate of the law remains uncertain. But it’s fair, and possible, to delay implementation of parts of it while final resolution is pending.
