Court ruling on election law reignites a timely debate
Published October 3, 2014
By Chris Fitzsimon, NC Policy Watch, October 2, 2014.
The decision this week by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to suspend two key parts of the sweeping voter suppression law passed by the 2013 General Assembly may not hold given the leanings of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it does put the issue of voting rights back in the news less than five weeks before the election.
In an opinion written by Judge James Wynn from North Carolina, the appeals court partially reversed a lower court ruling this summer and the decision means that for now the law’s provisions that ended same day voter registration and prohibited the counting of out-of-precinct provisional ballots are on hold and will not be in effect for the November 4th election.
The state is appealing the ruling and many legal observers think it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene and overrule the 4th Circuit, leaving the law fully in place until a trial on its constitutionality is held next summer.
That’s the legal status of what’s happening. But this week’s decision also renews the public debate about voting restrictions passed by the General Assembly just before voters are headed to the polls to elect a new General Assembly and decide a Senate race between the current Speaker of the House Thom Tillis and incumbent Democratic Senator Kay Hagan.
Tillis, along with most of the current political leadership in Raleigh, is an enthusiastic supporter of the law that passed the state House he leads and he released a joint statement with Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger praising the court’s decision to allow much of the law to stand and promising to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Governor Pat McCrory’s office issued a bizarre press release with the headline “Governor McCrory Issues Statement on Voter ID Decision,” even though the court wasn’t asked to delay the voter ID provision in the law since it doesn’t take effect until 2016.
That’s odd until you consider that last year McCrory announced he planned to sign the elections bill even though he admitted he hadn’t read it.
McCrory’s statement said he told his attorneys to appeal the ruling “so that the two provisions rejected today can apply in the future and protect the integrity of our elections.”
That’s the ludicrous rationale for the law, that making it more difficult for people to vote somehow ensures the integrity of elections—when in fact the opposite is true.
Judge Wynn said in his opinion this week that there is undisputable evidence that repealing same day registration and out of precinct voting disproportionately harms African-Americans. And he is right.
The same is true with the voter ID provision in the law that the court will consider next summer. Supporters of the provision point to polls showing the public supports requiring that voters show a photo ID before voting, but surveys also show that people support voters being able to use alternative forms of identification.
As Bob Hall with Democracy North Carolina points out, voter ID is a slogan not a law. And North Carolina’s voter ID law is among the strictest in the country and is trying to address a problem that does not exist. Voter impersonation fraud is very rare.
Most election experts agree that fraud is most likely with mail-in absentee ballots but the folks supporting the voter suppression law don’t seem to talk much about that and the law that is supposed to ensure integrity of our elections doesn’t either.
Speaking of election integrity, it’s also worth noting that McCrory, Tillis, and Berger haven’t issued any statements of outrage yet about the misleading registration forms sent to thousands of voters by the right-wing group Americans for Prosperity.
At one point during the hearing before the 4th Circuit, Judge Wynn asked directly, “Why does the state of North Carolina not want people to vote?”
Why indeed, though the correct question might be why do the folks with the far-right agenda in Raleigh not want certain people to vote?
The answer to that is obvious and it has nothing to do with integrity.
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2014/10/02/court-ruling-on-election-law-reignites-a-timely-debate/
The decision this week by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to suspend two key parts of the sweeping voter suppression law passed by the 2013 General Assembly may not hold given the leanings of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it does put the issue of voting rights back in the news less than five weeks before the election.
In an opinion written by Judge James Wynn from North Carolina, the appeals court partially reversed a lower court ruling this summer and the decision means that for now the law’s provisions that ended same day voter registration and prohibited the counting of out-of-precinct provisional ballots are on hold and will not be in effect for the November 4th election.
The state is appealing the ruling and many legal observers think it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene and overrule the 4th Circuit, leaving the law fully in place until a trial on its constitutionality is held next summer.
That’s the legal status of what’s happening. But this week’s decision also renews the public debate about voting restrictions passed by the General Assembly just before voters are headed to the polls to elect a new General Assembly and decide a Senate race between the current Speaker of the House Thom Tillis and incumbent Democratic Senator Kay Hagan.
Tillis, along with most of the current political leadership in Raleigh, is an enthusiastic supporter of the law that passed the state House he leads and he released a joint statement with Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger praising the court’s decision to allow much of the law to stand and promising to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Governor Pat McCrory’s office issued a bizarre press release with the headline “Governor McCrory Issues Statement on Voter ID Decision,” even though the court wasn’t asked to delay the voter ID provision in the law since it doesn’t take effect until 2016.
That’s odd until you consider that last year McCrory announced he planned to sign the elections bill even though he admitted he hadn’t read it.
McCrory’s statement said he told his attorneys to appeal the ruling “so that the two provisions rejected today can apply in the future and protect the integrity of our elections.”
That’s the ludicrous rationale for the law, that making it more difficult for people to vote somehow ensures the integrity of elections—when in fact the opposite is true.
Judge Wynn said in his opinion this week that there is undisputable evidence that repealing same day registration and out of precinct voting disproportionately harms African-Americans. And he is right.
The same is true with the voter ID provision in the law that the court will consider next summer. Supporters of the provision point to polls showing the public supports requiring that voters show a photo ID before voting, but surveys also show that people support voters being able to use alternative forms of identification.
As Bob Hall with Democracy North Carolina points out, voter ID is a slogan not a law. And North Carolina’s voter ID law is among the strictest in the country and is trying to address a problem that does not exist. Voter impersonation fraud is very rare.
Most election experts agree that fraud is most likely with mail-in absentee ballots but the folks supporting the voter suppression law don’t seem to talk much about that and the law that is supposed to ensure integrity of our elections doesn’t either.
Speaking of election integrity, it’s also worth noting that McCrory, Tillis, and Berger haven’t issued any statements of outrage yet about the misleading registration forms sent to thousands of voters by the right-wing group Americans for Prosperity.
At one point during the hearing before the 4th Circuit, Judge Wynn asked directly, “Why does the state of North Carolina not want people to vote?”
Why indeed, though the correct question might be why do the folks with the far-right agenda in Raleigh not want certain people to vote?
The answer to that is obvious and it has nothing to do with integrity.
- See more at: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2014/10/02/court-ruling-on-election-law-reignites-a-timely-debate/#sthash.Th21HWcV.dpuf
The decision this week by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to suspend two key parts of the sweeping voter suppression law passed by the 2013 General Assembly may not hold given the leanings of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it does put the issue of voting rights back in the news less than five weeks before the election.
In an opinion written by Judge James Wynn from North Carolina, the appeals court partially reversed a lower court ruling this summer and the decision means that for now the law’s provisions that ended same day voter registration and prohibited the counting of out-of-precinct provisional ballots are on hold and will not be in effect for the November 4th election.
The state is appealing the ruling and many legal observers think it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene and overrule the 4th Circuit, leaving the law fully in place until a trial on its constitutionality is held next summer.
That’s the legal status of what’s happening. But this week’s decision also renews the public debate about voting restrictions passed by the General Assembly just before voters are headed to the polls to elect a new General Assembly and decide a Senate race between the current Speaker of the House Thom Tillis and incumbent Democratic Senator Kay Hagan.
Tillis, along with most of the current political leadership in Raleigh, is an enthusiastic supporter of the law that passed the state House he leads and he released a joint statement with Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger praising the court’s decision to allow much of the law to stand and promising to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Governor Pat McCrory’s office issued a bizarre press release with the headline “Governor McCrory Issues Statement on Voter ID Decision,” even though the court wasn’t asked to delay the voter ID provision in the law since it doesn’t take effect until 2016.
That’s odd until you consider that last year McCrory announced he planned to sign the elections bill even though he admitted he hadn’t read it.
McCrory’s statement said he told his attorneys to appeal the ruling “so that the two provisions rejected today can apply in the future and protect the integrity of our elections.”
That’s the ludicrous rationale for the law, that making it more difficult for people to vote somehow ensures the integrity of elections—when in fact the opposite is true.
Judge Wynn said in his opinion this week that there is undisputable evidence that repealing same day registration and out of precinct voting disproportionately harms African-Americans. And he is right.
The same is true with the voter ID provision in the law that the court will consider next summer. Supporters of the provision point to polls showing the public supports requiring that voters show a photo ID before voting, but surveys also show that people support voters being able to use alternative forms of identification.
As Bob Hall with Democracy North Carolina points out, voter ID is a slogan not a law. And North Carolina’s voter ID law is among the strictest in the country and is trying to address a problem that does not exist. Voter impersonation fraud is very rare.
Most election experts agree that fraud is most likely with mail-in absentee ballots but the folks supporting the voter suppression law don’t seem to talk much about that and the law that is supposed to ensure integrity of our elections doesn’t either.
Speaking of election integrity, it’s also worth noting that McCrory, Tillis, and Berger haven’t issued any statements of outrage yet about the misleading registration forms sent to thousands of voters by the right-wing group Americans for Prosperity.
At one point during the hearing before the 4th Circuit, Judge Wynn asked directly, “Why does the state of North Carolina not want people to vote?”
Why indeed, though the correct question might be why do the folks with the far-right agenda in Raleigh not want certain people to vote?
The answer to that is obvious and it has nothing to do with integrity.
- See more at: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2014/10/02/court-ruling-on-election-law-reignites-a-timely-debate/#sthash.Th21HWcV.dpuf
October 3, 2014 at 7:34 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Without looking at the picture or name of the author before you start reading this, how can you tell in the first paragraph that it was written by a lib? Simple: 'the sweeping voter suppression law' is used to describe some of the most common sense changes made in NC in a long time. Libs will continue to refer to getting our laws in line with the majority of the rest of the country as 'voter suppression' until they convince a majority of their supporters that this lie is actually the truth. Tell a lie often enough, to enough people, and soon it starts to be believed. Kinda like K's ad saying that Tillis WANTS to cut funding for Medicare. The FACT is that K was part of the group that ACTUALLY cut OVER 700BILLION dollars from the Medicare budget. But K knows that if she tells this lie often enough, to enough people, then she'll get the votes of lib supporters as well as low-information voters. (note: all libs are low-information voters, not all low-information voters are libs. just the majority.)
New York's voting laws are much more restrictive than North Carolina's laws. NY is basically a lib mecca. What law suits have been filed against NY? Which federal Attorney General has filed suit against NY? If NY can have more restrictive voting laws and their residents still manage to vote, what exactly is it that libs are trying to say about NC residents? Are they actually claiming that NC residents are more stup1d than New Yorkers? They can manage, but our citizens can't manage? Why is this? Does Chris EVER compare the laws in lib meccas with the laws in NC to attempt to justify why he continues to spread the lie that our laws are 'voter suppression'?
Just to continue the play to low-information types, Chris continues 'making it more difficult for people to vote'. Except our new laws are still less strict than many other states who's laws appear to pass muster. How does requiring people to show a picture ID make it more difficult? When the lib Gov Bev signed the bill passed by the lib legislature requiring picture ID to pick up your prescription at the drug store, which lib complained about helpless blacks not being able to get the drugs that just might save their life? So, it's good for the government to FORCE a private business to show an ID, but it's bad for the government to require a picture ID? Of course, the exception to showing picture ID being bad is the Demon conventions, which have ALL recently required showing a picture ID before getting into the event.
'As Bob Hall with Democracy North Carolina points out'. Bob Hall and DemoNC are libs. How do we know? First, Chris quote him, so he HAS to be a lib. Second, when it's a conservative individual or organization, that is SPECIFICALLY listed as part of the description. Another case of media double standard, but we are NOT supposed to notice this. Another sticky fact for media types, but they still claim they are NOT biased.
'Voter impersonation fraud is very rare'. Really? Where's your proof? Please DO NOT use the statistics for cases that have been prosecuted. There is PROOF that voter fraud has happened, and legal entities (the government) have refused to respond. Yes, there are a few nationally that are prosecuted. But by and large, voter fraud cases are simply ignored. How do we know this is true? Because the reports of complaints with NO follow up are available. Also, when the NuBlakPantha party in military garb, with billie clubs in hand, stood outside a voting place in order to intimidate WHITE voters, no prosecution. When a district showed more people voting for the occupier than actually live in the district, no action. Not just more people voting than lived there, but more people voting for 1 SPECIFIC CANDIDATE than actually lived in the district. NO ACTION TAKEN. This IS ABSOLUTE proof of voter fraud. Where is Chris's proof that NC's new law is voter suppression? None has yet to be produced that I have seen. Nothing provable!
'the right-wing group Americans for Prosperity'. Thanks for proving my point Chris. Guess if I read the whole post before typing comments, I would have known that my point would be made for me. Lib group referenced by name only. Conservative group listed with denegrating adjectives before the name of the organization. Point proven, and I didn't have to do ANY algore-internet research to make my point. Once a partisan, always a partisan. Once proven untrustable, always untrustable?
Of course, the question can be asked the opposite way toward the opposite group? Why is it that libs have such a low opinion of certain people? Why is it that libs pick & choose what to dislike, even when compared to other situations where the group thought so little of has proven they actually are competent and capable? At what point will the lib opinion of blacks match the competence and capability of blacks? What's holding blacks down the most, preventing them from making progress (according to libs!)? Could it be the fact that libs BELIEVE that blacks are incapable, and that their policies prove this belief to be true? Of course, but no lib, including Chris, will admit it. I just wonder, obviously, why more blacks don't complain about people like Chris thinking so little of them as a group.
