Feds right on voter suppression lawsuit
Published October 1, 2013
Editorial by Charlotte Observer, October 1, 2013.
In a lawsuit Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder said what many in North Carolina, including this editorial board, have already said: That a sweeping elections law the N.C. General Assembly rammed through this summer is restrictive and discriminatory. Rather than stopping in-person fraud, as proponents allege, the law’s unnecessary changes will only make it more burdensome for legitimate voters to cast a ballot.
In a press conference Monday, Justice officials echoed what critics of N.C. law have been shouting since the changes were unveiled. They said that making it difficult for certain voters – particularly minorities – was not simply the effect of the changes, but the blatant intent of the Republican lawmakers who devised them.
It’s difficult not to believe that’s true, given changes that have nothing to do with fraud, such reducing early voting days or disallowing provisional voting if a person shows up at the wrong precinct by mistake.
N.C. legislative leaders and Gov. Pat McCrory fired back quickly Monday, saying that the Justice Department’s claims were baseless, with McCrory calling the suit an “overreach” and praising the merits of the law as “commonsense” and “protecting the integrity of every vote.” McCrory added that his administration has “hired legal counsel” to help defend the law.
That move is perhaps a nod to Republican lawmakers’ anxiety that N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat who earlier expressed concerns about the legislation, would not put up a vigorous defense of it. But it is also a clear indication of the potential costliness of these unneeded changes.
This editorial board called the moves a wasteful boondoggle in July. We said then that they were solutions in search of a problem – especially when it came to in-person voter fraud, which is all but non-existent in North Carolina.
Clearly, the N.C. changes will have a disproportionate impact on minorities and other groups that tend to vote for Democrats. The DOJ suit challenges four of them: the state's reductions to early voting; the elimination of same-day registration during that early voting period; the prohibition on counting provisional ballots if voters vote out of their precinct; and the strict photo identification requirement without protections for voters who lack that required ID.
The lawsuit against North Carolina follows Justice Department action in July against Texas, where the legislature also pushed through restrictive voting laws. Both states had been subject to DOJ approval of voting law changes, but this summer the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act requiring pre-clearance.
Holder said the lawsuit against North Carolina should be taken as warning to other states that the Justice Department will use all remaining available tools to ensure that the rights of voters are protected.
We should all embrace that goal. Voting is the foundation of our democracy. Attempts to hinder the rights of legitimate voters to exercise those rights should be forcefully fought. But Congress has a role in ensuring those rights, too. The high court invalidated the pre-clearance portion of the Voting Rights Act because, they said, it was “based on 40-year-old facts.” Congress can and should update that formula to provide the needed enforcement tools to protect voters’ rights. Voter suppression efforts like the changes in North Carolina and Texas should not be allowed.
October 1, 2013 at 10:12 am
Norm Kelly says:
'Clearly, the N.C. changes will have a disproportionate impact on minorities and other groups'. Really?! It's so clear that none of the opponents have yet to document how or why this is true. This is simply a statement that is made hoping that if it's said often enough, loud enough, it will be accepted as fact. Except it ain't fact. It can be clearly shown that other states who have implemented voting changes have actually had an increase in minority voting since the changes were made. So how bout your side start showing how this is so 'clearly' meant to impact low information, low effort, Democrat voters (redundant, but can't be helped!). Please also demonstrate how states whose voting laws have never changed but are still more restrictive than NCs are discriminating against minorities but aren't sued by Holder. What about those states who don't have early voting or those that have only 1 day of early voting? What about those states who don't and never have allowed same-day registration? If they aren't being sued by DOJ, have you asked yourself why?
Should anyone have concern that Roy Cooper won't properly defend this new law? Of course, thinking people are convinced/know that he will NOT defend it to his fullest ability. He has publicly stated that he believes it is wrong, so how could he possibly properly defend it. The proper, correct, right thing to do is for the NCGA & the governor to hire their own counsel to properly defend this law. If Cooper won't do his job, someone else should. And in this case Cooper has demonstrated that he is a Democrat first, the AG second. Comparing NC's new law to other states shows that we are still more progressive/liberal with our voting laws than other states, so how can ours be bad?
Reduced early voting days: straw man argument. The number of hours has not been reduced. So the early polling places will be open longer hours on the days they are open, so it's possible for people working off-hours, long hours to have more opportunity to vote. How does this prevent low information voters from getting to vote for a Democrat?
Same day registration during early voting period. OK. So, let's say you actually are a low-information, low effort, Democrat voter. You can't be bothered to register to vote. It's too much effort. Or you are just plain lazy. (i can't believe i just typed that. how heartless of me. liberals just crapped themselves because i'm obviously so hateful!) However you came about the decision to never register, but you decide ON VOTING day that you don't care that the law says you can't vote, you drag your butt down to the polling place. Some kind person there tells you that you can register and vote on the same day. Except the registration date, set by law, has already passed, so you actually can't vote at the same time you register. So you've just been lied to by your government. The alternative: tell lazy people their time has passed and they actually can't vote, cuz even if they fill out the paperwork their vote CAN NOT be counted. Yes, you can register by showing up at the polling place (at least you could in the past). But citizens are lied to often enough by their government that it should not be allowed to happen at the polling place. So, the Republicans have now told low effort people that they need to make some effort on their own. One less lie being told to citizens. Why is this NOT a good thing?
If liberals/lazy people/low-information people want to make an argument, this editorial shows exactly how NOT to do it. I pray that these are the arguments that are presented in a court by the DOJ. If so, the racist Holder will fail in his effort to prevent NC from making it's own decisions. (i can show specific examples of why holder IS a racist. can you show specific examples of low-effort 'voters' who will be prevented from voting because of this law? remember the nu blak panthas? holder showed his racist tendencies then. remember trayvon martin? holder & the doj showed they are racists then. not just tendencies, but outright racists. your turn)
October 1, 2013 at 11:57 am
TP Wohlford says:
The laws in NC are similar to, and no less harsh than, the laws in several other states. To overturn NC they'll have to contend with states like Michigan and Georgia (both with nasty race histories too).
That Holder cut thru the Dem (and C-O and N-O) talking points is nice -- this is about voter ID, not about the other issues raised. And that isn't polling well for the Dems, and they know it, which is why they tried to change the subject -- even that dweeb in the Kay Hagan's office who assured me that I was wrong.
