Integrity on trial
Published August 4, 2015
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, August 4, 2015.
The election law trial that concluded in Winston-Salem Friday stuck to the script.
Plaintiffs produced plenty of evidence suggesting that Republicans in the legislature meant to make voting a little harder for people who usually favor Democrats.
Defendants denied any ill intent and claimed North Carolina’s voting laws are no more restrictive than those of other states.
Sorting out the competing narratives is the job of U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder, a Notre Dame law school graduate appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2007.
His verdict, whatever it is, likely will be appealed. This is seen as a key test of election law changes enacted by Republican legislatures after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013.
Soon after that ruling, the N.C. Senate rolled out a comprehensive voting “reform” bill that required photo ID, shortened the early voting period and eliminated same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds and straight-ticket voting. Republicans said these measures were needed to eliminate fraud and restore public confidence in the election process.
The U.S. Department of Justice, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters and others sued, contending the changes were discriminatory and intended to restrict voting, with a disproportionate impact on minorities, the elderly and young voters.
When the legislature backed off some of its photo ID requirements earlier this summer, Schroeder decided not to address that provision at trial. That weakened the plaintiffs’ case.
Still, they proceeded with testimony by people who had been prevented from voting in 2014 by one provision or another, or who cast votes in good faith only to learn later their ballots had not been counted.
Plaintiffs also presented evidence showing that minorities used voting conveniences such as early voting and same-day registration, and cast out-of-precinct votes, more frequently than other voters.
State Board of Elections Executive Director Kim Strach testified that there have been few documented cases of voter fraud in North Carolina.
Plaintiffs effectively exposed the voting changes as a cynical, partisan manipulation of the election process for the benefit of Republicans.
Defendants’ best answer amounted to, so what? The constitution doesn’t require North Carolina to allow same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, early voting or preregistration. And many other states don’t offer those conveniences.
To find a constitutional violation, Schroeder would have to determine that the offense wasn’t simply rolling back progressive measures that Democrats had enacted in the 1990s and 2000s to make voting easier; it was rolling them back for the purpose of denying equal protection under the law and with discriminatory intent and outcome. The judge may not be able to go that far.
Even if the plaintiffs lose the case at this initial stage, they’ve successfully debunked the idea that these election changes had anything to do with voting integrity or confidence in government. On the contrary: It doesn’t promote election integrity or confidence in government when politicians place hurdles in the way of people who might vote against them. The legislature’s attempt to depress voting, once fully understood, should shame fair-minded North Carolinians.
It also should inspire better efforts to register new voters and get them to the polls. If there isn’t a legal fix to the unnecessary election “reforms” enacted by the legislature, there should be a political remedy. The people need to get out and vote, even if it isn’t as easy as it once was or should be.
August 4, 2015 at 11:24 am
Richard L Bunce says:
Facts not in evidence... we have no idea how many illegal votes have been cast in recent elections... nobody was checking IDs. Just another voice for anyone can vote anywhere, anytime, as often as they want.
.. and how about the 39 States that also do not have same day registration or the 40 States that do not have straight ticket ballots or the 14 States primarily in the NE US that have NO early voting? Are they all suppressing voters? How about the requirement to be at least 18 years old, that affects some groups more than others, is that voter suppression as well?
