Little appeal for altering Nov. 4 election
Published October 5, 2014
Editorial by Burlington Times-News, October 4, 2014.
It makes sense to allow this election to proceed according to the former rules until a lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s new voting restrictions can be decided. After all, Election Day stands a smidgeon less than a month away.
A panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, in part, and on Wednesday ordered the state to reinstate same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting for the 2014 election.
It was a measured ruling that took into account the effect any changes would have on local boards of election, which have prepared for the Nov. 4 general election under rules enacted last year and signed by Gov. Pat McCrory. The judges left the broader issue of whether the Voter Information and Verification Act is constitutional for a trial scheduled for next summer.
But McCrory and Republican leaders, eager to impose rules that critics say will disproportionately affect minorities, the poor, young people and relative newcomers, immediately announced their intent to appeal the temporary injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court. And they could succeed. The high court has been amenable to dismantling many of the protections the Voting Rights Act built.
But two of the three judges in the appellate ruling determined that the state NAACP and other parties challenging the law had made the case that curbing same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting would impose enough of a hardship that the matter should wait for the full trial. The ruling was limited to a temporary injunction allowing people to register during the early-voting period, which runs from Oct. 23 to Nov. 1.
Opponents of the voting restrictions argue that same-day registration is an essential tool to encourage participation by younger voters, minorities and newcomers who may not have transferred their registration.
The court also reinstated a provision allowing voters to cast a ballot even if they go to the wrong precinct. That common-sense measure is particularly helpful when boards of election shift precinct lines or change polling places.
The judges left the law’s other provisions, including the photo ID requirement and the shortened early-voting period, to be decided in next summer’s scheduled trial on the restrictions.
That’s appropriate. Election boards won’t need to do much shuffling to reinstate same-day registration and count a limited number of additional ballots. But early voting begins in less than three weeks. Extending early voting at this late date would require additional money and other resources that have not been budgeted.
In appealing, the governor is only reinforcing the widely held perception that the assorted restrictions are intended to suppress votes rather than combat voter impersonation fraud that is practically nonexistent.
He and legislative leaders should have left this matter alone until the trial. There is plenty of time.
