Last month, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Republican-led General Assembly enacted the 2013 law with intentional discrimination in mind by targeting black voters more likely to support Democrats. That ruling said the state legislature deliberately targeted voting practices used most often by blacks to stem the rising political clout of minority citizens. They also face the greatest hurdles to voting on Election Day due to varying work schedules and a more likely reliance on public transportation to get to their polling place, meaning they are more likely to vote by mail than whites. With an eight-member Court, even if all four of the more conservative Justices voted for a delay, there would still have to be a fifth vote from among the Court’s four more liberal members. Pat McCrory, requires voters to show one of several state photo IDs, most commonly a driver’s license, before being granted access to the ballot.
Advertisement
The Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to leave in place a lower court ruling that struck down one of the nation’s toughest voter ID laws in North Carolina.
The appeals court wrote that lawyers for Wisconsin had assured the judges that voting credentials would be “available to all qualified persons who seek them” and that the state would not refuse to initiate a process known as “IDPP” to provide residents with IDs if they lacked proof of citizenship, a Social Security card or other documents. The court gives no timeline as to when it will issue a ruling on the request. That law included a photo-ID requirement and eliminated a week of early voting. Ten days of early voting began earlier. On Friday afternoon, the full appeals court unanimously upheld the panel’s decision, after an appeal from voting rights groups. And strict voting laws in North Carolina, Texas, Kansas and elsewhere also have been blocked or softened by courts lately.
This past week, North Carolina Gov. He did so after Republicans challenged his earlier voting rights restoration plan – and won – in the Virginia Supreme Court.
The Obama administration brief, overall, was focused on specific legal arguments for keeping the Circuit Court ruling intact, while the advocacy groups’ brief put heavier stress on what North Carolina itself is doing to carry out that decision.
Advertisement
In addition, the plaintiffs argue state and local election officials are well on their way to complying with the appeals court decision, with plenty of time until November. Neither of the new briefs responded to that suggestion, but both did say there are no realistic chances that the Court would grant review when a petition is filed. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Denniston has written for us as a contributor since June 2011.
