Uncategorized

Block voting law changes, challengers ask federal court

vote2The groups and individuals challenging North Carolina’s recent voting law changes filed papers late yesterday in federal court in Winston-Salem asking that implementation of those changes be suspended until at least after the November mid-term elections.

“North Carolinians should be able to vote in the November election without having to navigate the barriers imposed by this discriminatory law,” said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina and one of the attorneys for the challengers in League of Women Voters of North Carolina et al. v. North Carolina.

Those challengers contend that changes eliminating a week of early voting, ending same-day registration, and prohibiting out-of-precinct voting unduly burden the right to vote and discriminate against African-American voters, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“Voters are at real risk of being blocked from participating in the pivotal midterm election,” Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. “If this law is subsequently found unconstitutional, as we fully expect it will be, North Carolinians who were denied the vote will never get a do-over.”

The parties’ motion follows a ruling late last week by U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder requiring state lawmakers to disclose communications about the voting changes between themselves and others during the time such changes were being discussed and implemented.

Read the parties’ motion requesting a preliminary injunction here.

4 Comments

  1. Jack

    May 20, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    In the past few years the following states have pass voter ID laws to suppress voter participation in local and national elections.

    Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

    If you’re conspiracy minded you might think that a group of people got together to coordinate an effort to suppress voter participation throughout the country by passing voter ID laws. But, since the very mention of the word “conspiracy” brings forth condemnation of such coordinated efforts, even when publicly acted upon, by government bodies across the country let’s call it a “coincidence” that the above states just happen to pass voter suppression laws.

  2. Jim Wiseman

    May 20, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    Jack, what makes you think these laws are specifically designed for “voter suppression”?

  3. Alan

    May 20, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

    It’s an epidemic I tell you!

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/

  4. Jack

    May 23, 2014 at 9:04 am

    Jim what makes you think these laws are not repressive? Voting fraud at the level claimed by the right is a myth. Fact that no evidence has been presented in court or elsewhere to substantiate the accusation is evidence enough that such voter fraud does not exist, therefore, such laws requiring ID at the polls, eliminating or restricting early voting, same day registration, combining precincts into super-precincts and so forth under the rubric of voter fraud are repressive by definition. There is no secret to this approach it is an obvious tactic that is clear in its design and purpose.