North Carolina’s voter ID law gets smacked down in federal court

voter idfeatThe 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals nixed North Carolina’s voter ID law, but Republicans are vowing to fight it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court overruled a lower courts decision that upheld parts of the state’s 2013 election law revamp and agreed with the Justice Department and NAACP’s contention that the law disproportionately effects minorities and low-income voters, The Hill reported.

“We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote in the ruling.

Republicans are not going to take the decision as the final word.

“Since today’s decision by three partisan Democrats ignores legal precedent, ignores the fact that other federal courts have used North Carolina’s law as a model, and ignores the fact that a majority of other states have similar protections in place, we can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election,” House Speaker Tim Moore and state Senate President Phil Berger wrote in a statement. “We will obviously be appealing this politically-motivated decision to the Supreme Court.”

The ruling could have a big effect on the outcome of the presidential election. North Carolina is considered a state that is up for grabs.

And the decision could put the state’s election process back under federal watch, Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, said on his Election Law Blog.

“The key part of the holding is that North Carolina acted with racially discriminatory intent,” he wrote.

The decision followed two other wins for opponents of voter identification laws.

Last week, parts of Wisconsin’s law were struck down by a federal judge, and the 5th Circuit overturned a Texas law requiring voters to show ID.

In a country where one needs identification for just about everything, it is curious that so many judges find proving eligibility to vote for the leader of the free world is discriminatory.

Carmine Sabia


Latest Articles