A federal judge will now have to decide whether North Carolina’s new voting law is so onerous on black voters that it needs to be blocked before the upcoming November elections. That’s the central question after a four-day hearing in U.S. District Court in Winston-Salem ended Thursday afternoon. National and local voting-rights activists are closely watching the case. U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder said in court that he would issue a written decision at a later date, noting it would be “sooner rather than later,” given the urgency of the matter State attorneys argued Thursday that the law was not discriminatory and that it gave everyone an equal opportunity to vote. Opponents disagree. The hearing featured about three days of testimony from state officials, Democratic legislators, experts and blacks voters who said they would be burdened by voting changes that Republicans legislators passed in 2013. The law, known as the Voting Information Verification Act and referred to in the hearing as House Bill 589, would reduce early voting from 17 days to 10, eliminate same-day voter registration, prohibit county elections officials from counting ballots cast by voters in the correct county but wrong precinct and get rid of pre-registration by 16- and 17-year-olds. The law also would increase the number of poll observers assigned by each political party, allow a registered voter to challenge another voter in the same county and require voters to show a photo ID by 2016. Soon after Gov. Pat McCrory signed the legislation into law on Aug. 12, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice, the state NAACP, the League of Women Voters and a number of churches and individuals filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court of the Middle District of North Carolina. The suits alleged the law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as the 14th, 15th and 26th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. But the question this week in U.S. District Court had to do with whether to grant a preliminary injunction against many of the provisions. Opponents argued that black voters in particular would be harmed if the provisions of the law remained in effect for the Nov. 4 general election, which features the hotly contested U.S. Senate race between Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis, the speaker of the House and one of the main architects of the new law. Long history of voting discrimination In final arguments Thursday, Daniel Donovan, attorney for the state NAACP, said that the new law would be disproportionately burdensome on black voters. That doesn’t mean it would make it impossible for blacks to vote but it would set up a unique set of obstacles for black voters, he and other plaintiffs’ attorneys argued, that would make it hard for them to vote and to register to vote. Much of the testimony during the hearing centered on North Carolina’s long history of voting discrimination against blacks, including the use of poll taxes and literacy tests. Rosanell Eaton, the 93-year-old lead plaintiff in the case, testified that when she registered to vote at the age of 19 in Franklin County, she was forced to read the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. That kind of discrimination, they argued, led to years of low voter participation by blacks. Then, starting in 2000, after years of lobbying by blacks, state legislators instituted changes, such as early voting, that were designed to correct that history. And the changes worked, boosting black voter turnout and moving North Carolina to 11th in the country for voter participation, opponents argued. Then, on June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the part of the Voting Rights Act that required some states and counties to get federal approval for voting changes. Immediately after that ruling, opponents allege, Republicans rammed sweeping changes in the voting law through both chambers of the General Assembly with little debate. Opponents charge that black voters as well as other minorities and young voters will be affected disproportionately because they use early voting and other provisions reduced or eliminated in the new law at higher rates than white voters. They also argue that those socioeconomic conditions for blacks, including lack of transportation, poverty and unemployment, as well as North Carolina’s history of racial discrimination make the new law especially burdensome for blacks. ‘People are not robots’ State attorneys didn’t offer any evidence during the hearing but fired back through cross-examination and final arguments that the new law had no discriminatory intent and that everyone has an equal opportunity to vote and to register to vote. “At the end of the day, people are not robots. They have the ability to make their own choices,” said Thomas Farr, one of the attorneys for the state. “I don’t believe (blacks) are not sophisticated enough to figure where to register to vote when the law changes.” Farr also noted that other states, such as Virginia, don’t have early voting or same-day voter registration yet saw high turnout rates for blacks in the 2012 presidential election. Schroeder asked attorneys for the opponents about what kind of precedent he might be making if he granted the preliminary injunction. Specifically, he wondered if other states might be vulnerable to claims that they violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they took away or didn’t offer things like early voting. Opponents said each state has evolved its election system in different ways and that Schroeder has to consider the unique circumstances of North Carolina’s voting law. After the hearing was over, the Rev. John Mendez, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, stood outside the federal courthouse, along with several others, including Eaton. Mendez is one of the plaintiffs in the NAACP lawsuit. He said this case is part of a long fight for voting rights. “We really see this as a moral and political struggle because the lives of black people, poor people and other ethnic groups are at stake,” he said.journalnow/news/elections/local/decision-on-nc-voting-law-injunction-now-up-to-federal/article_f897c9a4-0854-11e4-83cd-001a4bcf6878.html
Posted on: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:46:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015