North Carolina judge rejects challenge to voter ID law

posted at 5:01 pm on August 10, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

I missed this story earlier this week, what with the flood of international news, but it certainly represents a significant step in the battle over voter ID laws and the likely looming battle before the Supreme Court. A federal judge in North Carolina has rejected a challenge brought by the NAACP and other civil rights organizations to the state’s recent voting regulations law.

ATLANTA — A federal judge in North Carolina on Friday rejected an effort by civil rights groups and the Justice Department to block the application of key elements of a Republican-backed state law that curtailed early voting and other opportunities for residents to cast their ballots.

The 125-page written ruling, issued late Friday by Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the Federal District Court, rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the law, one of the most far-reaching in a recent national wave of Republican-backed legislation on voter ID and against voter fraud, would place “disproportionate burdens” on African-American voters hoping to participate in the November elections.

The voter ID portion of the law will not take effect until 2016, and so is not really the focus of this ruling as that portion isn’t up for a challenge yet. More central to this case is the provision, already in place, which reduced the early voting window from 17 days to 10 days. How that constitutes a violation of any specific group’s rights is beyond me.

Doug Mataconis (who brought the ruling to my attention) seems to agree.

While Judge Schroeder’s 150 page opinion largely defies excerpting here, his essential holding with respect to each of these matters is that the burden placed on voters is de minimis and the governments interests in properly regulating the electoral process was sufficient to support the law. With regard to many of the law’s provisions, this argument makes sense. Reducing early voting from 17 to 10 days is clearly not a significant restriction on voting rights, especially when one takes into account the fact that there is no evidence at all that the availability of early voting. The same is true of the changes that shortened the amount of time within which one could register to vote prior to an election. With specific regard to the Voter ID laws, while it certainly seems to be the case that the GOP’s emphasis on these laws is misplaced given the fact that there’s little evidence of the type voter fraud that such laws would prevent, that does not strike me as being sufficient reason to strike the laws down.

I’ve never been clear on how changes to the dates for early voting – or the complete lack thereof – places an unfair burden on any subset of voters. The fact is that the law applies to everyone. If you can find a case where a state passes a law saying that white voters have a month to vote and minorities can only show up at the polls between noon and two on a Tuesday, let me know and I’ll be right out there with you protesting it. But that’s simply not the case here.

And as I’ve pointed out before, it’s not as if early voting is some sort of determining factor or embedded right around the country. Here in New York we must have the most horrible group of racist legislators in the country, because do you know how long you have to vote in the Empire State? Fifteen hours. That’s right. You have from 6 AM until 9 PM to vote on election day. That’s it. (Aside from absentee and military ballots, which every state has.) Why are there no massive protests against New York’s horribly racist voting laws? Because Democrats already win all the elections here, so why rock the boat?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

OT: why the Tony Stewart racecar incident is murder not manslaughter.

You could maintain that Stewart gunned his engine in order to make noise and scare the victim. But a racecar driver knows that those cars fishtail when given a lot of gas. A comparison would be someone that wanted to scare a person by shooting close to their head, but that person “misses” and actually hits his head. Stewart would of known his car would fishtail, and even if he thought that the car would fishtail and probably just be “close” to the victim, that excuse like a shooter of a gun won’t fly.

anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Racist

Schadenfreude on August 10, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Throw in Wisconsin and we are two for two. Its just common sense.

jmtham156 on August 10, 2014 at 5:06 PM

To Obama and Holder, they only have one more election to worry about and that’s what they’re concentrating on now. I would love to see the Supremes step in and say they’ve already ruled on this and force voter i.d. in this election but that’s not going to happen.

This administration has done every under the table thing they could do, as far as elections are concerned, and they’ve gotten away with it. I just hope our electoral process is still intact when they’re out of office. If you don’t trust the electoral process, revolution can’t be far away.

bflat879 on August 10, 2014 at 5:09 PM

I’ve never been clear on how changes to the dates for early voting – or the complete lack thereof – places an unfair burden on any subset of voters.

IMO there should not be any early voting unless there are certified unusual circumstances that would make a voter not be in their precinct to vote on election day. Way too many opportunities for fraud with ballots sitting around for weeks before the regular election.

Johnnyreb on August 10, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Why are there no massive protests against New York’s horribly racist voting laws? Because Democrats already win all the elections here, so why rock the boat?

Yeah, that’s normally true, but hoping for an exception in the Governor’s race.

I’m also glad that common sense prevailed in this case.

cat_owner on August 10, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Well everyone knows the less time there is to vote the less time there is to vote multiple times and that hurts leftists.

bgibbs1000 on August 10, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Johnnyreb on August 10, 2014 at 5:11 PM

I agree.

INC on August 10, 2014 at 5:18 PM

This is going to really piss off the Attorney Action General at the Department of Injustice.

jukin3 on August 10, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Activist Judge, obviously.

Del Dolemonte on August 10, 2014 at 5:20 PM

This was a ruling on a request for an injunction… before trial. The case has not been dismissed. In fact, the judge found that there was cause to allow the case to continue on some of the plaintiff’s challenges. Just a clarification.

The judge did not sound overwhelmed by the plaintiff’s arguments on their remaining counts so that may portend their ultimate loss but, technically, the case continues to trial.

IndieDogg on August 10, 2014 at 5:20 PM

The whole notion that minorities are not capable of owning a valid ID, and that they require more time to vote than non-minorities, is, well…………..racist.

iurockhead on August 10, 2014 at 5:25 PM

If the laws didn’t affect fraud opportunities, Democrats wouldn’t oppose them so viciously.

~~

Here’s how one common fraud works:

Poll watchers track who has voted at each precinct. The precinct captains know who won’t show up, or who won’t show up if they don’t vote before noon, etc., so as the day progresses they have a good idea whether some of the marginal voters are going to vote or not.

When it is clear certain voters aren’t coming, the captain calls in roving volunteers who show up and cast votes for those people.

Of course “there’s no evidence of widespread fraud.” There’s no evidence at all without Voter ID. The only possible way to get caught is if the real voters actually showed up later, but even then it would likely be considered a clerical error and the person allowed to cast a provisional ballot at the least.

~~

That’s just one of their scams, but it could not be stopped with an ID requirement. This happens mainly in heavily Democratic precincts, no one is going to call them out.

Adjoran on August 10, 2014 at 5:27 PM

“could not be stopped withOUT an ID requirement,” I mean.

Adjoran on August 10, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Memo to Holder’s DOJ: Boom. And GFY.

BuckeyeSam on August 10, 2014 at 5:29 PM

I’ve never been clear on how changes to the dates for early voting – or the complete lack thereof – places an unfair burden on any subset of voters.

There’s a subset of black voters who attend “nonpartisan” black churches that require as many weekend days as possible so that the can arrange to herd congregants on to school buses to transport them to voting locations with lists of Democratic candidates in hand. That Dem GOTV effort would be hurt.

BuckeyeSam on August 10, 2014 at 5:36 PM

OT: why the Tony Stewart racecar incident is murder not manslaughter.You could maintain that Stewart gunned his engine in order to make noise and scare the victim. But a racecar driver knows that those cars fishtail when given a lot of gas. A comparison would be someone that wanted to scare a person by shooting close to their head, but that person “misses” and actually hits his head. Stewart would of known his car would fishtail, and even if he thought that the car would fishtail and probably just be “close” to the victim, that excuse like a shooter of a gun won’t fly
.anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Who cares? The fool should have stayed in the car. Stupid 1 is getting out. Stupid 2 is rushing towards oncoming traffic. Darwinism frowns on road-raging.

Other factors can cause the car to fishtail besides blipping the throttle. If the idiot is coming towards you from one side, you’d want to veer away and if necessary power slide away from the point of conergence but if the idiot changes his vector to close in the gap then it can look like the car ran into the idiot instead of the idiot running into the car. There’s a difference and one can’t really tell from a broadside angle of view.

AH_C on August 10, 2014 at 5:39 PM

A voice of reason, at last.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Girl, bye.

slickwillie2001 on August 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM

“Disenfranchisement,” is when Not very Likely Voters, don’t get a ride to the polls, or bother to vote. Long Lines equals disenfranchisement, when the buses can’t go back and forth quickly because everyone has to stand in line equally to wait to vote. Some Organizers want separate polls for democrat voters, so they don’t have to wait in the line, and can vote more rapidly, so they can be taken back quickly and the next street brought in.

Voters in Florida reported a special voting line for democrat voters arriving on buses, who walked past everyone else waiting. Long Line equals disenfranchisement. If no one provides a free ride and someone telling you how to vote…the government really ought to pay for the rides of the indigent to get to the voting booth as a constitutional right, and owes it to them to tell them how to vote for the best benefits. Maybe government workers should actually vote for those who can’t vote themselves.

And if someone is asking for you to identify yourself with the ID you use for everything else. That can be embarrassing if the identity you are using now doesn’t coincide with a real person.

In MA we had thought that government cards like the EBT card ought to be taken, but since then, it has come out that many people have EBT welfare cards for Multiple Identities. More than one food stamp identity.

Senator Warren mailed voter registrations to the entire welfare roll of the state of Massachusetts, and 50K came back addressee unknown… So much for that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0809/Welfare-voters-are-latest-battleground-in-Brown-Warren-Senate-race

Fleuries on August 10, 2014 at 5:41 PM

anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Do you honestly believe he intended to kill him and not just scare the daylights out of him over a track argument? No jury in America is going to believe that, and a DA would be a fool to bring that charge. Manslaughter is the correct charge and conviction. A lifetime ban from all racing events should also be in order.

crrr6 on August 10, 2014 at 5:42 PM

The way I see it this “early voting” (WTH is that all about?) just offers more opportunity for voter fraud.

Therefor, as can be seen by the reactions of liberals to voter ID laws, any effort to reduce voter fraud is clearly racist.

Taken one step further it can be surmised, that according to liberal views, the majority of voter fraud is carried out by minorities.

Not my views, just how it appears.

IMO the most heinous are the dead voters. I feel all of the strictest voting laws possible should apply to dead people. They should have to update their voting ID’s at least quarterly and must provide a death certificate in order to vote.

Oxymoron on August 10, 2014 at 5:43 PM

.anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 5:04 PM

He fishtailed because of the impact

This stupidity has to stop

You people with your lies about his speeding up, fishtailing, turning into Ward, etc are just so full of it.

Also note:

It was dark
Ward wore black
Ward walked towards Stewart’s car(Notice Ward jumped back from previous vehicle-no wonder that one missed)
There is no evidence that Stewart revved his engine
if you heard anything it was likely either him down shifting
or another vehicle.
Even under a caution the cars go over 50 mph.
Say you ever see someone walk in front of you on a lighted highway? Not much fun.

Now just quit. Your words are defamatory.

CW on August 10, 2014 at 5:50 PM

The Lefties are scared to death of voter ID.

The only way they win any more is vote fraud of one sort or another.

formwiz on August 10, 2014 at 5:50 PM

The Lefties are scared to death of voter ID.

The only way they win any more is vote fraud of one sort or another.

formwiz on August 10, 2014 at 5:50 PM

The left is also afraid of people seeing that these laws didn’t do what the left hysterically claimed they would.

darwin on August 10, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Who cares? The fool should have stayed in the car. ….

AH_C on August 10, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Good points.

anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Thank YOU! There are still a few sane people on the bench.

Nat George on August 10, 2014 at 6:00 PM

NO early voting or same day registration unless you are in the military. Minimum 2 forms of voter ID, can only vote where your permanent address is. Also, you should have to re-register every 8 years or you are purged from the system (this keeps the dead from voting).

Polling hours can be left up to local officials.

nazo311 on August 10, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Early voting is up to the individual states, whether to allow it or not and, if allowed, the duration of the early voting period.

Personally, I prefer there to NOT be early voting–you’re either at the poll or not; if you’re at the poll when the voting deadline is hit, you should be given the chance to cast your vote and still have it count. If you’re late to the polls, too bad–you don’t vote.

Newtie and the Beauty on August 10, 2014 at 6:01 PM

anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 5:04 PM

You also know, NOT to get out of your car, and try and make a point, by running into traffic. Shut up, and stay On Topic!

LastRonin on August 10, 2014 at 6:03 PM

There are some states (Washington is one) that do all voting by mail. Not sure what other states do this, but there probably are a few.

cat_owner on August 10, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Why voter ID laws won’t be overturned by SCOTUS:

CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD

Facts of the Case

In 2005, the Indiana Legislature passed a law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo ID issued by the United States or the State of Indiana. Plaintiffs including the local Democratic Party and interest groups representing minority and elderly citizens argued that the law constituted an undue burden on the right to vote. At trial, the plaintiffs did not produce any witnesses who claimed they would be unable to meet the law’s requirements. The district court and the court of appeals both upheld the law. However, the three-judge appellate panel was deeply divided. Dissenting Judge Terrence Evans claimed that the law was a thinly-veiled attempt to dampen turnout by those likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

Conclusion

By a vote of 6 to 3, the Court upheld the law, concluding that the photo I.D. requirement was closely related to Indiana’s legitimate state interests in preventing voter fraud. The slight burden the law imposed on voters’ rights did not outweigh these interests, which the Court characterized as “neutral and nondiscriminatory.” Although there was no majority opinion, the Court’s decision included concurring opinions written by Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia. Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer each wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Souter’s dissent.

Newtie and the Beauty on August 10, 2014 at 6:06 PM

No , it is not too much for people to show ID. Just more silliness.

CW on August 10, 2014 at 6:10 PM

It’s OK, Once we have amnesty for 5 million entitlement voters, the libs will no longer need to rely on voter fraud.

Oxymoron on August 10, 2014 at 6:13 PM

There are some states (Washington is one) that do all voting by mail. Not sure what other states do this, but there probably are a few.
cat_owner on August 10, 2014 at 6:05 PM

And my brother, who left the state in part because of voting corruption, has made an airtight case to me for why the governorship was twice stolen – or at the least, suffered from decisive fraud.

RL on August 10, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Kay Hagan & “Rev” Barbour hardest hit.

SouthernGent on August 10, 2014 at 6:29 PM

On the racecar incident I’ve now heard some stuff that puts Stewart in a better, if not completely innocent, light. Initially what I had seen was videos showing Stewart’s previous rages, and the gunning of the engine before the kid was hit, and I thought… not good. But, as this Telegraph commenter says:

Sprint cars are very difficult to turn at low speeds and you have to accelerate to steer. Stewart turned to the left and hit the gas in an attempt to steer clear of the kid.

anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Some voters are slower than other voters…but drop an EBT card and see who gets there first!

rgranger on August 10, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Let’s see how Eric Holder deals with this?

COgirl on August 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Manslaughter is the correct charge and conviction. A lifetime ban from all racing events should also be in order.

crrr6 on August 10, 2014

This billshit has to stop. Id like just one person to give me any kind of evidence he gunned his engine or tried to scare that kid in any way. The video ive seen sure seems to show TS makin a last ditch effort to avoid him.

Spliff Menendez on August 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Not sure how the subject got to Stewart. But he did nothing wrong. He didm’;t gun the engine and he did not swerve. His car lurched from running over Ward who got in his way.

hawkdriver on August 10, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Manslaughter is the correct charge and conviction. A lifetime ban from all racing events should also be in order.

crrr6 on August 10, 2014
.

This billshit has to stop. Id like just one person to give me any kind of evidence he gunned his engine or tried to scare that kid in any way. The video ive seen sure seems to show TS makin a last ditch effort to avoid him.

Spliff Menendez on August 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM

.
Not sure how the subject got to Stewart. But he did nothing wrong. He didm’;t gun the engine and he did not swerve. His car lurched from running over Ward who got in his way.

hawkdriver on August 10, 2014 at 8:11 PM

.
I don’t want to hi-jack this thread … waiting for QOTD, to get my 2 cents in.
.
Mean while … THANK YOU, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder.
We have need of many more such judges.

listens2glenn on August 10, 2014 at 8:24 PM

OT: why the Tony Stewart racecar incident is murder not manslaughter.

You could maintain that Stewart gunned his engine in order to make noise and scare the victim. But a racecar driver knows that those cars fishtail when given a lot of gas. A comparison would be someone that wanted to scare a person by shooting close to their head, but that person “misses” and actually hits his head. Stewart would of known his car would fishtail, and even if he thought that the car would fishtail and probably just be “close” to the victim, that excuse like a shooter of a gun won’t fly.

anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Sorry. Not true at all. I am an amateur race driver. A rear wheel drive car gains grip to a point when throttle is applied, as weight is transferred to the rear under throttle. In many instances, the best way to stop oversteer is to apply throttle and steer into the “fishtail” slightly.

There are a ton of variables that go into the behavior of a specific car on a specific surface under a specific set of circumstances, and a driver usually does not know them all on race day. He has to use his best judgement, and failing that, best guess, in emergency situations. He very well may have done his best to avoid the guy and guessed wrong. Driving at the limits of grip is every bit as much art as it is science. He deserves the benefit of the doubt.

stvnscott on August 10, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Showing ID is NOT racist.

If that was the case, all the blacks showing ID for welfare would be, well, racist, right?

IDIOTS.

TX-96 on August 10, 2014 at 8:57 PM

well that is one state…only 56 more to go…..

crosshugger on August 10, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Love the TX-96 analogy.

Having had a LOT of experience w/ voting procedures – IDs definitely needed. Frankly, having an ID not only gives people more confidence (witness increased participation in elections) but also lets people who were not eligible for a number of reasons, know that they EARNED the right to vote. What a novel concept.

MN J on August 10, 2014 at 9:09 PM

anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 5:04 PM

After looking at the videos several times, I saw nothing out of the ordinary: stuff you see at nearly every racing event.

IMHO: The victim in this episode clearly and foolishly ignored the warning given by nearly every mother: “Don’t play in the street” … and paid for it dearly. Not anyone else’s fault.

landlines on August 10, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Showing ID is NOT racist.

If that was the case, all the blacks showing ID for welfare would be, well, racist, right?

IDIOTS.

TX-96 on August 10, 2014 at 8:57 PM

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!

And so would be showing ID to get Social Security benefits. You need your birth certificate, too … and yet we hear no complaints from La Rasa and the other usual suspects!!!

landlines on August 10, 2014 at 9:32 PM

OT: why the Tony Stewart racecar incident is murder not manslaughter.

anotherJoe on August 10, 2014 at 5:04 PM

WTF? FIRST post of the thread? Are you f*n kidding me?

Mitoch55 on August 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Mitoch55 on August 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Seriously.

S. D. on August 10, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Not exactly on point, but sort of.

I looked into some details regarding a Colorado county near where are moving. Not our county but one about four counties away.

Their board of elections page says that every registered voter in the county will be mailed their mail-in ballots for this fall’s elections, regardless. No one needs request it. All are being mailed.

And yes, the left runs the county.

Now, who verifies your I.D. when it’s a mail-in?

Sting on August 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM

Am I wrong? I heard this doesn’t start until 2016. Is that true? If so, why give the Democrats 2 more years to steal elections?

bflat879 on August 10, 2014 at 11:54 PM

IMO there should not be any early voting unless there are certified unusual circumstances that would make a voter not be in their precinct to vote on election day. Way too many opportunities for fraud with ballots sitting around for weeks before the regular election.

Johnnyreb on August 10, 2014 at 5:11 PM

That’s what absentee voting is for – and you used to have to give a legitimate reason you could not come to the polls: invalids, away at school, military, or on business, or other good excuse.

Early voting also commits the voter. The campaign after you vote early means nothing anymore. You can find out your candidate is a crook, a pedophile, or eats puppies and it is too late.

Elections are set for a date certain. To vote before that, you should need a good reason.

Adjoran on August 11, 2014 at 12:10 AM

There should be no early voting, other than absentee, and that only for a very good reason. The constitution mandates an election day, and that’s when votes are to be cast.

Quartermaster on August 11, 2014 at 7:00 AM

I guess this driver didn’t hear of this judge’s decision, plus he was on a closed circuit race track, I don’t think the kid needed to show Stewart his ID anyway. Do they even carry their wallets with them in a race? I don’t know, I’m so confused……..

UpTheCreek on August 11, 2014 at 7:21 AM

IMO there should not be any early voting unless there are certified unusual circumstances that would make a voter not be in their precinct to vote on election day.

Johnnyreb on August 10, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Concur. And that would be something called “absentee voting” which already existed before all this early voting silliness.

“Early voting” was enacted purely to 1) get lazy people to the polls and 2) allow miscreants to vote multiple times.

GWB on August 11, 2014 at 9:32 AM

There are some states (Washington is one) that do all voting by mail. Not sure what other states do this, but there probably are a few.
cat_owner on August 10, 2014 at 6:05 PM

And my brother, who left the state in part because of voting corruption, has made an airtight case to me for why the governorship was twice stolen – or at the least, suffered from decisive fraud.

RL on August 10, 2014 at 6:20 PM

As a 32 year subject of WA State, I can assure you two governorships were stolen.
The last one, the hopelessly inept D barely campaigned and didn’t have a care in the world, then easily won….. Why? WA doesn’t even require any real ID to register to vote by mail.
Illegal! Come on down!
Fifty people registered to the same residential address? Come on down!

Tard on August 11, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Since the DOJ can no longer use pre-clearance (section 5 of Voting Rights Act) to block Southern states from implementing things like voter ID or changes to voting procedures, it has to try and advance claims of disparate impact in district court. Since the DOJ has little, if any, actual evidence of disparate impact, it has to put forward often fanciful extensions of “what if” as reasons for justifying asking the Court to block procedure changes.

It is unlikely that pre-clearance will become legal again anytime soon because what was struck down by the Supreme Court was the use of 1964 African-American voting rates in affected Southern states and, with the changes over time, the 1964 rates don’t really have any applicability anymore. The problem for Congress will be that, if you want to keep those particular Southern states under section 5, an up-to-date criteria is going to have to be developed and it appears that you could arrange to get the Southern states in, but you will drag in almost all, if not all, other states in as well. Result: Congressional deadlock.

Russ808 on August 11, 2014 at 6:49 PM