3 Democrat Federal Judges Wrote Law from the Bench: Federal appeals court overturns NC voter ID law; 16+17yo's Can Pre-register to Vote

RICHMOND, VA. — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that state lawmakers adopted a photo identification requirement for voters and other changes to state elections laws "with discriminatory intent" and ordered that the changes be blocked.

Immediately after lawmakers passed the Voter Information and Verification Act in 2013, the state NAACP, the League of Women Voters, other advocacy groups and several voters challenged the voter ID requirement and other provisions, including reducing the early voting period, eliminating same-day registration and voiding ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The U.S. Department of Justice later joined in the lawsuit.

The voter ID requirement took effect with the March primary, but courts have put the same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting provisions on hold pending the outcome of the lawsuits.

Voter ID opponents hailed the ruling as a victory for North Carolina voters.


Court and legal Read the full 4th Circuit ruling on NC voter ID law

"We applaud the appeals court for recognizing the discriminatory intent behind the monster voter suppression law," Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina, said in a statement. "The ruling makes clear that the North Carolina General Assembly cherry-picked its revisions in the law to suppress African American and young voters. Today’s ruling begins to right that wrong."

"This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state's attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade," Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. "It is a major victory for North Carolina voters and for voting rights."

House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger said they would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"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," Moore and Berger said in a joint statement.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder upheld VIVA in April, saying the plaintiffs didn't demonstrate the law violated the Voting Rights Act or the equal protection guarantees in the Constitution. But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Schroeder ignored "critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina."

"In North Carolina, restriction of voting mechanisms and procedures that most heavily affect African Americans will predictably redound to the benefit of one political party and to the disadvantage of the other. As the evidence in the record makes clear, that is what happened here," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

The judges noted that, before passing VIVA, state lawmakers obtained data broken down by race on the use of various voting practices, such as early voting and same-day registration, and used the law to target those practices to target black voters "with almost surgical precision."

"Using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election. But intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose," Motz wrote. "A state legislature acting on such a motivation engages in intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act."

State lawmakers have argued that VIVA is necessary to combat voter fraud and that growing numbers of black voters in North Carolina demonstrate that the law doesn't infringe on their rights. The 4th Circuit judges dismissed both arguments.

"The photo ID requirement here is both too restrictive and not restrictive enough to effectively prevent voter fraud," Motz wrote, noting that the provision doesn't address potential fraud in mail-in absentee voting and needlessly limits the types of state-issued IDs that are acceptable at the polls.

The judges likewise dismissed the state's justifications for eliminating same-day registration and cutting a week from the early voting period.

VIVA was unveiled in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said Southern states no longer needed federal approval of changes to their election laws. North Carolina lawmakers passed it along party lines without any public hearings and with limited debate in the House and the Senate.

"Neither this legislature – nor, as far as we can tell, any other legislature in the Country – has ever done so much, so fast, to restrict access to the (voting) franchise," Motz wrote.

The court split 2-1 on whether the General Assembly's softening of the voter ID requirement last year should be weighed before ordering that the provision be immediately overturned.

Lawmakers allowed voters who had "reasonable impediment" to obtaining an ID, such as a health issue or lack of transportation, to sign an affidavit and still be able to cast a ballot.

"Even if the State were able to demonstrate that the amendment lessens the discriminatory effect of the photo ID requirement, it would not relieve us of our obligation to grant a complete remedy in this case," Judge James Wynn wrote for the majority, saying that the provision must be thrown out because it was "motivated by an impermissible discriminatory intent."


[link to www.wral.com]

the appeals court belongs in prison, if you have a problem with verifying a voter youre a worthless piece of shit and a traitor

Ridiculous! How can they say asking for ID is motivated by "discriminatory intent"?! So, does that mean that if a n 18 year old goes to buy beer and is told he needs to show ID that he can claim he is being "discriminated" against? Same thing when I am asked for my ID if I am pulled over by a police officer. Can I claim that I am being discriminated against because I am asked for ID? Is it discriminatory if I am asked for my ID to buy a firearm? How about if I start a new job or apply for a loan? Why is it perfectly reasonable to ask for ID in these instances, but not when people are voting? Why is that instance, and only that, considered to be discriminatory if someone asks for ID?

This is absolute insanity and needs to be challenged!

Hillary Rotten Cankles is going to try to steal this election. These judges are working with her to make it easier for her to commit the fraud.

Wouldn't it be interesting if some of the forthcoming information that WikiLeaks is going to release includes conversations between the Hillary campaign or DNC and these judges?

If we allolw this to happen, there is no sense in even voting.

They have stolen our election process. Fight back now OR IT IS OVER!!

MAKE your governors stand up against this blatant stealing of the entire american election system.

If we allolw this to happen, there is no sense in even voting.

They have stolen our election process. Fight back now OR IT IS OVER!!

MAKE your governors stand up against this blatant stealing of the entire american election system.

Ridiculous! How can they say asking for ID is motivated by "discriminatory intent"?! So, does that mean that if a n 18 year old goes to buy beer and is told he needs to show ID that he can claim he is being "discriminated" against? Same thing when I am asked for my ID if I am pulled over by a police officer. Can I claim that I am being discriminated against because I am asked for ID? Is it discriminatory if I am asked for my ID to buy a firearm? How about if I start a new job or apply for a loan? Why is it perfectly reasonable to ask for ID in these instances, but not when people are voting? Why is that instance, and only that, considered to be discriminatory if someone asks for ID?

This is absolute insanity and needs to be challenged!

I live in NC and right now I am so mad I can't see straight!

The majority of "real" legal people do not mind the voter ID laws...

I have to have ID to cash a check or buy booze...I think voting is a little more important than that.

Almost no one...and I mean that...can live without some form of ID unless they are doing things sneaky and underhanded.

This is so the border jumpers can sneak in and vote and so Tyrone and Jemimah can get two or three votes...

State's rights...fuck them.

if they do not like the voter laws of NC....f*cking move.

"Immediately after lawmakers passed the Voter Information and Verification Act in 2013, the state NAACP, the League of Women Voters, other advocacy groups and several voters challenged the voter ID requirement and other provisions, including reducing the early voting period, eliminating same-day registration and voiding ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The U.S. Department of Justice later joined in the lawsuit."


So, register the day of the election with no ID, claim to be whomever you want, and vote wherever you damn well feel like it, cause it's not fair that you should have to be who you say you are, vote in your own precinct, or bother to register before election day.

I used to live there. It's sad how its transformed from a historically very conservative bible belt to what it is today.