By: Cara L. Gallagher, weekend contributor
This is a follow up on N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory
African-American voters in North Carolina were “targeted with almost surgical precision” by the North Carolina legislature, according to a three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote the opinion dismantling, point by point, all the provisions rushed through the Legislature in the days immediately following the landmark voting rights decision in Shelby County v. Holder on June 25, 2013.
In the Shelby decision, the Supreme Court released states that, after passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, were required to clear all changes to voting policies and practices with either a federal court or the Department of Justice. Former slave states, where Jim Crow laws abound that disenfranchised minority voters for decades, were released from the pre-clearance requirement and allowed to make whatever changes they wanted to voting policies. States like North Carolina and Texas moved immediately – within days – to initiate laws increasing restrictions on voter access.
In North Carolina, one day after the Shelby decision, the State Legislature designed and accelerated passage of an “omnibus” bill with five provisions restricting voting access. These provisions, aimed at curbing voter fraud, disproportionately affected African-American voter turnout in myriad ways.
· Provision one required voters show a DMV-issued ID in order to vote. The bill excluded non-government issued identification and no longer allowed voters to use recently expired IDs. According to Judge Motz, African-Americans disproportionately lack DMV-issued identification.
· Provision two eliminated early voting days from 17 to 10 when 60% of blacks voted early compared to 44-49% of whites. Among the 17 was one of two Sundays which historically are “Souls to the polls” days when African-American churches provide transportation to polling places.
· Provision three eliminated same-day voter registration, an effort that disproportionately affected blacks who are more likely to move and need to re-register and vote on the same day.
· Provision four eliminated out-of-precinct voting which affected black voters who tend to lack access to the kind of voter education programs that inform them about their correct polling places. Because of the increased rates of mobility, African-Americans are more likely to go to the wrong polling place.
· Provision five ended a pre-registration program for high school students who could’ve automatically registered to vote at 18 when they received their driver’s license. According to the State, the program was eliminated because it was “too confusing.”
Legislation like this in North Carolina is exactly what Shelby opponents were afraid of: Fast-tracked restrictions and laws framed in seemingly race-neutral ways that don’t appear on paper to have the intent to disenfranchise but have the effect of doing exactly that.
Despite appearances, NAACP v. McCrory articulated a clear message to other states that discrimination “need not be the sole or even primary motive for the legislation, just that it was a motivating factor.” Restricting access to a group of people, particularly racial groups, dilutes voter efficacy. This hampers their ability to elect members of a specific party and results in racially polarized voting. As African-Americans have consistently voted Democratic, the Court found these restrictions imposed by the North Carolina state legislature in 2013 – a time when Republicans had the majority in the House, Senate, and the Governor’s mansion – intentionally discriminatory to black voters and likely to have an adverse effect on Democratic candidates.
The facts Judge Motz methodically presented revealed concerted efforts to subdue the effects of rising black voter turnout, efforts that reflect insidious machinations by Republicans to dilute an influential bloc of voters in as fast a way as possible. Take for instance black voter registration in North Carolina prior to the 2013 bill, which grew to 51.1% between 2000 and 2012. African-American turnout also grew from 41.9% in 2000, to 71.5% in 2008, and 68.5% in 2012. “Not coincidentally, during this period North Carolina emerged as a swing state in the national elections,” according to the decision.
Vote dilution mitigates the power that comes with racially polarized voting. Since African-American voters in North Carolina overwhelmingly vote Democratic, [85% of African-Americans voted for Kerry in 2004, 95% for Obama in 2008; 27% of whites voted for Kerry, 35% for Obama] any restrictions would protect the very architects who designed the law in 2013.
North Carolina’s Legislature and the lower court failed to see the “forest in surveying the trees” and the “inextricable link between race and politics” that resulted in the disenfranchisement of thousands of African-American votes. According to the Judges, “Indeed, 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 franchise.”
Fast is an understatement. Take for instance the glaring disparity in the way the first draft of the bill – which in its 16 pages included only one minor voter identification provision – was handled compared to the second draft, a 57-page “omnibus” mother of a bill that included five voter restrictive provisions.
The first draft, released in April of 2013, received six weeks of hearings and debate, and the backing of opposing party members. It sat unchanged until June 26, 2013, one day after the Shelby decision was announced by the Supreme Court. That day the Legislature put the same bill on steroids, editing the one provision and adding four more.
The second draft offered no public debate or action for a month, was released on the down low for which no minutes of meetings about the bill exist, and moved through the General Assembly in a record three days. “This hurried pace, of course, strongly suggests an attempt to avoid in-depth scrutiny,” wrote Judge Motz.
The three judges criticized the district court for allowing the state to chalk up the restrictions to one party playing “politics as usual” against the other. Judge Motz, in perhaps the most derisive commentary in the decision, condemns this notion. “We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination. When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, ‘politics as usual’ does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers.”
Particularly damning was the fact that the legislature requested data that broke down DMV-issued identification ownership, absentee voting, early voting, same-day registration, and provisional voting by race during the drafting of the bill. Analysis of this data would’ve (or should’ve) revealed to lawmakers that African-American voters are disproportionately impacted in each category. With this revelation, any argument by the State that there was no intent to discriminate against black voters and no knowledge that the restrictions would have such adverse impacts is stunningly impossible.
You’re a state with a proven record of voter fraud that wants to quash this. Fine. But if their intent was honestly to curb voter fraud these restrictions look more like the State brought a machine gun to a knife fight.
What are these state-wide rushes to reform voting processes always about? Voter fraud, the integrity of the election process, restoring public confidence? Yes, those things are important and while it would seem as if North Carolina must’ve had an outbreak of recent voter fraud, according the Judge Motz “the State has failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud.”
Further disproving the state’s genuine interest in thwarting fraud, the only evidence of actual voter fraud has been with mail-in absentee ballots, but you’ll note not one of the provisions repaired this alleged problem. According to the opinion, “Notably, the legislature also had evidence that absentee voting was not used by African-Americans; indeed, whites disproportionately use absentee voting.”
The three judge panel reversed the decision of the lower court and would’ve likely recommend the case be remanded back to the state and lower court for revision or reconsideration. Not this time. Writing that a remand “would accomplish little,” they, in essence repealed the law and gave no second chances.
While the Judges could’ve sanctioned the State by putting them back under a Section 5 pre-clearance requirement, they stopped short of going that far. The next steps for North Carolina are to either request an en banc hearing in which all the judges at the 4th Circuit would rehear the case, or they could appeal to the Supreme Court. It’s likely that even if they got four Justices to grant a hearing of the case they would end up with a 4-4 decision, which would leave this decision in place.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
MikeA, You are a liberal w/ a great sense of humor. I see your Dems checked off the transgender box w/ a former WH intern giving a speech @ the DNC Coronation. She was a very attractive and eloquent and at least from the short clip I saw on TV, looked like a woman. Bubba would have hit on her. If he were awake.
I guess you got over the rigged game against Bernie? Didn’t want Sarah Silverman calling you “ridiculous.” I happened to be in VT visiting a dying uncle[my mom’s twin] when the DNC scandal broke. Those Green Mountain folks were pissed! Had breakfast w/ my aunt in a great diner in West Rutland. It was all the talk over coffee, pancakes and syrup. Despicable what the DNC did.
How can “in person voter fraud” be detected if the voter does not have to prove who they are? And I suppose liquor stores, airlines and any other entity which requires and ID is acting in a discriminatory fashion as well?
@BrooklynB
Democrats only tend to find what they want to find. If they don’t want to find voter fraud, they won’t find it. You are confusing “evidence” with “good evidence.” And vice versa. My goodness, how many illegals have phony identification!
The voter fraud is all over the place, but unless Bob Jones goes to vote, and discovers that he has already voted, it is kind of hard to find. But that is only one scheme. What if our Bob Jones doesn’t exist? What if he is really Ted Smith, or Daquarius Jones, and votes under multiple names? What if Bob Jones is in a nursing home, and doesn’t know what year it is, but somehow he votes. What if the Dems round up a bunch of gang members and takes then to a precinct where the registrar is in on the scheme? Then, they go to another precinct and vote again?
Darn hard to find. Heck, the FBI can’t even keep track of terror suspects like Omar Mateen.
Trust me, games get played with paperwork all the time. Do some research yourself. Read some of the people who DO say voter fraud exists. Plus, be more aware of real life, to wit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_VAfVhsvOA
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
BFM, DavidM is a true advocate for the homeless. I have helped him getting background records for homeless to assist them in getting benefits from SS and maybe Veteran’s, I can’t remember for sure. Many homeless have gaps in their memory and I can run database checks to fill in those gaps w/ addresses, employment, service records, spouses, children, etc. Several of the ID’s my homeless posse showed me had the address of a church that also is a shelter. A few guys told me family and friends let them use their address. I got my CA ID renewed this past January and was getting ready to pay the fee when the DMV clerk told me, “no charge” for seniors. Any yes, homeless shelters and other agencies help people just like DavidM does. DavidM takes in homeless people. I just listen to them and buy them meals, cigs, a little cash, etc. I’ll give them rides if they need a lift[not Lyft]. They seem to appreciate someone listening more than just about anything..well, maybe not as much as $$’s! A simple thing you can do if you’re in a city, is give your leftovers to a homeless person as you drive home from a restaurant. Make sure you ask for utensils @ the restaurant, unless it’s just a sandwich. Almost invariably you’ll get a sincere thank you. Some homeless are pretty far gone and may not say anything, don’t let that discourage you from doing it again.
@Nick:
If you ever have some spare time in DC, you might be interested in stopping by DC Central Kitchen. They have a small budget, but mainly glean food from the many restaurants and hotels. The last I heard they were sending out more than 3,000 meals a day to shelters and feeding locations around the city.
See also Ohio voter registration purging practices:
http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2016/07/27/feds-join-suit-over-ohio-voter-registration-purge
@Sidney
I believe you have confused the homeless with the illegal immigrants. It is the illegals who have the bank statements, and electric bills, and rent agreements to prove they have been here for five years, when they just came here last month. Because Manuel Rodriquez is an extremely un-common name.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Sidney is an old timer w/ a new name but the same ol’ stupid snark.
Or perhaps they brought in a bank statement?
It’s a wondrous world that Nick lives in.
In WDC I am pretty sure they have standard procedures so that the homeless can qualify for official photo ID and obtain various benefits such as Medicaid.
Unless I am mistaken, some of the larger homeless shelters have staff a few days a week to help with that effort.
Some of the institutions that work with homeless and others in troubled neighborhoods make it possible for them to receive mail.
Maybe a reader who knows can clarify, but I believe there is case law that says citizens cannot be denied government services and benefits simply because they are homeless.
And did those homeless people bring in an electric bill to prove they were a resident at that address when applying for this ‘alleged’ photo ID?
Well wadayano! Nick knows homeless people with IDs. Imagine that!
Thing is – isn’t the deal with homeless people that they have no home? So just what are they using for a home address on these IDs?
Big Time Bee S.
From the BigApple web site:
““I’ve arranged with my executor to be buried in Chicago. Because when I die, I want to still remain active politically.” ….. The “bury me in —- because I want to remain politically active” joke has also been attributed to Louisiana governor Earl Long (1895-1960) and also to places in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, New Jersey, North Carolina and Texas. “
@bfm
I am not sure that telepathy is something we should require of our judges. Face it, any change in any law is going to affect some people and some classes more than others.
If the minimum state auto insurance is raised from $25,000 to $35,000 for example, who is it going to affect more? Black folks! If that is the means you use to analyze the law, how it affects black people, instead of overall reasonableness boy do you have your work cut out for you! (I am assuming you are white, and that the use of the word “boy” is not racially offensive to you.)
For example, suppose we increase the penalties for Domestic Violence. Well, guess what:
Sooo, if a state decides to increase penalties for domestic violence. . .well it is going to impact blacks more than whites! How do you judge the new law—its impact on blacks, or its reasonableness?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
” boy do you have your work cut out for you! (I am assuming you are white, and that the use of the word “boy” is not racially offensive to you.)”
Everything considered, I think it is especially flattering when you call me boy.
The only problem is you haven’t recently mentioned on my natural good looks.
@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
I hear you on not wanting someone to vote more than once, or for a non citizen or non resident, etc. But if I’m not mistaken, our system of jurisprudence has a notion that one makes laws for abuses that can be proven to occur with some frequency and not so much for potential abuses or those that occur infrequently (except where the outcome is very serious such as loss of life).
Studies indicate that voter id type fraud occurs very infrequently which indicates that laws requiring various forms of identification (usually of a type difficult or expensive for the poor to acquire) are suspect at least for reasons of identity.
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/policy-brief-truth-about-voter-fraud
http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Analysis.pdf
Entertainment parks, such as Disneyland, stamp your hand with an invisible ink. The stamp is only seen under a certain light. Such a simple solution. If they leave to get something from their car a quick look under the light proves they have paid admission. Why would anyone think that unfair? Do we require something to prove age eligibility? The hand stamp eases the concern that people don’t vote more than once. Implementation of the stamp and light procedure would be simple. Disney might offer to install it for us, probably take a week to finish. No picture required. You should still be required to state your residential address. I say that because a precinct in Ohio had 104% of people living in that precinct, including children, vote in 2012. And another woman voted several times as people voting elsewhere or dead.,she knew how they would vote so did it for them. All anybody not a crook want is one person one vote.
Now Illinois can be sure no cadavers walked in and voted. In CA Republican Representatives attempted to compare the voting roles against Social Security death roles. But no, couldn’t pass that. And we have had only Democrat officials elected since then. When proof that 57 people voted listing their address which was an empty street corner, this made a difference in who won, but the Democrats would not agree to even look at the empty lot where 57 people lived. And Deborah Sanchez won with no people living at an address that gave her 57 obviously lying votes.
There is a long-standing rumor that if Nixon had asked for a recount of Illinois so many votes would have been declared invalid and he would have won in 1960. He didn’t ask for that recount saying “it wouldn’t be good for the country”. Our history would be completely different and John Kennedy could still be alive today. Fascinating.
So wouldn’t it be better to stamp with invisible ink so that you wouldn’t be allowed to vote again? Our current system isn’t working toward an honest total, but the Deocrats seem to be OK with that I’m not!
Nick S.:
LOL. I’m working on a piece now on transgender rights. I promise it will be an analysis by a straight person, and therefore a straight analysis as you have requested.
Voting registration should be easy and same day. But, you need a picture ID to vote. WTF? I am fed up w/ people saying having a picture ID is a burden. I hang out w/ many homeless in Madison and San Diego. A few years ago, because of these screams from liberals, I started asking guys as we got to know each other if they had a picture ID. These are HOMELESS people. Many w/ AODA issues and psych issues. I’ve probably asked a dozen. EVERY ONE had a picture ID. And, most were more than happy to show it to me w/ pride. I have a well honed BS detector and this is pure BS.
I got a good insight into Cara when Notorious RBG was shooting her mouth off. She used the tired, “Scalia did it too” line and found RBG’s comments cute . JT is a liberal but a believer in the law and ethics. He railed against all the liberals using that excuse. Cara cannot not put her partisanship aside. Just realize everything she writes will have an unabashed liberal bias. That said, she is not anything like the former weekend bloggers here who were liberal fascists. I’m hoping MikeA starts doing some posts. He is biased liberal but more like JT, sometimes able to put his Dem hat in the closet and do a straight analysis.
“Sooo, let the law stand. When you consider that black voting actually INCREASED after the law, then any thing else is irrelevant to me”
Fallacy. The increase in voter roles after the racist legislation tells us nothing at all about what the voter roles would have been without the legislation.
It is like claiming that infection with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria is not a health problem because some people are even healthier after the doctor treats them with antibiotics.
Racist legislation is a serious problem even when citizens overcome some of its destructive effects.
@PaulCS
Good point! Plus, I think New York should make a license selling loosies automatic! Because the law which makes it illegal has a disparate effect on black people. Heck, them racisssts! cops in New York City even choked a poor black man named Garner for selling them without a license!
@isaacb
#3
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Al Reardon
You don’t have to go to NC to experience that. This blog has all you need to understand the situation. Some on this blog make them good old boys in NC appear downright progressive.
@Mike Appleton
Frankly, I am NOT against a restoration of rights to ex-felons, including to right to own a gun. I think there should be a period of good behavior without any arrests, or criminal activity – perhaps 7 years, or so before the rights are restored.
But the question here is: Is it unreasonable to require Voter ID? If a state didn’t require it in the past, and then requires it, is that unreasonable? I don’t think so.
ANY law which concerns voting is going to affect someone. I think the issue should be, is the resulting law unreasonable. Now, if a state required a Driver’s License, and a Birth Certificate, and a finger print to vote — – I would think that unreasonable.
Although, bio-metric ID would be a good way to make sure each person only votes once. Because isn’t that the point? Only legal voters vote, and only once. Why do Democrats have such a problem with that??? I don’t know, but probably for the same reason they have problems with criminal laws.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter