|
| File-This June 21, 2016, file photo shows North Carolina NAACP president, Rev. William Barber, center at podium gesturing during a news conference in Richmond, Va. A federal appeals court on Friday, July 29, 2016, blocked a North Carolina law that required voters to produce photo identification and follow other rules disproportionately affecting minorities, finding that the law was intended to make it harder for blacks to vote in the presidential battleground state. Rev. Barber, said in an interview that the ruling was a powerful victory for civil rights and for democracy |
RALEIGH, N.C.
(AP) -- A federal appeals court on Friday blocked a North
Carolina law that required voters to produce photo identification and
follow other rules disproportionately affecting minorities, finding that
the law was intended to make it harder for blacks to vote in the
presidential battleground state.
The
Virginia-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the measures
violated the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act by targeting
black voters "with almost surgical precision." It marks the third
ruling in less than two weeks against voter ID laws after court
decisions regarding Texas and Wisconsin.
Friday's
opinion from a three-judge panel states that "the legislature enacted
one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North
Carolina history" when it rewrote voting laws in 2013.
The appeals court also dismissed arguments by Republican lawmakers that the law was aimed at preventing voter fraud.
"Although
the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical
precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly
justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not
exist," the opinion states.
Opponents of the
law say the ruling should increase participation by black and Hispanic
voters on Election Day in the state that also has closely contested
races for U.S. Senate and governor. The U.S. Justice Department, state
NAACP and League of Women Voters were among those who sued over the
restrictions.
"This is a strong rebuke to what
the North Carolina General Assembly did in 2013. It's a powerful
precedent that ... federal courts will protect voting rights of voters
of color," said Allison Riggs, who served as the League of Women Voters'
lead lawyer.
The Rev. William Barber,
president of the North Carolina NAACP, said the ruling was "a
vindication of our constitutional and moral critique and challenge to
the constitutional extremism of our government."
The
decision was lauded by Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary
Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, but decried by Republicans
including Gov. Pat McCrory as an effort to tilt the electoral balance in
the November elections.
North Carolina
legislative leaders Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim
Moore, both Republicans, issued a statement that they would appeal the
ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and blasted the judges as "three
partisan Democrats."
"We can only wonder if
the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing
fellow Democrat politicians ... to steal the election," they said.
All three panel members were appointed by Democratic presidents.
However,
it's unlikely that the evenly divided and short-handed Supreme Court
would take the case or block Friday's ruling from governing elections
this November, said election-law experts Ned Foley of Ohio State
University and Richard Hasen of the University of California at Irvine.
Earlier
this month, a federal appeals court ruled that Texas' strict voter ID
law is discriminatory and must be weakened by November. That followed a
ruling by a federal judge in Wisconsin that residents without a photo ID
will still be allowed to vote.
Hasen said the Obama administration took on the North Carolina and Texas cases as a bulwark against voting restrictions.
"If
North Carolina and Texas could get away with these voting restrictions,
it would have been a green light for other states to do so," he said.
"I think this is a hugely important decision."
North
Carolina's voting laws were rewritten in 2013 by the General Assembly
two years after Republicans took control of both legislative chambers
for the first time in a century. It was also shortly after a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling changed the requirement that many Southern states
receive federal approval before changing voting laws.
The
voter ID mandate, which took effect in March, required people casting
ballots in person to show one of six qualifying IDs, although voters
facing "reasonable impediments" could fill out a form and cast a
provisional ballot.
North Carolina legislators
imposed the photo ID requirement, curtailed early voting and eliminated
same-day registration and voters' ability to cast out-of-precinct
provisional ballots in their home counties.
The
appeals court cited data that these methods were used
disproportionately by black voters, who also were more likely to lack a
qualifying ID, and it blocked the contested provisions of the law.
The
judges wrote that in the years before the North Carolina law took
effect, registration and participation by black voters had been
dramatically increasing.
"We recognize that
elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower
anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination," the
panel said.
The Rev. Moses Colbert, a
61-year-old pastor at a church in Gastonia, said the elimination of
same-day registration ensured that he couldn't vote on Election Day 2014
shortly after moving within North Carolina.
He'd sought to change his
voter registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles, but the update
didn't get to county officials by the election.
He
was told his name wasn't on the rolls where he'd just moved. But when
he drove 20 miles back to the county where he was registered before,
election workers turned him away because of the new address on his
license.
"I was stunned. I'm only two
generations away from slavery," said Colbert, who is black. "This is a
privilege every American needs to be allowed to exercise."
