Understanding N.C.NAACP
lawsuit against Voter ID law
BY CASH MICHAELS
FOE THE CHRONICLE
The plaintiffs' pre-trial
brief in the voter identifica
tion lawsuit being heard in
federal court in Winston
Salem this week alleges
that Republican lawmakers
amended the strict 2013
voter ID law last summer
just prior to the first federal
trial because "... the State
recognized that ... there
was no evidence of in-per
son voter fraud in North
Carolina, thus undermining
the purported justification
for the law."
The lawsuit goes on to
charge that "... the statute
stood to impose enormous
and disproportionate bur
dens on minorities once it
went into effect in violation
of Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act and the 14th
and 15th Amendments of
the Constitution."
That lawsuit,
NCNAACP v. Gov. Pat
McCrory, challenges the
Republican governor and
the GOP-led state
Legislature over passage of
the 2013 voter photo iden
tification law, which origi
nally only required a gov
ernment-issued photo ID to
vote in the state. It also
seeks to stop implementa
tion before the upcoming
March IS primaries.
Because of last minute
changes to the law last
June, voters will be
required to show a govern
ment-issued photo identifi
cation at the polls to cast a
ballot, unless they have a
"reasonable impediment
declaration" for not having
one, which didn't exist
before. In that case, they
would be required to fill
out a form, then show some
form of identification like a
utility bill, verifying then
name and address, in order
to then cast a provisional or
substitute ballot.
What has not widely
been reported is that that
declaration can be chal
lenged by another voter in
that county, and the county
board of elections can dis
allow the provisional ballot
cast as a result if it deter
mines- the excuse for not
having a photo ID to be
false.
Attorneys for the plain
tiffs - the N.C. NAACP,
the League of Women
Voters of North Carolina,
and the U.S. Justice Dept. -
maintain in their brief that
"The rationale for North
Carolina originally enact
ing a photo ID requirement
was to deter in-person
voter fraud. But allowing
those without such ID to
vote simply by signing a
"reasonable impediment"
affidavit would seem to
undermine that justifica
tion, particularly against an
evidentiary background of
no in-person voter fraud in
North Carolina and the
increased tax dollars that
North Carolina taxpayers
will need to spend imple
menting this law. Against
that background, one must
question what North
Carolina's real motivation
is in continuing to insist on
imposing a photo ID law at
all."
The brief goes on to
allege that the reasonable
impediment requirement
effectively creates a barrier
for African-Americans and
Hispanics to constitutional
ly exercise their right to
vote, because they're more
likely than whites not to
have a government-issued
identification, like a driv
er's license. That, plain
tiffs' attorneys say, is a vio
lation of Section 2 of the
1965 Voting Rights Act,
which prohibits the state
from "imposing or apply
ing any electoral practice
which results in a denial or
abridgement ..." of thei
right of any citizen to vote
based on race or color.
"Moreover, the North
Carolina legislature's
knowledge of the photo ID
requirement's dispropor
tionate burdens on African
Americans, its elimination
of forms of ID originally
included in the bill, and the
absence of any credible
(much less substantial) leg
islative rationale, all show
that the legislature enacted
the statute?at least in
part?to make it harder to
vote and to deter minority
voters in violation of the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments," the brief
maintains. "The law's sub
sequent amendment does
not ameliorate its prohibit
ed intent. And even if this
Court concludes that the
legislature lacked discrimi
natory intent in enacting
[the statute] the require
ment remains unlawful
because it produces dis
criminatory results and
burdens the right to vote in
ways that, as has been
established in the record,
are not outweighed by any
substantial State purpose."
As evidence of the
law's discriminatory effect,
the brief presents statistics
showing that blacks are
more likely not to have
photo ID than whites, and
they also have more trou
ble obtaining that identifi
cation as well.
In their defense, attor
neys for Gov. McCrory and
the state Legislature main
tain that the reasonable
impediment declaration
requirement they adopted
for North Carolina is very
similar to the one which
they say passed muster in
South Carolina. Plaintiffs'
attorneys disagree, saying
that North Carolina's pro
vision is based on Section 2
of the VRA, and not
Section 5, as is South
Carolina's.
Plaintiffs also alleged
that state lawmakers knew
that the voter ID law would
have a disproportionately
discriminatory affect on
African-American voters,
but went ahead ahd enacted
it anyway. That is a viola
tion of the 14th and 15th
amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.
"The evidence in this
case supports a finding of
discriminatory purpose,"
the brief says. "Hie record
demonstrates that in enact
ing [the statute], the North
Carolina General
Assembly was responding
to increased political
power among African
American and Latino vot
ers by making changes in
the State's election law to
limit that power and pre
vent minority voters from
threatening the prospects
of the political party then in
control of the General
, Assembly."
This week's trial is
expected to last five to
seven days, depending on
the amount of testimony
from both sides.
Voter ID
from page A1
Wisconsin-Madison, testified that not only are blacks and
Hispanics less likely to have photo IDs, they are. also
more likely to have fewer resources to acquire one.
Charles Stewart, a political science professor at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified Tuesday
that African-Americans are twice as likely as whites to
lack the photo ID now required of voters. Farr questioned
the accuracy of Stewart's numbers on cross examination.
He also pointed out that Stewart's own research shows
that about 95 percent of registered African-Americans
have a photo ID, but Stewart said the number of blacks
without one still remains disproportionate to whites.
With the reasonable impediment exception, voters like
Eaton might be able to vote without going through a long
ordeal to get a license, but would still need to fill out a
foim on why they can't get an ID. N.C. NAACP President
Dr. William Barber testified Tuesday on the confusion
caused by the reasonable impediment and how it's making
groups like the NAACP re-educate voters again.
Judge Schroeder is giving each side 18 hours to argue
theh cases, which is expected to take the rest of the week.
He's already denied an injunction that would've prevented
the law from going into effect. He also has yet to rule on
the arguments he heard in July on the other challenges to
the voting law. Due to a Supreme Court decision, same
day registration during early voting and out of precinct
voting on election day have been reinstated until a ruling
is made.
N.C. Board of Elections expected to hear
challenge for WSSU early voting site
TODD LUCK
THE CHRONICLE
The NC Board of Elections (BOE) will
soon be determining if Winston-Salem
State University (WSSU) will have an
early voting site as it hears a minority plan
from local BOE member Fleming El
Amin.
CAMPAIGN u?E
MMMr*|IPiar^ member
T ^ board's sole
Jk ? " P ' Democrat,
was the one
"n0" vote
when the BOE approved early voting sites
earlier this month. He submitted an alter
native early voting plan to the state that
included the 11 sites that were approved by
the Forsyth BOE, plus one more: the
Anderson Center at WSSU. The alterna
tive plan also contains Sunday hours for
Souls to the Poll, a popular tradition where
black churches get their congregants to
vote on Sunday. The N.C. BOE is expected
to hear the alternative plan soon.
Jhe Anderson Center was an early vot
j/fig sitk from 2000-2012. When Ken
Raymond became the chair of the
Republican majority of Forsyth BOE in
2013, he stated that he couldn't allow a site
at Winston-Salem State University
because he said in 2010 there was an elec
tion law violation there.
In 2010, Raymond - who was a poll
observer at the Anderson Center - sent a
complaint to the Forsyth BOE stating that
a student fpld him and a poll worker she'd
"The number of
student voters was noticeably
higher and I believe that's due to
- the students being given class
credit for voting,"
-Ken Raymond, Chair of the Republican majority Forsyth BOE
gotten extra credit for voting. The com
plaint stated that Raymond asked the stu
dent what class this was in and she
responded it was in her English class. It
said Raymond asked what the name of her
professor was and she responded
"Gardner." It goes on to state that
Raymond could find no professor by that
name and believed the student lied about
the professor's name. He never found the
professor who supposedly gave the extra
credit.
Raymohd alleges that the extra credit
constitutes exchanging something of value
for a vote, which would be a felony under
North Carolina law.
"The number of student voters was
noticeably higher and I believe that's due
to the students being given class credit for
voting," said Raymond in his complaint.
"This is clearly a violation of state law."
The Forsyth BOB of the time, howev
er, disagreed. In 2010, the BEO, then
chaired by Democrat Linda Sutton, deter
mined unanimously that there was no vio
lation because the complaint did not allege
that anything of value was exchanged for
the students voting for a particular candi
date or a particular party.
Sutton, a field organizer for
Democracy North Carolina, said that it's
not illegal to encourage people to vote.
"That's different from giving someone
a good grade for voting for a candidate,
that was not the complaint," said Sutton,
who also doesn't believe WSSU should be
denied an early voting site now.
In a letter to N.C. BOE chair Joshua
Howard about his alternative plan, El
Amin argues that not only is it unfair to
exclude the site because of the alleged
2010 incident, but that the site would be
beneficial to the community.
"The Anderson Center serves voters
from several communities beyond the
University and provides an ideal location
for senior citizens in the-.area, Salem
College students, Salem Baptist College in
addition to the Reynolds Park Road resi
dences," it reads.
In the letter, he also pointed out that
there were 1,000 total signatures gathered
between two separate petitions in support
of an early voting site at the Anderson
Center, and that during a standing room
only crowd where die board approved the
early voting site, there were numerous
public comments in suppoit of the site.
This included WSSU Student Government
Association President Kyle Brown who
said that the lack of an on-campus site
impeded students' ability to vote.
El-Amin said he's hopeful the state
board will be receptive to restoring the
site. "My hope is this thing can be resolved
so we can go ahead and move forward and
give students a chance to vote like they
should," he said.
Correction
The Chronicle apologizes for an error made in a cap
tion on Page 3 in the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. special
section in the Thursday, Jan. 21 issue of the paper. The
caption reads "the Winston-Salem State Gospel Choir."
The correct name of the choir is the Winston-Salem State
University Choir. The Chronicle regrets any misunder
standing that may have resulted from this error.
The Editor
Have a Story Idea?
Let us Know
news@wschronicle?om
The Chronicle (USPS 067-910) was established by Ernest
H. Pitt and Ndubisi Egemonye in 1974 and is published
every Thursday by Winston-Salem Chronicle Publishing
Co. Inc., 617 N. Liberty Street, Winston-Salem, N.C.
27101. Periodicals postage paid at Winston-Salem, N.C.
Annual subscription price is $30.72.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to:
The Chronicle, P.O. Box 1636
Winston-Salem, NC 27102-1636
ilBET T
' u |