Judge: NC vote can be held with GOP-backed changes

[alp227]

Source: AP

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina's November election can be held under a new voting law approved by Republican lawmakers, a federal judge ruled Friday. The law is considered one of the toughest in the nation and the groups challenging it say it will suppress minority voter turnout.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder denied a motion seeking to hold the November vote under old rules, saying the groups failed to show they would suffer "irreparable harm."

"In the absence of the clear showing for preliminary relief required by the law, it is inappropriate for a federal court to enjoin a state law passed by duly-elected representatives," wrote the judge, who was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush.

A coalition of groups, including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP, have filed three lawsuits challenging the more than two dozen changes to voting laws approved by the GOP-controlled state legislature in 2013.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-nc-vote-can-be-held-gop-backed-changes-0

[Duval]

1. I recommend this

because it is vitally important for us North Carolinians to educate ourselves regarding the Judges and District Attys we vote for in elections. With all due respect, Judge Schroeder is wrong as well as partisan. Our Republican Governor and legislature are setting NC back, not forward as claimed. He was appointed by Bush? Why am I not surprised with this ruling? Thanks, alp227, for bringing this to DU.

[groundloop]

2. I contend that GOPers never demonstrated a NEED for these laws either

(Other than their need to make it more difficult for minorities and the working poor to vote).

[yeoman6987]

5. If I was the top person at the DNC

I would start paying for state issue IDs for every Democratic voter in the state. I think this really could work and also remind voters to vote in November. I think this could have many good results.

[Gothmog]

11. That would be very expensive

I am setting up a program in Texas and there is no money to pay for ids.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Republican Judge rules in favor of the GOP, yes???

[Jim Lane]

4. There was also a good part of the decision.

The normal course for a lawsuit is that it goes to trial for a determination of which side wins. In this case, the trial hasn't been held yet.

The plaintiffs asked for interim relief. They wanted the law set aside, at least temporarily, pending the outcome of the trial. Not surprisingly, getting relief before there's a determination that you're correct is always more difficult.

The defendants asked that the case be thrown out. They argued that there shouldn't be a trial at all and that the law should just be declared constitutional.

The judge denied both motions. According to the linked article, the trial will be held next year. Thus there's still a chance that the statute will be overturned. Furthermore, the ID requirement won't be in force this year, despite the judge's ruling, because that part of the statute doesn't take effect until 2016.

[cosmicone]

7. So the judge ruled correctly and no harm done as long as a decision is in before 2016.

Even though he was appointed by George W. Bush

[Jim Lane]

8. Unfortunately, "no harm done" goes too far

Many provisions of the law will be in effect for this election and will disproportionately reduce voting by blacks and young people.

The state’s Republican-led legislature in 2013 shortened North Carolina’s early voting period by seven days, ended same-day registration, banned provisional ballots cast outside the correct precinct from being counted and ended a program allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote.

(from this Reuters article on Raw Story)

I haven't read the decision but this passage in the story is troubling:

Richard Hasen, professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, wrote on his blog that he found it significant the court rejected evidence that the legislature passed its laws out of a racially discriminatory intent.

That bodes ill for the plaintiffs' prospects.

[cosmicone]

9. Is the judge's ruling appealable?

How is the circuit for NC? Is it also packed with rethugs? If not, they could issue an injunction.

[Jim Lane]

14. Sort of.

The key thing to remember is that this is an interlocutory ruling, meaning one that's issued before the final judgment in the case. The issue was whether the court would temporarily prevent the statute from taking effect until the trial could be held.

The general rule in federal courts is that interlocutory rulings are not appealable. Appeals are limited to final judgments.

There's an exception applicable to this case. Appeals can be taken from interlocutory orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions...." per 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Thus, the circuit court could hear the plaintiffs' appeal from the denial of their motion for an injunction, but I think it could not hear the defendants' appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss the case.

The reason I said "sort of" is that there are a couple of practical obstacles. First, even though it's technically appealable, some appellate judges are disinclined to reverse a lower-court judge on an injunction decision. They would vote to affirm his denial of the injunction but would also vote to affirm the grant of it if he had decided in favor of the plaintiffs. Thus, an appeal will be an uphill road. Second, the timing isn't good. The plaintiffs take the appeal, the defendants file a brief in opposition, the plaintiffs file a reply brief, the case is calendared for oral argument, and after the argument the judges think it over and issue a decision. All that takes time. Usually a case like this will be handled on an expedited basis but it still takes some time. The state will argue that it needs lead time to change its practices; for example, it can't just set up additional early voting days by a snap of the fingers, but must arrange for facilities, supplies, staffing, etc. Given that an injunction would merely mean a return to what the law was for the 2012 election, it shouldn't be a huge disruption, but this kind of argument might nevertheless persuade the appellate court.

The full Fourth Circuit currently has a majority of judges appointed by Democratic Presidents (see the list here). Bear in mind, though, that an appeal would be heard by a three-judge panel, and that judges' decisions can't be perfectly predicted by the party affiliation of the appointing President.

[Thor_MN]

10. Minnesota manages to get it done in one day.

We do have same day registration, but there's just election day and absentee balloting. And it's brand new that you do not need to provide a reason to absentee vote.

NC eliminating same day screws over anyone who let things slide until the last day, but they do have early balloting. Provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct would rarely make a difference, but it's wrong to end them.

Not sure why 16 year olds would preregister when they can't vote. What are those who are now 17, but will be 18 on election day supposed to do if they can't register same day and can't pre-register?

As long as the get the ridiculous voter ID parts quashed before they go into effect.

[Jim Lane]

15. About provisional ballots

Studies show minority and low-income voters are also more likely to lack a driver's license and have access to secure housing, leading to more frequent changes in addresses. Under the new law, voters will no longer be allowed to cast a provisional ballot if they show up at the wrong precinct.

You write: "Provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct would rarely make a difference, but it's wrong to end them." I don't know what the numbers are but there's a good argument that the ban is discriminatory. According to the article linked in the OP, there are studies indicating that poor people and people of color are, unsurprisingly, less likely to have secure housing and therefore more likely to change address, which leads to their showing up at the wrong polling place. This rule might also be combined with another Republican tactic, that of trying to intimidate people by threatening criminal prosecutions for any error they make in trying to vote. It could be that a significant number of eligible voters could have their votes counted if they're reassured that appearing at the wrong polling place is not such a big deal.

[Thor_MN]

17. Valid arguments for what I said.

Provisional ballots are only counted if the number could affect the outcome of the election. Only in very close races do they go through with counting the provisional ballots. That's what I was referring to.

[Jim Lane]

18. I'm not sure your comment about the counting is universal.

The procedure may vary from state to state. I think at least some states count them regardless. To do otherwise, you'd have to look at every race on the ballot to see if it's close enough to be affected. It's probably easier just to count them all (if validated).

Another factor is the absentee ballots. In some states, absentee ballots are counted if received by some set deadline after Election Day. In those instances, you won't know for sure which races are going to be close, so it would make sense for the election officials to examine the provisional ballots and count the valid ones while they await the absentee ballots. (Admittedly, just because it would make sense is no guarantee that officials do it!)

Of course, if we really took electoral integrity seriously, every provisional ballot would be examined, and the would-be voter would then be contacted about the result. "You're supposed to vote at the Church of St. Skinner, not at Ron Paul Elementary School." "You were sticken from the rolls because a mailing we sent to you was returned." Whatever the story is, allowing provisional ballots could help people vote in future elections even if they aren't counted in this one.

I realize that you and I agree that the ballots North Carolina wants to exclude should be counted. I'm inclined to attach somewhat more importance to that than you do, but I agree that voter ID is likely to be a much bigger deal.

[Thor_MN]

20. Undoubtedly, it varies from state to state.

But I assume that most states (that don't do all mail-in voting) put the absentee ballots and provisional ballots in separate holding bins for each precinct. Near the end of the election counting, if there are no races close enough that the absentee and provisional ballots could make a difference, the election is called. In a close race, I would assume that absentee is counted first and then the decision is made if the provisional ballots could make a difference.

Key point being is that if candidate has an insurmountable lead, there is no need to incur the expense of individually examining, verifying and counting ballots that can not make a difference. One either wins or loses, there is no distinction between winning by 3000 votes or winning by 3011 votes because the absentee provided +18 and provisional votes provided -7 over the opponent. At 10:30 on election night, a lead of 2000 votes against a pile of 43 absentee and provisional ballots - "Winner, winner, chicken dinner, let's go home people."

Republicans are not in favor of helping people vote. "You were removed from the rolls because your name sounded unMerican" is more the speed of their play. They do not want everyone to vote.

The saying is every vote counts, but the truth is every vote is counted, but only if it could make a difference.

[littlemissmartypants]

6. Kicking. Thank you. nt

[broadcaster75201]

12. Don't whine ... register and vote. This is a LONG battle.

And it is a long battle with time on our side.

[Gothmog]

13. I have read the decision

It is hard to get TRO or temporary injunction. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is far weaker compared to Section 5. The voter id law is not going into effect for 2014 other than a soft roll out where poll workers can ask about voter id but one can still vote without an id. The voter id provisions go into effect in 2016 and there will be a trial before then.

The State of North Carolina lost all of its motion to dismiss and so the case is going to trial. The strongest part of the case is the case against voter id laws. The court cited both the Texas opinion on the motion to dismiss in the Veasey v. Perry case (going to trial on sept 2) and Frank opinion concerning the Wisconsin voter id law.

The provisions that are going in effect are (1) the elimination of same day registration, (2) the reduction of early voting days and (3) the elimination of the pre-registration program for high school students. These are all bad decisions but they are not clear Section 2 violations or equal protection violations.

These cases are hard cases to win without Section 5 of the voting rights act. I still think that by the time this case goes to trial, there will be decisions in the Texas voter id case and an appellant decision on the Wisconsin case.

[freshwest]

16. I wish I could expand the defintion of irreparable harm to those who are dying due to the GOP's

Draconian cuts to social services and all the rest to whom they have done irreparable harm already.

They are determined to stop those most effected from voting, to deny them the peaceful resistance of voting to roll back those policies forced upon them as citizens of North Carolina.

[Laelth]

19. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth