Save Money in this Sunday's paper

comments

Elections bill headed to McCrory

More Information

  • What the bill does

    • Requires a government-provided photo ID to vote.

    • Eliminates straight-ticket voting.

    • Allows any registered voter to challenge the eligibility of a voter.

    • Moves the presidential primary from May to the first Tuesday after South Carolina’s primary if South Carolina holds its primary before March 15. North Carolina would have two primaries during presidential election years.

    • Increases the maximum allowed campaign donation from $4,000 to $5,000, with the cap adjusted for inflation starting in 2015.

    • Loosens disclosure requirements for ads paid for by independent committees.

    • Repeals the publicly funded election program for appellate court judges.

    • Repeals “Stand By Your Ad,” which requires candidates to endorse ads run by their campaigns.

    • Says counties can’t extend poll hours on Election Day in response to long lines.

    • Eliminates pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds.

    • Bans paid voter registration drives.



RALEIGH The legislature on Thursday passed a package of strict voting measures that may invite a federal lawsuit.

The bill’s supporters said the measure will restore the integrity of elections and can withstand any challenge under federal law or the state constitution. But critics say the legislation is ripe for a legal challenge.

The Senate gave the bill final approval with a 33-14 vote. The House followed, sending the bill to Gov. Pat McCrory for his signature with a 73-41 vote. As the House tally was read, Democrats stood, held hands and bowed their heads.

The bill was much more expansive than the relatively straight-forward voter ID legislation the House approved in April that allowed students at state universities to use their school identification cards. The Senate changed the House ID provisions and added many more rules that Democrats said would discourage minority, student and elderly voters.

“This is about a fear to lose power,” said Rep. Yvonne Lewis Holley, a Raleigh Democrat. “The Senate is afraid.”

Rep. David Lewis, a Harnett Republican, said Democrats were fear-mongering, misrepresenting the legislation and its intent.

“This bill you have before you is a step (in) improving the integrity of the process of this state,” he said.

Lewis was the only Republican to speak on the measure in the House, where Democrats used most of the 2-1/2 hours of debate to recall the fight for voting rights in the 1960s.

The sweeping changes to voting and elections were among the Republicans priorities for the session that is drawing to a close.

The bill requires voters to show photo identification at the polls, and it shortens the early-voting period while expanding the hours polling sites will be open during that time. It strikes the opportunity to register and vote on the same day during early voting, and eliminates pre-registration for teenagers 16 to 17 years old, among dozens of other changes.

Before this summer, the state would have had to go to the U.S. Department of Justice or federal court for “pre-clearance” of this legislation before enforcing it.

But last month, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an important part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 5, which required states with a history of discrimination toward minority voters to seek Justice Department or court approval – “pre-clearance” – before making voting law changes.

‘The writing’s on the wall’

A justice department spokesman declined to speculate on whether U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder would go after North Carolina’s voter ID law, which would be the strictest in the country.

“I’ve never seen a package of what I would call suppressive voting measures like this,” said Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine. “I look at this package, and I can’t for the life of me see how it’s justified on voter ID grounds.”

Speaking to the National Urban League on Thursday in Philadelphia, Holder said his department has filed a federal court challenge to force Texas to obtain “pre-clearance” before implementing future voting changes.

He made it clear his office wouldn’t stop there.

“Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the court’s ruling, we plan … to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected,” Holder said. “My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against discrimination wherever it is found.”

Holder has said that nearly two dozen new voting laws passed last year in a dozen states significantly impeded voters from casting ballots.

Last year, the Justice Department fought new Texas voter ID and redistricting laws. Two federal courts blocked those laws.

The same could happen in North Carolina, Matt Miller, a former Holder spokesman, said Thursday.

“From everything I’ve read, the writing’s on the wall that the North Carolina law is going to draw a DOJ challenge,” Miller said. “In Texas, the DOJ challenged the redistricting law and voter ID law, and won both.

“If you look at the law North Carolina is passing, which is believed to be stricter than Texas’, it stands to reason you’ll see a DOJ challenge there.”

Miller said Holder gave a signal Thursday that he’s determined to challenge any new voter laws that the office views as discriminatory.

“There are a lot of arguments you can make in a legislative setting that get hard to make in court,” Miller said. “It’s hard to argue in court why limiting the times for early voting (as the North Carolina law would do) somehow makes it easier for people to vote.”

An ‘assault on voting’

Representatives from voter rights organizations across the country say they have watched with amazement this week as North Carolina lawmakers made major changes to election law.

“The legislation in North Carolina has become much more than a voter ID bill. It has become a full-scale assault on voting,” said Denise Lieberman, senior attorney for Advancement Project, a nonprofit civil rights organization founded in 1999 by civil rights lawyers in Los Angeles and Washington. “The vast range of restrictions, cumulatively, create a tremendous chilling effect. … It paints a very distressing and dismal picture for voters in North Carolina.”

A federal lawsuit would have to clear a high bar, legal experts said. If the bill passes, it could be challenged under a section of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits intentional discrimination in voting. But there’s never been a successful challenge brought under this section of the law, Hasen said.

The number and scope of changes may lead the U.S. Department of Justice to challenge the law, said Michael Weisel, a Raleigh lawyer whose firm concentrates on elections and campaign law.

“I think this would, in fact, help convince the U.S. Department of Justice to intercede,” Weisel said. “You are enacting the greatest electoral law change in North Carolina in a generation. Taken collectively, the effect of all these restrictions may very well meet the higher standards.”

Sen. Josh Stein, a Raleigh Democrat, said the changes disproportionately affect minority voters because minorities are more likely to vote in the first week of early voting, to not have driver’s licenses and to vote straight-ticket.

“You put all those things together, and it’s clear that you’re making it harder for them to vote,” he said. “This bill is an invitation for the U.S. Department of Justice to sue North Carolina for trying to limit people’s participation in elections. We in the legislature should be about helping people exercise their liberty, not taking away their freedoms.”

Republicans ‘confident’

Senate Republicans said the legislation can withstand legal challenges.

“I am confident that the bill as drafted complies with all court precedents that currently exist,” said Senate leader Phil Berger, an Eden Republican.

Sen. Bob Rucho, a Republican from Matthews, said the legislation was fashioned after other states’ voter ID laws, including Indiana’s, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2008. Holder should enforce the laws, Rucho said, not make them.

Bonner: 919-829-4821
Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

The Charlotte Observer welcomes your comments on news of the day. The more voices engaged in conversation, the better for us all, but do keep it civil. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.

Have a news tip? You can send it to a local news editor; email local@charlotteobserver.com to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Charlotte Observer.

  Read more



Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

The Charlotte Observer welcomes your comments on news of the day. The more voices engaged in conversation, the better for us all, but do keep it civil. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.

Have a news tip? You can send it to a local news editor; email local@charlotteobserver.com to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Charlotte Observer.

  Read more


Quick Job Search
Salary Databases
CharlotteObserver.com