U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder denied a preliminary injunction against North Carolina’s photo ID requirement Jan. 15, 2016.
The ruling means that voters will have to show a photo ID during the March 15 Primary. Early voting begins in that primary, which includes candidates for U.S. President, on March 3, 2016.
In the detailed opinion, the court concludes: “On the present record, NAACP Plaintiffs have failed to clearly demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits or that the balance of the equities or public interest favors an injunction.”
The court found that with the reasonable impediment exemption to the law, the law is not all that burdensome and is therefore unlikely to be found to be illegal:
When the State did not have a reasonable impediment exception, NAACP Plaintiffs claimed the burden imposed on the socioeconomically disadvantaged was too severe. Now that the State has sought to accommodate these voters with the reasonable impediment exception, Plaintiffs claim that the exception swallows the rule and that the State need not have a photo-ID requirement. This court finds any alleged diminution in achieving the State’s purported interest to be more than offset by the reduction of burden achieved by the reasonable impediment exception.
Significantly for how the District court is going to decide not only the voter id challenge, but the challenge to North Carolina’s restrictive voter rule overall, the court looks likely to reject claims that the law was enacted with an unconstitutional racially discriminatory purpose:
NAACP Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the photo-ID provision of SL 2013-381 on the grounds it was adopted with discriminatory intent. The question of discriminatory intent in these cases, including as it related to the photo-ID requirement, was fully tried by this court in July 2015. The record in that case is extensive (over 20,000 pages), and the court is working diligently to decide all claims related to all of the other challenged provisions of SL 2013-381. Thus, the court is not prepared to definitively resolve that claim here, especially since evidence as to the reasonable impediment exception has yet to be heard at trial. But the court has considered all evidence of intent (including that related to other the challenged provisions) and can say that, based on its current review, NAACP Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the photo-ID intent claim.
CLICK HERE to read the 54 page (PDF) court opinion.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment