NC’s voter identity law struck down

Appeals Court finds ‘ discriminatory intent’

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down North Carolina’s requirement that voters show identification before casting ballots and reinstated an additional week of early voting, finding that legislators had acted with “discriminatory intent” in imposing strict election rules.

The decision by a threejudge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was an overwhelming victory for the Justice Department and civil rights groups that argued the measures were designed to dampen the growing political clout of African-American voters, who participated in record numbers in 2008 and 2012.

“We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel.

It was the third important victory this month for opponents of restrictive voting laws, which are being challenged around the country ahead of November’s presidential election. North Carolina is considered a key swing state, where African-American voters have played an increasing role in making it competitive.

The decision by the Richmond-based court on Friday reverses a lower-court ruling that upheld the voting measures passed in 2013. North Carolina lawmakers overhauled the state’s election law soon after the Supreme Court got rid of a requirement that certain states receive approval before changing voting rules.

North Carolina legislators eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The appeals court ruling reinstates those provisions that civil rights groups, led by the state NAACP, said were used disproportionately by African-American voters.

The North Carolina Attorney General’s office did not respond immediately about whether the state would appeal the ruling. Gov. Pat McCrory, R, has said it would help prevent voter fraud.

In its 78-page ruling, the court said the state had “offered only meager justifications” in response to claims of intentional discrimination.