Courts strike down N.C., Wis. voter ID

Judges in both cases say GOP-backed laws meant to curb voting.

Federal courts ruling separately Friday struck down North Carolina’s voter identification requirement and provisions of a similar Wisconsin law, milestone decisions in an acrimonious battle about voting rights.

In the Wisconsin ruling, a judge left the law itself intact but ruled unconstitutional many restrictions on voting passed by the GOP-majority Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

Two liberal groups filed a lawsuit in May challenging the laws, including a requirement that voters show photo identification. U.S. District Judge James Peterson agreed with arguments that the laws were enacted to benefit Republicans and make it harder for Democratic supporters to vote, and ordered a range of changes.

In the North Carolina case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a broad and abrupt reversal of a late April decision in U.S. District Court upholding the state’s voter ID requirement. Although the circuit panel praised a federal judge in Winston-Salem, N.C., for his “thoroughness,” it left little doubt about its view of voting practices in North Carolina, where Republicans pushed through a major overhaul beginning in 2013.

“We cannot ignore the record evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,” said the decision.

In the Wisconsin case, the judge ordered the state to quickly issue credentials

‘We see today as a moral and constitutional vindication of our constitutional critique of this extremist legislature and our extremist governor.’ Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II President, North Carolina branch of the NAACP

valid for voting to anyone trying to obtain a free photo ID for voting. He struck down restrictions limiting municipalities locations and times for in-person absentee voting, an increase in residency requirements to 28 days from 10, and a prohibition on using expired but otherwise qualifying student IDs to vote.

Liberal groups had challenged the laws, saying they were unconstitutional and discriminate against the poor, racial minorities and younger voters who are more inclined to vote Democratic.

The state Department of Justice, which defended the restrictions, countered that they have not suppressed turnout and that the state works hard to ensure everyone who needs a free ID to vote gets one.

In the North Carolina case, the panel struck down a law that offered voters a bitterly disputed choice: produce one of six accepted forms of identification, such as a driver’s license or a passport, or cast a provisional ballot. The law also included other changes to elections practices, such as rolling back a provision permitting residents to register and vote on the same day. And it narrowed the early-voting period by seven days and blocked voters from having their ballots counted if they voted outside of their home precincts.

The North Carolina General Assembly’s Republican leadership issued a blistering response to the court.

“Since today’s decision by three partisan Democrats ignores legal precedent, ignores the fact that other federal courts have used North Carolina’s law as a model and ignores the fact that a majority of other states have similar protections in place, we can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election,” Sen. Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore said in a joint statement that referred to the Democratic presidential nominee and the party’s candidate for governor of North Carolina. “We will obviously be appealing this politically motivated decision to the Supreme Court.”

Critics of the state’s voting procedures declared victory.

“We see today as a moral and constitutional vindication of our constitutional critique of this extremist legislature and our extremist governor,” said the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, the president of the North Carolina branch of the NAACP. “A political majority doesn’t give you the power to run roughshod over the Constitution.”