Federal Court Upholds NC Reforms to Ensure Election Integrity

As we discussed previously, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina upheld North Carolina's voter ID law in a long opinion that thoroughly considered all of the evidence.  The decision also upheld a number of procedural election changes that North Carolina made to ensure the integrity of its elections.

The court found that each procedural reform was made for a proper purpose and that turnout increased after the reforms were implemented, contrary to the challengers' position that the reforms were an attempt to suppress voters:

The reforms in question included . . . reducing the number of early voting days from 17 to 10 but extending voting hours; eliminating same-day registration and preregistration by 16- and 17-year-olds; and requiring voters to vote in their assigned precincts. . . . 

The claims made by DOJ and the Obama administration’s political allies boiled down to this: all of the reforms were discriminatory, either intentionally or in effect, and would suppress the votes of African-Americans, Hispanics and the young. The judge refused to issue an injunction when the lawsuits were first filed, which left most of the changes in effect for the 2014 election. . . . This wound up severely damaging the plaintiffs’ case, because turnout increased in both the primary and general elections of 2014 — the exact opposite of what the plaintiffs and their experts claimed would happen. . . . As the judge pointed out: “The evidence shows that African Americans have fared better in terms of registration and turnout rates in 2014, after the new law was implemented, than in 2010, when the old provisions were in place.” . . . 

The court also made another important point. The judge said that “the fact that voting can almost always be made easier does not render a State’s failure to do so, or a State’s repeal of a convenience or ‘failsafe,’ unlawful or unconstitutional per se.” With “every relaxation of the rules there is often an attendant trade-off or effect on verification and election integrity. The State demonstrated as much here.”  

The plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, opposed North Carolina’s election system as changed by the 2013 reform law because “they preferred one that they say was even more convenient” than the very liberal system the state already has. Different degrees of “convenience” do not constitute a violation of the law or the Constitution. And the plaintiffs’ claims that North Carolina’s action was the result of “vestiges of historical official discrimination is rebutted by the facts.”

The court's opinion was also a victory for federalism and the ability of states to manage their elections, as provided by the Constitution:

The challengers failed on every front. According to the Court, the challengers inferred racial intent where there was no evidence of such. In fact, North Carolina acted rationally and responsibly in enacting the election changes. Specifically, the legislature relied upon extensive evidence . . . . 

It is important to realize that the court preserved the balance between state and federal power. States have the power under the Constitution to run their own elections. Some powerful interests want that to change. But the Founders intended that such policy decisions be left up to the branch of government closest to the people.

The Founders wisely gave states the power to manage their elections, as the states are more responsive to the needs and desires of their people than the federal government.  States devote a tremendous amount of resources to election administration and make hard decisions about how to ensure the integrity of elections while providing eligible voters the opportunity to vote.  This decision is an important step in protecting states from constant litigation and charges of racism from the left when they make prudent decisions about election administration.

The decision has been appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which has granted expedited review of the case.

Michigan’s and Mississippi's Primaries Disprove the Left's Feckless Rhetoric About Voter ID Laws

Both Republican and Democratic voters turned out en masse last Tuesday providing yet another glaring example, among the rapidly expanding list of examples, that voter ID laws do not disenfranchise voters. Michigan broke a record set in 1972:

With more than 2.4 million voters turning out for Michigan's presidential primary on Tuesday, the record set in 1972, when 1.9 million people cast ballots, was shattered. 

Turnout in areas of Michigan was so high Tuesday that some clerks were reporting that some precincts were running out of ballots. The high number was fueled by a huge increase in absentee voting this year over previous elections. 

Clerks ran out of ballots in Redford, Ingham County and in one precinct in Kent County. Additional ballots were quickly sent to those precincts, but some voters reported having to wait for more than an hour in line until more ballots were delivered. 

Turnout was so high at a Redford Township polling station, Precinct 25, that the station ran out of Democratic ballots for at least half an hour, an organizer said.

States with voter ID laws continue to see record turnouts this presidential cycle on both sides of the aisle. Like most states, Michigan, typically classified a swing state, did not seem to have an issue with its citizens finding and using their ID. 

Mississippi also had strong turnout at the polls, with no significant issues reported:

"Voting's been pretty steady," Smithka said. "We've had a pretty good turnout. No real problems with voter ID. A couple people forgot their IDs and had to go home and retrieve them, but other than that it's been pretty smooth." 

Alma Myers, who was in charge of the Walthall School Precinct on Southern Avenue, said everything was fine. 

"Things are going pretty good," she said. The precinct had serviced 171 voters by late afternoon.

Additional states with voter ID laws, specifically Missouri, Florida and North Carolina, have presidential primaries tomorrow. Given the turnout in early voting in North Carolina, it should be another banner day.

Voter Turnout Improves with Wisconsin Voter ID Law; Law Still Challenged by the Left

Wisconsin’s voter ID law is still being attacked by the left despite the Supreme Court allowing the 7th Circuit decision upholding the law to stand.  Wisconsin columnist Christian Schnieder took a good look at the reality of the impact of the law on voters during its first test last month.

[I]f voter ID was intended as a voter suppression tool, it has failed miserably.  In [Tuesday, February 16th's,] spring primary elections – elections that the Journal Sentinel called a “test” for the new voter ID law - voting spiked sharply.  Further, as of Tuesday night, no reports had surfaced of people not being able to vote because they lacked proper identification.  

In Tuesday’s statewide Supreme Court justice primary, turnout increased 55% over the last contested Supreme Court spring primary.  In 2013, statewide voter turnout was 363,675; on Tuesday, over 563,386 voters cast ballots.  Even in the 2011 Supreme Court primary, held just days after the Act 10 drama began, only 420,110 citizens voted.  

Voter turnout numbers have substantially increased since the implementation of the law and are therefore having the complete opposite effect of what current voter ID opponents allege.

And it’s not as if the increase was due to white, rural voters turning out in droves.  Turnout nearly doubled in the City of Milwaukee, where 60% of Wisconsin’s African-American residents live.  

[. . .] This should come as a surprise to no one.  In both Indiana and Georgia – states that had recently passed voter ID laws – African-American voting actually increased after the laws went into effect.  So on Tuesday, given all the dire predictions of vote “suppression” we’ve heard for years, let’s hope the law’s opponents were properly equipped with egg-resistant face protection.   

At some point, the growing mounds of evidence that voters are not disenfranchised by voter ID laws will have to drown out the continued assertions to the contrary. Elections in voter ID states continue to see record-breaking turnouts. The groundless claims perpetually asserted by the left will eventually fall on deaf ears as citizens realize the truth about voter ID laws -- that they protect the integrity of elections without disenfranchising or discouraging voters.