RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – A federal lawsuit challenging North Carolina's photo voter ID law is scheduled to go to trial Monday, with debate over whether the requirement illegally discriminates against blacks and Hispanics. , or whether it serves the legitimate national interest of increasing public trust in the election, which is expected to focus on whether it serves the legitimate national interest.
The non-jury trial in Winston-Salem comes more than five years after the state NAACP and several local chapters filed suit over voter ID laws enacted by the Republican-controlled General Assembly in late 2018. It started.
The case, like similar cases in state court, delayed implementation of the requirement until last year's local elections. The 1.8 million voters who voted in the March primary also had to follow suit. Less than 500 provisional ballots were ultimately not counted due to ID-related issues in the primary, according to state election data.
Voter turnout in November's general election for president, governor and other statewide seats could be three times higher than in the primary. The ninth-largest state in the nation is also a presidential battleground, where statewide races are often close.
That requirement could be blocked in the fall if U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs of the NAACP rules in its favor. The trial is expected to last several days, and Biggs has already indicated in documents that he does not intend to issue a decision immediately in court.
NAACP lawyers say the 2018 law's voter ID requirement and two other voting-related provisions were enacted by lawmakers with discriminatory intent and violate the U.S. Constitution and Voting Rights Act. claims.
Black and Latino voters are more than twice as likely as white voters to lack qualifying photo identification, lawyers for the civil rights group's state and local chapters wrote in pretrial briefs. He cited data showing that. They plan to bring in witnesses who will testify that they encountered voting problems in the March primary.
“Without relief, thousands of North Carolinians will similarly be unconstitutionally disenfranchised,” NAACP lawyers wrote. They also rushed the bill into law in North Carolina, just weeks after voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring photo ID, without considering the impact on minority voters. He said there would be evidence to show that.
Lawyers representing Republican legislative leaders and members of the state election board defending the law in court said in a prepared statement that the rule imposes only a minimal burden on voters.
They point out that the law significantly expanded the number of eligible IDs compared to what was approved in the 2013 Voter ID Act, which a federal judge struck down as discriminatory. Free ID is provided by county election offices and the Department of Motor Vehicles, and those who do not have a photo ID at their polling place can vote by filling out an exception form or by bringing their ID to an election official before the final count. is counted.
“The General Assembly enacted (the law) after the people of North Carolina required Congress to enact a voter ID law. The bipartisan bill had no discriminatory intent and Plaintiffs could overcome the presumption of legislative good faith. cannot,” lawyers for House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger said in a prepared statement. Preventing voter fraud is also a legitimate state interest in the law, the lawyers wrote. But nationally, voter identity fraud is rare.
Biggs was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama and has already frequently decided on the case.
In late 2019, she filed a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the 2013 law, saying it was tainted by a similar law that was struck down on similar grounds of racial bias. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed her decision, writing that she had given too much weight to her General Assembly's past actions when evaluating the 2018 law. When Biggs refused to allow Berger and Moore to join the lawsuit as defendants, they appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately sided with them in 2022.
When the state Supreme Court ruled that the photo ID law complied with the state constitution, Biggs opened the door to a trial.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states have laws requiring or requiring identification at polling places, and 21 of those states require a photo ID.
