This is a developing story; stay tuned for updates.
The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued its ruling in NC-NAACP v. McCrory, the case against North Carolina’s worst-in-the-nation voter suppression law. As Rick Hasen has just written in Election Law Blog:
The key part of the holding is that North Carolina acted with racially discriminatory intent, a finding which not only can doom the entire law, but also can provide the basis for putting North Carolina back under federal supervision for up to 10 years for its voting laws.
The court’s 83-page decision is here. Legal wonks are still in the process of digesting it, but this looks like VICTORY!!! Gov. McCrory will, undoubtedly, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court...and, equally likely, to no effect.
Friday, Jul 29, 2016 · 4:43:54 PM +00:00 · DocDawg
Important commentary by JLan in comments below:
It looks like they’ve reversed and remanded to the district court, with instructions to enjoin the implementation of the law on all 5 of the issues- photo ID, same day registration, pre-registration, out of precinct voting, and early voting. The vote was 3-0 for most of it, and 2-1 on voter ID, with the dissenting judge holding that the voter ID piece should have had a temporary injunction, because a law was passed in 2015 modifying it and that hasn’t been fully studied.
Juicy Tidbit #1 from the decision (regarding the original U.S. District Court decision which upheld the law):
[...] we must conclude that the district court fundamentally erred. In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.
Friday, Jul 29, 2016 · 5:07:22 PM +00:00 · DocDawg
Juicy Tidbit #2:
Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court to the contrary and remand with instructions to enjoin the challenged provisions of the law.
Friday, Jul 29, 2016 · 5:13:21 PM +00:00 · DocDawg
Juicy Tidbit #3:
Using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election. But intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose. This is so even absent any evidence of race-based hatred and despite the obvious political dynamics. A state legislature acting on such a motivation engages in intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.