Obama administration sues to block North Carolina voter law

WASHINGTON Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:52pm EDT

A poll worker looks at voter authorization forms and provisional ballots after the polls closed at the Covenant Presbyterian Church during the U.S. presidential election in Charlotte, North Carolina November 6, 2012. REUTERS/Chris Keane

A poll worker looks at voter authorization forms and provisional ballots after the polls closed at the Covenant Presbyterian Church during the U.S. presidential election in Charlotte, North Carolina November 6, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Chris Keane

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration sued North Carolina on Monday to block newly enacted voting rules that it says violate federal civil rights law, including a requirement for voters to show photo identification at the polls.

The challenge is the second of its kind in recent months aimed at voting changes in a Republican-led state. In August the Justice Department sued to keep Texas from carrying out a voter identification requirement enacted in 2011.

The department's civil rights enforcers are acting after the U.S. Supreme Court in June invalidated part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act they previously relied on.

"Allowing limits on voting rights that disproportionately exclude minority voters would be inconsistent with our ideals as a nation," said Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced the suit at a news conference in Washington with North Carolina-based Justice Department lawyers.

Republican Governor Pat McCrory signed the state's sweeping voting changes into law in August, saying: "Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote."

Civil rights groups sued immediately, and U.S. Senator Kay Hagan, a Democrat, asked Holder to review the law.

Holder said the Justice Department suit asks a federal court in the Middle District of North Carolina to block four provisions of the state law: The elimination of seven days of early voting prior to Election Day; the elimination of same-day voter registration during early voting; the prohibition on counting certain provisional ballots, which a voter fills out when there are questions about his or her registration; and the adoption of an ID requirement that is stricter than the Justice Department allows.

FIGHT ALONG PARTY LINES

Democrats and Republicans fight vigorously over such requirements because they affect voter turnout and may swing close elections. For civil rights advocates, they also echo the earlier, century-long fight to win voting rights for black Americans in the U.S. South.

Requirements for voters to show identification have been the biggest flashpoint. The Justice Department has approved of them in some states, such as in Virginia, that take steps to ensure IDs are available at little to no cost, but not in states where it said the mandate would be a burden on the poor and minorities. Holder has compared them to poll taxes.

The challenge to North Carolina would fall under the Voting Rights Act's Section 2, which prohibits state voting practices or procedures that discriminate by race.

The Justice Department asked federal court to place North Carolina under a preclearance requirement, in which any voting change would require federal approval before taking effect, said a person briefed on the Justice Department's plan. Much of North Carolina had a preclearance requirement before the Supreme Court's ruling in June.

Holder has called the Supreme Court's ruling deeply flawed, and in a speech on September 20 said the Justice Department "will not allow the court's action to be interpreted as ‘open season' for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights."

Republicans argue that the measures prevent voter fraud.

(Editing by Howard Goller, Stacey Joyce, Colleen Jenkins and Phil Berlowitz)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (35)
Gideon_71 wrote:
Why is it, that at every turn, it is Obama against, well, everyone else.

Sep 29, 2013 12:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Obsilutely wrote:
@Gideon_71 – Was that a question or a comma party? And what part of Obamacare is “against” anyone? It is giving millions of people health benefits. How is that “against” them? Was he “against” women when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Was he “against” the American people when he chose not to support a military conflict in Syria?

I think a more suitable question for the current times would be: Why is it at every turn there’s some person making claims that are completely unfounded and irrational?

Sep 29, 2013 12:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JoeSanDiego wrote:
I just don’t understand how asking for a voter to prove he is a citizen is discriminatory???? You are legally required to be a citizen, and to reside in your voting district to vote, and voting by a non-citizen or non-resident is a crime. So how can it be unlawful to ask to show evidence you legally reside in the voting area?? It is common sense that if you can simply make up any name, and vote, people will vote in more than one district, and non-citizens will vote. Duh! How is this even debatable??

Sep 30, 2013 1:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.