REUTERS/Chris Keane

This third ruling against photo voter ID mandates could signal the end of the battle.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Friday to block North Carolina’s voter ID law on the basis that it was passed with the intention to discriminate against people of color. In addition to the photo-ID mandate, the law, passed in 2013, cut the early-voting period and stripped away people’s ability to register to vote on the same day as they cast their ballot. The law was passed despite the fact that African Americans relied on these provisions in past elections more than white voters did, and despite being far less like likely to have a photo-ID drivers license than white voters.

Civil rights advocates sued the state over the voter ID law for these reasons, but a lower court rejected that challenge back in April. Friday’s ruling from the Fourth Circuit Appeals court reverses that decision.

“In North Carolina, restriction of voting mechanisms and procedures that most heavily affect African Americans will predictably redound to the benefit of one political party and to the disadvantage of the other,” reads the ruling. “As the evidence in the record makes clear, that is what happened here.”

Election law expert Rick Hasen said on his popular blog that the declaration of discriminatory intent could lead to North Carolina coming back under federal supervision of its election matters—supervision that only ended when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act three years ago. Prior to that ruling, North Carolina was one of a cadre of Southern states that needed federal approval before making voting changes (like requiring photo ID) because of its history of racial discrimination at the polls.

With surgical precision, North Carolina tried to eliminate voting practices disproportionately used by African Americans,” said Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, in a press statement. “This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state’s attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade.”

It is the third court ruling this month to scale back voter-ID requirements: Similar rulings came down recently in Texas and Wisconsin. But North Carolina’s law has generally been regarded as the worst of the voter-ID bunch, having relegated its black voters to living in “electoral apartheid” conditions.

“We applaud the appeals court for recognizing the discriminatory intent behind and effect wrought by the 2013 monster law,” said Southern Coalition for Social Justice senior attorney Allison Riggs in a press statement. “Because of this ruling, North Carolinians will now be able to register and vote free of the obstacles created by the Legislature in 2013.”

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. a photo of a man surveying a home garage.
    Transportation

    How Single-Family Garages Can Ease California's Housing Crisis

    Given the affordable housing crisis, California cities should encourage single-family homeowners to convert garages into apartments and accessory dwelling units.

  2. Tech workers sit around a table on their laptops in San Francisco, California
    Life

    America’s Tech Hubs Still Dominate, But Some Smaller Cities Are Rising

    Despite established urban tech hubs, some smaller cities are attracting high-tech jobs with lower living costs, unique talent pools, and geographic diversity.

  3. Transportation

    Will Ottawa Ever Get Its Light Rail?

    Sinkholes, winter-weary trains, and political upheaval have held the Confederation Line light-rail transit back from a seriously overdue opening.

  4. Life

    Who’s Really Buying Property in San Francisco?

    A lot of software developers, according to an unprecedented new analysis.

  5. Maria Romano stands behind one of her three children, Jennifer, 10, as she gets something to eat in their Harlem apartment in New York Thursday, June 3, 2005
    Equity

    Why HUD Wants to Restrict Assistance for Immigrants

    A proposal by Ben Carson’s agency would eject immigrant families from public housing to make way for the "most vulnerable." Housing advocates aren't buying it.