Federal Judge Denies North Carolina Officials’ Motion to Dismiss Photo ID Claim in Monster Voter Suppression Lawsuit

"WINSTON-SALEM, NC – On Friday, Oct. 23, a federal judge denied a request to dismiss a legal challenge to North Carolina’s photo ID provision of the monster voter suppression law, H.B. 589. Presiding over the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder declined to affirm the state’s position that the photo ID portion of the law was moot, stating there is declarative relief and remedies potentially available if the plaintiffs prove the law disproportionately and adversely impacts African American and Latino voters. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that their last minute maneuver to the law, passed on the eve of the July 2015 full trial on the merits of the case, made moot the claim against the requirement voters show strict photo ID in order to vote. In refusing to dismiss the state’s motion, the photo ID provision of the law will now go to trial in January 2016. The challenge to H.B. 589 – including the photo ID provision – was brought by the national racial justice organization Advancement Project, the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP and attorneys Irving Joyner and Adam Stein on behalf of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and individual plaintiffs. The groups released the following statement in response:

“We are pleased with Judge Schroeder’s decision to deny the state’s motion to dismiss the photo ID provision of the law,” said Attorney Irving Joyner. “We remain concerned about the abbreviated timetable to prepare for trial, a timetable that exists solely because of the gamesmanship of the North Carolina General Assembly who waited until the dawn of trial to slightly amend its discriminatory photo ID requirement. Even with the changes, and after nearly two years of telling voters they would need the narrowly prescribed photo ID to vote, North Carolina officials have yet to articulate their strategy for educating the public, poll workers and other state officials on what is needed to vote. As a result, the people of North Carolina are left in legislative-limbo by not knowing the rules for voting as well as the options available ahead of a March 2016 primary and the general election.”

“North Carolina’s voter ID requirement remains an undue and unlawful burden on voters of color,” said the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, President of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. “Yet Gov. McCrory and the legislature continue striving to suppress the vote. Their desperate attempt to mask the discrimination embedded in this law by altering – yet not removing – the photo identification requirement on the eve of our trial shows that they knew it would not withstand the weight of constitutional review. They wanted the photo ID provision of the law dismissed because they don’t want the court to focus on their discriminatory intent to deny and abridge African American & Latino voters’ right to vote.”

“Any practice that results in African Americans and Latinos having less access to the vote than other members of the electorate is a violation of the Voting Rights Act,” said Advancement Project Co-Director Penda D. Hair. “North Carolina’s photo ID requirement does just that. Just as poll taxes and literacy tests are illegal under Section 2, photo ID requirements create unfair barriers to voters of color, who are less likely to have one of the narrowly prescribed and acceptable forms of ID.”

“Even with the much touted amendments to the law, voters of color will continue to be disproportionately burdened,” said Attorney Daniel Donovan of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP. “This is a violation not only of the constitution, but also of commonly held values of fairness and freedom to participate fully in our nation’s democracy. Elections should be free, fair and accessible to all, and we look forward to arguing these and other points during trial next year.”

“We are gratified Judge Schroeder recognized the challenges inherent in the photo ID provision, and decided against dismissing the photo claim,” said Advancement Project Senior Attorney Denise Lieberman. “As long as photo ID is on the books, it will have a chilling and discriminatory impact on African Americans and Latinos.”

While the trial on the other provisions of H.B. 589 was held in July 2015, a decision in that portion of the case is pending."

- A Press Release

Today, NC NAACP Will Point to Enduring Discriminatory Impact of Voter ID in Hearing with Federal Judge

"WINSTON-SALEM, NC – Today, lawyers representing the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP will argue that their challenge to the photo ID requirement included in the state’s massive voter suppression law, H.B. 589, should have its day in court. Just weeks before the July trial challenging H.B. 589, the legislature modified the ID requirement, which resulted in its tabling from the trial. Attorneys with the national racial justice organization, Advancement Project, joined with co-counsel Kirkland & Ellis LP and lawyers Adam Stein and Irving Joiner, will argue that despite the legislature’s last-minute attempt to modify the regulation, the court should not dismiss the NAACP’s challenge to North Carolina’s photo ID requirement because it continues to disparately impact voters of color – a violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Advancement Project released the following statement in anticipation of today’s hearing:

“North Carolina’s voter ID requirement remains an undue and unlawful burden on voters of color,” said North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP President Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II. “The legislature’s desperate attempt to mask the discrimination embedded in this law by altering – yet not removing – the photo identification requirement on the eve of our trial shows that they knew it would not stand up to the word of law. It still does not. The facts are clear that photo ID requirements disproportionately harm African American & Latino voters in North Carolina, and beyond. We should have the opportunity to make that case, and we stand in firm opposition of this modern day form of Jim Crow suppression.”

“Any practice that results in African Americans and Latinos having less access to the vote than other members of the electorate is a violation of the Voting Rights Act,” said Advancement Project Co-Director Penda D. Hair. “North Carolina’s voter ID requirement does just that. Just as poll taxes and literacy tests are illegal under Section 2 because they make it disproportionately harder for voters of color to participate, and sometimes impossible, photo ID requirements create unfair barriers to voters of color, who are less likely to have one of the forms of required ID and will continue to face disproportionate burdens even under amendments to the law, which we do not know how the state will implement or educate voters about. This is a violation not only of our laws, but also of our nation’s morals. Our democracy should be free, fair and accessible to all. Today, and all days, we should not settle for less.”

North Carolina NAACP and Others Challenge State’s Voter Suppression Law in Federal Court

Crucial Hearing is Last Chance to Block Restrictions Before the 2014 Election

"On behalf of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, today a legal team will begin arguments in a federal hearing to stop the worst effects of H.B. 589, North Carolina’s restrictive voting law. Attorneys from Advancement Project, Kirkland & Ellis, as well as North Carolina attorneys Irving Joyner and Adam Stein, are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from disenfranchising voters in the November 2014 midterm election. Alleging that the measure violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, along with the 14^th and 15^th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, they will demonstrate how the measure disproportionately impacts North Carolina’s African-American voters – intentionally burdening these communities’ right to vote.

The arguments will be heard by Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. With several individual and organizational plaintiffs, North Carolina legislators, election officials, statisticians and social science experts scheduled to take the stand, the hearing is expected to last at least one week.

“The hearing in North Carolina is one with national implications,” said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina NAACP. “North Carolina was the first state to pass a restrictive voting law after the 2013 Supreme Court decision to weaken the Voting Rights Act, and it reveals the kind of bills that may be passed in southern legislatures without preclearance. This bill was never about integrity of the vote; it’s about politicians seeking to suppress the voices of certain voters. This week’s hearing represents a fight for the voting rights of North Carolina, the South and indeed the nation.”

“Because our case will not go to full trial until 2015, this week’s preliminary injunction hearing presents a critical opportunity to block some of the worst voter restrictions in the country before the 2014 elections,” said attorney Irving Joyner. “Over the coming days, we will show how H.B. 589 stands to prevent hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians from accessing the ballot, and that lawmakers knew the disparate impact on voters of color – yet passed it anyway.”

The far-reaching H.B. 589 targets nearly every aspect of the voting process: who can vote, where they can vote, when they can vote, and how they can vote. Among other provisions, it shortens the early voting period by a full week, eliminates same-day registration, prevents out-of-precinct ballots from being counted, expands the ability to challenge voters at the polls, ends a successful pre-registration program for 16- and 17-year olds, and requires strict forms of voter ID.

According to North Carolina’s own data, these policies have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. For example, African Americans in North Carolina use same-day registration and early voting at higher rates than White voters. In 2012, 70 percent of African Americans who voted did so during the early voting period, compared to 56 percent of the voting population overall. While African Americans make up about 22 percent of the state’s voting population, they account for 41 percent of voters who use same-day registration; more than one-third of voters who do not have a non-expired state-issued photo ID; and about 30 percent of those who cast out of precinct ballots. African Americans are also statistically more likely to use pre-registration opportunities.

“Even with all of the statistics and legal arguments about North Carolina’s voter suppression law, this case is about voters,” said Advancement Project Co-Director Penda D. Hair. “Throughout the hearing we will lift up their stories because so much is at stake. Once a citizen loses their right to vote, they can’t get that vote back again, so we want to ensure that these voices are heard in court now.”

The North Carolina NAACP brings this case as a leader in the Forward Together Moral Movement, a statewide coalition of more than 150 organizations, and thousands of individual North Carolinians. For more than a year, they have protested the extreme public policy passed by state lawmakers, including H.B. 589."

A Press Release

New claims added to NC voting rights lawsuit

The Advancement Project and the NC NAACP have filed two new claims this week on a lawsuit challenging North Carolina's new voting laws, according to a press release. Calling the laws "the country’s most extreme and restrictive voting legislation," the organizations listed three additional claims to the suit. The press release states that lawsuit now: 

·         Challenges the provision of the law that eliminates the pre-registration of 16- and 17-year olds 

·         Makes explicit that the law has a disparate impact on Latinos as well as African Americans 

Click here to read more about the plaintiffs who are suing North Carolina over its voter ID law and other related legislation, including the initial hearing held in Winston-Salem.

Edited: The Advancement Project corrected an initial press release stating that three claims were filed, confirming that only two items were added. A third claim, that the law violates the 24th Amendment prohibiting poll taxes, is not part of the suit as originally stated.

Guilford commissioner, Winston-Salem church and WSSU students added to NAACP lawsuit

Guilford County Commissioner Carolyn Coleman; Emmanuel Baptist Church, a Winston-Salem church led by the Rev. John Mendez; and Joycelyn Andreka Ferguson-Kelly and Faith, Jackson, both students at Winston-Salem State University, are among the plaintiffs added to the NC NAACP's lawsuit against North Carolina's new, more restrictive election laws in an amended complaint earlier this week. From the amended complaint:

Plaintiff Carolyn Coleman, age 71, is an African-American elected commissioner who resides in Guilford County, North Carolina, and has been engaged in voter outreach and education for nearly 50 years. Ms. Coleman has spent time on college campuses encouraging students to vote and has worked to make voter registration more accessible to the public by setting up tables at shopping centers, football games and other large events to register people to vote. Ms. Coleman plans to continue to be actively engaged in voter education, registration and outreach. Also, in her elected office, Ms. Coleman represents a constituency (Greensboro) with a significant African-American population, and plans to run for reelection in 2014. Ms. Coleman will be forced to incur additional costs during her reelection campaign in order to assist members of the community to register to vote, and to educate the community on the additional restrictions on voting imposed by HB 589.

Coleman ran unopposed in her last election, in 2010.

Plaintiff Emmanuel Baptist Church is located in Winston-Salem's Columbia Heights neighborhood. The church is led by Dr. John Mendez and is committed to minister "to the social needs of the community," which includes ensuring its community members' participation in the political process and their right to vote. The church's social action committee organizes voter registration drives; provides transportation in vans owned and operated by the church for members of the congregation and community to register and to vote; and conducts "Souls to the Polls" initiatives through which the church transports to the polls hundreds of registered voters and other individuals seeking to register and vote. 

Plaintiff Emmanuel Baptist Church has standing to sue on its own behalf. The reduction in early-voting days in HB 589 will place a strain on the church's transportation services, will make it difficult for the church to operate the programs they have in the past, and will lead to a reduction in the number of voters and congregants that the church is able to transport to the polls. Emmanuel Baptist Church must now diver substantial resources and attention away from other critical mission to assist members of its congregation, the residents of the surrounding community it serves, and other constituents who stand to have their right to vote burdened by the law. 

Plaintiff Jocelyn Andreka Ferguson-Kelly, age 19, is an African-American student, majoring in clinical laboratory science at Winston-Salem State University,a historically black college in North Carolina. Ms. Ferguson-Kelly is registered to vote in North Carolina and voted in 2012 at the polling place on campus. Ms. Ferguson-Kelly does not have a North Carolina driver's license and does not possess any other form of accepted identification under HB 589. Ms. Ferguson-Kelly plans to vote in the 2014 elections and will have to incur substantial time and expense to obtain the required identification. Ms. Ferguson-Kelly voted as a qualified voter in the 2012 election; however, HB 589's voting restrictions will render her ineligible to vote unless she obtains the required identification. 

Plaintiff Faith Jackson, age 20, is an African-American student, majoring in nursing at Winston-Salem State University, a historically black college in North Carolina. She is registered to vote in North Carolina and voted in 2012 at a precinct on campus. Ms. Jackson does not have any of the forms of accepted identification to vote under HB 589. Ms. Jackson plans to vote in the 2014 elections and will have to incur substantial time and expense to obtain the required identification. Ms. Jackson voted as a qualified voter in North Carolina during the 2012 general election; however, HB 589's voting restrictions will render her ineligible to vote unless she obtains the required identification.

NC NAACP v McCrory - First Amended Complaint by Jordan Green

Type rest of the post here