News | News Clips | North Carolina | Video | Voting Rights

North Carolina Gov. Signs New Voter ID Law, Lawsuits Follow Shortly Thereafter - VIDEO

Pat McCrory


North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed into law yestarday a new voter ID law which, according to the Huffington Post, "requir[es] photo identification at the polls and eliminat[es] a slew of voting measures designed to protect against voter disenfranchisement." The new law, tentatively set to take effect in 2016, would require voters to provide photo ID such as a driver's license or passport, but does not accept others such as a student ID. This worsens fears held by the law's opponents, who argue that the law is designed to target and disenfranchise certain voter demographics. HuffPo goes on to report:

"The bill also reduces early voting by a week, eliminates same-day registration, ends pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds and a student civics program, kills an annual state-sponsored voter registration drive and lessens the amount of public reporting required for so-called dark money groups, also known as 501(c)(4)s."

Rather than conduct the traditional signing ceremony, Gov. McCrory opted to simply announce the newly-signed law via a YouTube video, which currently has all feedback features disabled. 

VoterprotectscreenFor those registered voters in North Carolina who currently lack the required forms of ID, anywhere between 203,351 and 318,643 as estimated, the state will be offereing a "free ID" that will be made available at DMVs. When asked why McCrory chose to back this new piece of legislation, despite the fact that voter fraud seems to be a highly rare occurrence, he responded by saying, in a Raleigh News and Observer op-ed:

"Even if the instances of misidentified people casting votes are low, that shouldn’t prevent us from putting this non-burdensome safeguard in place. Just because you haven’t been robbed doesn’t mean you shouldn’t lock your doors at night or when you’re away from home."

This new law has already been challenged by the ACLU of North Carolina, as well as a coalition of others, by a lawsuit that was filed just hours after the new law was signed. The lawsuit charges that Gov. McCrory's new law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The North Carolina NAACP and Advancement Project filed a similar suit shortly therafter. It is worth noting, however, that a large portion of the Voting Rights Act was recently declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Many analysts cite the SCOTUS' recent ruling as among the chief reasons why the bill was passed in the first place. 

The Huffington Post also added some more noteworthy and potentially troubling analysis:

"The bill has the potential to reduce turnout for key Democratic constituencies -- minorities, the elderly and students -- with the slew of new requirements, even beyond the new measures for identification. President Barack Obama narrowly won North Carolina in 2008 but lost it in 2012, and in 2016, the state is likely to be a battleground.

"The legislation, passed by the Republican-controlled legislature over the objections of Democrats before heading to McCrory's desk, is the latest of a string of conservative legislation signed into law in the state. McCrory has also signed measures introducing new restrictions for abortion clinics (attached to a motorcycle safety bill), expanding concealed-carry permits to bars and restaurants, and cutting unemployment benefits."

The NC Governor has also previously repealed a law that allows death row inmates to challenge their sentences based on allegations of racial bias. You can view his announcement AFTER THE JUMP. Since comments are disabled on the video itselg, feel free to leave one below instead. 

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Since comments are disabled on the video itselg, feel free to leave one below instead AND INCREASE REVENUE TO TOWLEROAD!

    Posted by: MARCUS BACHMANN | Aug 13, 2013 12:52:05 PM


  2. Now if the governor can sign a bill to give dead white people a chance to vote for up to 20 years after their death, he would be in hog heaven.

    As the Republican party continues to dwindle nationally, the in-fighting between the conservatives, the moderates and the Tea Party crazy, tears it apart, all they have left are ways to limit the voting pool to favor their angry, selfish constituants.

    Posted by: Bart | Aug 13, 2013 1:20:13 PM


  3. I don't mind the allegory -- voter fraud equals robbery -- but guv must know there's only been one suspected fraud case in North Carolina in the last twelve years. Clearly it's more truthful to say, "Just because only one dude has been robbed in North Carolina in the last twelve years doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your doors at night." Because, you know, it kind of DOES.

    Posted by: RomanHans | Aug 13, 2013 1:25:57 PM


  4. It amazes me how conservatives howl with disgust when Mayor Bloomberg wants to do away with obscenely large soft drinks, but see a totalitarian megalomaniac like McCrory, who is actually taking tangible rights away from his constituents, as some sort of hero. I moved from NC to NYC some time ago, and I can honestly say I have absolutely no inclination to ever return.

    Posted by: Walt NYC | Aug 13, 2013 1:57:21 PM


  5. I guess if you can't win an election fairly, you have to cheat. Now the GOP can't complain about other countries rigging their elections.

    Posted by: Jack M | Aug 13, 2013 2:05:27 PM


  6. The new law also eliminates early voting on Sunday. So, no more "Souls to the Polls" on Sunday.

    And, NC has the most LAX requirements for absentee voting. This is because the vast majority of those voting absentee are white. Now, please explain how you verify the picture ID of a person voting absentee? Even if you make a copy of your driver's license and include it with the ballot it doesn't prove the ID is that of the person who filled out the ballot. People could be filling out ballots for their relative in Nursing homes and no one would ever know.

    The reason they are shortening early voting is because the majority of early voters are democrats and blacks.

    They want likely democratic voters to just decide it's too much hassle and not bother to vote.

    Posted by: anon | Aug 13, 2013 2:12:18 PM


  7. It's entirely normal in most countries to require to present a photo ID at a polling place.

    There are two reasons why Democrats are so opposed to common sense voter ID laws. First, voter fraud. Second and most important, complaining about the voter ID laws stirs up racial tensions in the country. The Democratic party is a racist, race-baiting party that would have stopped being a national party long ago if it hadn't stirred racial resentment and anti-white racism.

    Posted by: AG | Aug 13, 2013 2:17:49 PM


  8. AG;

    You have it backwards. Completely.

    Proving once again, you, like your party, is Brain Dead.

    Take a hike.

    Posted by: jean | Aug 13, 2013 2:27:12 PM


  9. What I honestly don't understand is why the courts, if they aren't willing to void these laws outright, don't interpret them as requiring that the state provide state ID free of charge to anyone who provides the appropriate documentation, and to require that that documentation essentially be the same as what used to let you vote.

    Poll taxes are illegal. Dodges like requiring stamps to vote but charging for the stamp are illegal. Why isn't requiring someone to pay for an ID they need to vote equally forbidden?

    I acknowledge that it adds a hoop to jump, but if it's on you can do for free at any point during the year, that lasts five years, it might pass muster.

    Posted by: Lymis | Aug 13, 2013 2:39:47 PM


  10. Who does not have a DL in NC? Everyone drives. This fear is misplaced.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Aug 13, 2013 3:00:46 PM


  11. We have had to show a valid ID to vote in Florida as long as I have lived here. California requires ID to vote. What is the big deal?

    Is there something special about black people that they can't show ID? Do they not show up in mirrors and photographs?

    Posted by: Hagatha | Aug 13, 2013 3:05:29 PM


  12. AG

    I can 100% support voter Id

    BUT!!!!! the state must then pay / provide all transport, time off, and time period large enough to make sure all who are eligible to vote are able to get the ID

    Otherwise it is a poll tax if citizens (especially elderly, poor, rural, college students, and minorities)must pay out of their own pocket to comply with such a law

    But cons don't want to do such because their effort is not fair elections but voter suppresion otherwise if it is truly fair elections then the cons would add the cost to the state in their bills so not a poll tax

    Posted by: Moz's | Aug 13, 2013 3:09:54 PM


  13. MOZ'S its 20 dollars tops 25 its not going to bankrupt anyone and its called a car/bus/your day off everyone gets one. All they are asking for is an ID not the holy grail anyone and everyone can easily get one.

    Posted by: Lee | Aug 13, 2013 3:18:15 PM


  14. Let's not get it twisted: a reasonable ID requirement is not onerous. However, NC Repubs have rigged the game, so that only certain IDs qualify. So, for example, college IDs, even issued by a state university, do not meet the requirement. Furthermore, this goes way beyond ID requirements to include outright voter suppression measures, like stripping out same day registration and curtailing early voting. This law is ripe for a constitutional challenge.

    Posted by: Albert | Aug 13, 2013 3:20:39 PM


  15. LEE say that to elderly people on fixed incomes in nursing homes

    be honest, if your cause is truly fair elections then cover it thus not a poll tax

    otherwise the real goal is disenfranchisement

    Posted by: Moz's | Aug 13, 2013 3:28:39 PM


  16. The laws against early registration for 16 and 17 year olds are meant to cut down on out-reach programs meant to register teenagers and prepare them to vote. It's all part of the ultimate goal: make it more difficult for demographics that lean progressive.

    Posted by: Kevin | Aug 13, 2013 3:30:56 PM


  17. I have to have an ID do just about anything. Fly, drive, buy over the counter drugs, cash a check(who does that), pick up someone in a homeland security controlled area. I can go on and on but this is not an onerous requirement. Some of that other stuff in their bill is undoubtably designed to restrict certain voters. If i was running the party in charge and could make rules that gave my side an advantage i wouldnt hesitate. is it fair; no but no one said life and certainly Politics was fair.

    Although, there used to be one day to vote and plenty of Dems were elected back then. I think this is just one side making a raucous to rile up their base.

    Posted by: Jason B. | Aug 13, 2013 3:42:00 PM


  18. Voter fraud is not a rare occurrence, and it's not 'disenfranchisement' to require legal, picture identification, and to demand a person be able to positively identify themselves, when doing something as important as voting. EVERY person who is old and responsible enough to vote should have proper identification. It's basically impossible to function as a responsible adult in this or any other advanced or even semi-advanced country without proper identification. And proper ID in the U.S. IS NOT difficult to get, and it's not expensive [the state of NC is apparently even going to give them away!]...so, what's the problem? There's only one group of people who would be angry with laws that require voters prove who they are at the voting booth: those groups and individuals who are interested in voter fraud and maybe have have committed it or assisted in committing it in the past. Another reason is it gives some political groups and those with certain ideologies an excuse to rile up their 'disinfranchised' base, and keep them radicalized by pointing to this law as another example of their 'oppression'. It's all BS.

    And to those who think this law will 'disinfranchise' so-called 'people of color', GROW UP...'people of color' aren't any more stupid than us translucent people. Most know perfectly well what's required to function in a modern society, and already have proper identification or can easily get it.

    Unbelievable.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Aug 13, 2013 4:30:52 PM


  19. Republicans go on and on about loving "democracy", but their intense zeal to strip voting rights from those who would most likely vote for a Democrat tells a very different story. This is disgusting, un-American and has to be stopped.

    Posted by: Red | Aug 13, 2013 4:31:10 PM


  20. What!!!! The nerve requiring voters prove who they are and have proper, legal I.D.!!

    Seriously, who the F, what adult old enough to vote, doesn't have proper, legal I.D.? It's IMPOSSIBLE to function without it.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Aug 13, 2013 4:33:07 PM


  21. @Kevin,

    'Outreach' programs are designed to one thing only: Get warm bodies [i.e. so-called low information voters] into the polls after instructing them how and who they should vote for. Both major political parties do this. If Democrats and 'progressives' rely so heavily on 'outreach' programs aimed at 'low information' voters, there's a big problem here.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Aug 13, 2013 4:38:15 PM


  22. @MOZ,

    Democratic machines and 'progressives' need to get those disinfranchised elderly people in nursing homes proper I.D., so they can vote. Problem solved.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Aug 13, 2013 4:40:10 PM


  23. NC has 'lax' absentee voting laws because it has a HUGE number of military personnel who are often posted all over the world, but based in NC. It's an issue unique to a small handful of states, mostly southern.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Aug 13, 2013 4:42:18 PM


  24. If you can't manage to get an ID, you don't deserve to vote. You should be able to identify yourself. If you can't handle it, you're a wasted vote anyway.

    Posted by: SamIam | Aug 13, 2013 5:19:34 PM


  25. People need IDs to board a plane, to enter another country, to buy alcohol or cigarettes, and a zillion other reasons.

    If you don't drive or can't afford a car, you don't HAVE to get get license. You can still get a govt-issued ID.

    That being said, it you don't have ONE form of ID, my guess if you're pretty lazy or stupid or both.

    Posted by: Sean | Aug 13, 2013 5:22:39 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Paula Overby Vies For Seat As Minnesota's First Openly Transgender Candidate« «