General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBreaking: Partially Divided 4th Circuit Strikes NC Strict Voting Law, Finds Discriminatory Intent
Breaking and Analysis: Partially Divided 4th Circuit Strikes NC Strict Voting Law, Finds Discriminatory Intent
Posted on July 29, 2016 9:14 am by Rick Hasen
A partially divided panel of 4th Circuit judges reversed a massive trial court opinion which had rejected a number of constitutional and Voting Rights Act challenges to North Carolinas strict voting law, a law I had said was the largest collection of voting rollbacks contained in a single law that I could find since the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act. 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. Given that the trial court was extremely skeptical of the case against NCs voter id law as a whole, this will be a very interesting case to watch on remand.
This decision is the third voting rights win in two weeks: first in Wisconsin, where a federal district court recently softened the states strict voter id law (an issue now on appeal to the Seventh Circuit), and then in Texas, where the en banc 5th circuit not only ordered the trial court to fashion such softening, but it also opened the door to a finding of discriminatory intent, which can put Texas under federal supervision as well.
Here are some more detailed thoughts on the 4th Circuit opinion:
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84702
MattP
(3,304 posts)PJMcK
(21,921 posts)The headline is slightly misleading and the writer doesn't clarify the judges' vote. I went to the decision and here's a quote that clears up the confusion:
Have a great weekend, MattP.
Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)Supervision!
lindysalsagal
(20,444 posts)This decision is the third voting rights win in two weeks: first in Wisconsin, where a federal district court recently softened the states strict voter id law and then in Texas,
For anyone who still thinks their pissy-party about Bernie still matters more than anything else, remember that if fRump wins, he seats lots of judges in cluding SCOTUS.
We can't have free elections unless dems hold the presidency and senate.
There's so much more on the line than one candidate.