Judge kicks North Carolina voter ID challenge out of upcoming federal trial

State considers plaintiffs’ anti-voter ID claims now moot


Via The Robesonian:  “A federal trial next month on several provisions of North Carolina’s 2013 elections law won’t consider challenges to the state’s upcoming voter identification requirement in light of recent changes to the mandate, a judge has ruled.


“U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder decided that claims against the photo ID provision set to begin in 2016 will be kept out of the July 13 trial in Winston-Salem and considered later. Schroeder’s order came barely a week after the legislature finalized a bill creating a method by which people who can’t obtain a photo ID before next year can cast a lawful ballot.”


House Bill 836 ensures that any voter claiming a “reasonable impediment” to getting a photo ID (even one provided free of charge by the state) will be able to vote. But the anti-integrity crowd isn’t satisfied.  Advancement Project attorney Donita Judge says “we believe that any photo ID requirement is unconstitutional” – a belief not shared by the Supreme Court or by the D.C. Circuit Court, which upheld South Carolina’s photo voter ID law containing a similar reasonable impediment affidavit provision.


And as North Carolina Rep. David Lewis, a proponent of the bill, noted, only 114 South Carolina voters used reasonable impediment affidavits in 2014, a fraction of one percent of the 240,000 voters that opponents claimed had no photo ID.


If Judge Schroeder doesn’t throw them out entirely, plaintiffs have until mid-August to decide whether to continue wasting resources on their anti-ID claims.

Fourteen Ohio voter fraud cases referred for prosecution

Secretary of State Jon Husted unveiled the 14 cases of suspected illegal voting on Thursday while releasing the results of a review by his office and the 88 county boards of elections of 42 “irregularities.”


“A total of 74 Ohio races have tied or been decided by a one-vote margin over the past two years,” Husted has also reported, a reminder that every single illegal vote has the potential to change the outcome of an election.

“Three Philly Election Officials Face Voter Fraud Charges”

More impersonation voter fraud that the anti-integrity crowd claims doesn’t exist:


Three people have been charged with voter fraud in two separate cases stemming from the 2015 and 2014 Philadelphia primary elections…


“I continue to be outraged that our election officials, after they clearly know the rules, think that they can just walk into the voting booth and vote multiple times or vote as someone else,” District Attorney Seth Williams said in a statement. “What these three have done is clearly a crime and will be prosecuted.”

“Goodlatte: Voting Rights Act remains strong without amendment”

“The congressman affirmed his opposition to those who say the law is now insufficient.”


“The fact of the matter is we have a Voting Rights Act; it is very strong,” [U.S. Rep. Bob] Goodlatte, R-Roanoke County, said… “There are still strong protections under the Voting Rights Act, including the ability of a judge to order that a community or even a whole state be placed under the preclearance requirements if there are new evidences of discrimination,” he said.

My Tuoro Law Review article on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

I generally believe academic forums are not the best place to have debates because nobody other than a handful of professors and their captive students participate in them. Academic debates draw an audience of a few hundred on a good day, while an appearance on the Kelly File, for example, draws two million on a bad day. Never the less, here is my article:

“Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s invalidation of federal oversight of elections in sixteen states using Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, litigation has commenced against multiple state election integrity statutes utilizing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Challenges have been brought against election integrity statutes by the Department of Justice and private plaintiffs in Wisconsin, Texas, and North Carolina.  At issue in these cases were voter photo identification laws, changes to early voting periods, same-day voter registration, and requirements that voters only vote in the precinct where they live. These challenges, however, did not use traditional theories of Section 2 liability. Instead, they advanced theories of Section 2 liability that were used to block state election law changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The legal theories utilized in these cases seek to import statistical tests for Section 2 liability, which were previously utilized under the Section 5 retrogression standard to block state election laws. If the plaintiffs are ultimately successful, the constitutional balance between states and the federal government that the Supreme Court sought to restore in Shelby County will be undone, and every state will risk violating the Voting Rights Act if any change to an election law has any statistical impact on a racial minority group. Instead, courts reviewing Section 2 cases should utilize longstanding jurisprudence requiring much more than statistical disparities in analyzing election laws for compliance with the Voting Rights Act and ask whether an equal opportunity to participate and comply with the law exists.”



Georgia Secretary of State not concerned about possible Democrat challenge to state’s Voter ID law

“We’re on very solid legal ground”


Several states are anticipating attacks from Democrats on their hugely-popular voter ID laws, bankrolled by billionaire George Soros and led by Team Hillary attorney Marc Elias to gin up a faux war on voting rights ahead of the 2016 election.


But Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp isn’t concerned.


“We’re on very solid legal ground,” Kemp said. “We’ve won every court case so far. I don’t see why we wouldn’t do that in the future. But if that’s a fight she wants to pick, we’ll be ready to fight with her on it.”   

Soros-funded Democrats and Team Hillary challenge hugely-popular voter ID law in Virginia

Team Hillary’s latest battleground in the faux war on voting rights is Virginia:


The purpose of the suit, filed in federal court in Richmond today, is to “remedy Virginia’s long wait times to vote, and to re-enfranchise all nonviolent felons who have completed their sentences and paid all fines, fees, and restitution,” according to a statement released by the DPVA…


The plaintiffs – the Democratic Party and voters Barbara H. Lee and Gonzalo J. Aida Brescia – are being represented by Marc E. Elias, attorney with Perkins Coie LLP in Washington. Elias is general counsel to Hillary for America, the campaign of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Hillary Clinton needs faux war on voting rights”

Story at Commentary Magazine

Why then are Democrats hyping a non-existent crisis? The same reason they sought to create the impression that Republicans were waging a non-existent “war on women” in 2012 and 2014. Creating the impression that African-Americans are being targeted by Republicans is the only way she can be sure that this most Democratic of demographic groups will turn out in the numbers she needs to win next year, even though Obama will no longer be on the ballot. If doing so means cloaking herself in the mantle of Rosa Parks and making wild, unsubstantiated claims about blacks being deprived of the right to vote, then so be it. But whether or not this faux “war on voting” works, and it might, let no one misunderstand her purpose. This is about politics and manipulating the fears of African-Americans, not a genuine threat to their rights or those of any other voting group.