One of three ID opponents on the five-person panel, Bob Hall, “executive director of left-leaning Democracy North Carolina,” notes (correctly) as many in the anti-ID crowd do that “lawmakers should try to tighten up the rules for mail-in absentee ballots.” Hall also repeats the same equal protection concern claimed by fellow ID opponent and North Carolina NAACP President William Barber, that “treating absentee voters differently from others” by not also requiring ID with mail-in absentee ballots “invites court challenges.”

The General Assembly can easily allay the concerns of Hall, Barber, et al by extending ID requirements to absentee ballots.  Kansas’ SAFE Act offers a model, requiring that “Each voter must show photographic identification each election,” whether voting in person or by mail ballot.

But the “largely symbolic” opposition to voter ID, against a Republican majority elected on a promise of passing Voter ID, may be more about the larger “blueprint” of a Progressive collective to “weaken our opponents’ ability to govern by crippling their leaders (McCrory, Tillis, Berger, etc…).”