NPR blog reports that the testimony of the South Carolina elections director Marci Andino has shifted the focus of the South Carolina voter ID trial to the “Reasonable Impediment” affidavit, a sworn statement that voters can use if they were not reasonably able to obtain a photo ID for any multitude of reasons.  The testimony surprised the U.S. District Court and reveals a double standard that DOJ used in reviewing and objecting to the South Carolina voter ID law.  The key paragraph in the post:

Essentially, she said it was up to the voter to determine what was a
“reasonable impediment” and that she was instructing poll managers to
accept the voter’s explanation.

Members of the three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., appeared surprised.

Considering
there’s only a short time before the Nov. 6 election, does that mean
every South Carolina voter without a photo ID would have a “reasonable
impediment” getting one, asked U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

“Yes, that’s possible,” Andino replied.

Pressed
by U.S. District Judge John Bates, Andino said that she didn’t think
the law would disenfranchise anyone already legally allowed to vote.

That
might come as a surprise to opponents who argue that tens of thousands
of voters lack the required ID and could have trouble getting one, so
they’ll be unable to vote if the new law is upheld.

While the partisan Department of Justice intentionally ignored this administrative safety net and obstructed to the law’s implementation twice, the clause certainly has the attention of the federal judges.  

Interesting enough, neither of the voter ID laws in Georgia and Virginia, administratively precleared by the Department of Justice, had these safety net features.  DOJ’s flawed analysis is often focused on what demographic group has what forms of ID, not on the system as a whole.  Is there any real difference in the South Carolina photo ID law and the New Hampshire photo ID law (predicted to be precleared by DOJ) as both allow an affidavit to be signed if the voter happens to appear at the polls without a photo ID.