If you haven’t registered to vote in the Nov. 4 general election by the time you read this, it’s too late.
Under North Carolina’s new voting law, enacted in 2013, the deadline to register to vote next month was at 5 p.m. today — Friday, Oct. 10.
Under the new law, voters cannot register on the same day they vote. This is a change from past elections.
That provision of the new state law was blocked from being enforced in this year’s election by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 1. Then, it was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Oct. 8.
Another provision of the new law that forbids votes cast by mistake in the wrong precinct from being counted was also blocked by the Appeals Court and also reinstated by the Supreme Court.
If you are now confused about what you are and are not required to do to vote this year, you would not be alone.
And if you heard Republicans talking at some point this week in various statements issued in Raleigh about the “voter ID decision” by the court, you need to know that this latest legal wrangling is not about the voter ID provision of the new state law.
That provision of the new election law does not go into effect until 2016.
Some of the recent confusion is a result of the fact that there have been two cases moving through the courts this summer and fall — both about the new law.
The first is about the constitutionality of the new laws.
The North Carolina General Assembly passed the package of new laws to “return integrity to the state’s election process” in August 2013.
The centerpiece of the new law — and its most controversial requirement — is that it requires voters to show a state-approved ID in order to vote.
However, the new law also shortened the number of days for early voting, ended the practice of registering and voting on the same day, barred votes cast mistakenly in the wrong precinct from being counted, and ended a popular program of pre-registering 16- and 17-year-olds to vote as part of their civics education.
Though the voter ID requirement is not effective until the 2016 election, all of the other provisions of the law became effective immediately.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint in federal court not too long after the new law’s passage, charging that the law discriminates against racial minorities. The NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, and other groups have joined in the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder has set a trial date for next July in that case.
Meanwhile, some of the groups involved in that lawsuit went to court to keep the new laws from being used in next month’s mid-term election. They specifically focused on the reduction in the number of days of early voting, same day voting and registration, and out-of-precinct votes. It was their hope that North Carolinians would continue to vote under the old laws while their lawsuit worked its way through the courts.
Schroeder ruled in late summer that the new law’s provisions need not be delayed while the constitutional issues are settled.
The groups appealed, and the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling suspended two of the law’s provisions — same day voting and registration and out-of-precinct voting — for the November election. It did not suspend the number of early voting days.
?There can be no doubt that certain challenged measures in House Bill 589 disproportionately impact minority voters,? Judge James A. Wynn wrote in the opinion.
The state then asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an “emergency” stay on the Fourth Circuit’s order.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 opinion, blocked the Fourth Circuit decision and said there was no reason to suspend the two provisions of the voting law in the Nov. 4 election.
The majority of the justices did not elaborate on the reasons for their opinion, but Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who dissented along with Sonia Sotomayor, did.
Ginsberg said, among other things, that she saw no reason to disagree with the Fourth Circuit’s opinion that the two provisions would limit opportunities for African-American voters to cast ballots.
So until the case that raises the constitutional questions is decided, North Carolina will conduct elections under the new law.
Voter ID is the centerpiece of that law for good reason.
Supporters claim rampant voter fraud. Opponents say voter fraud is not a problem and claim that requiring IDs disenfranchises minorities, the poor, and young people disproportionately.
Furthermore, most of those who have closely studied the fraud issue agree that it is much more likely with mail-in absentee ballots.
I find it interesting, therefore, that North Carolina’s new voting law requires an ID to vote in person but does not require an ID to vote by absentee ballot. Those who vote by absentee ballot are disproportionately whites who lean Republican.
However, for the purposes of this blog, let’s put aside the issue of voter ID and how it will “restore integrity to the election process.”
My question is what do all the other provisions of North Carolina’s new election law — and those that are being enacted in many other states — have to do with restoring integrity to the process?
How does cutting down on the number of days a person can vote restore integrity? How does not allowing people to register and vote the same day restore integrity? How does denying a provisional vote to a person who has wound up at the wrong precinct restore integrity? How does ending programs to pre-register 16- and 17-year-olds to vote when they turn 18 restore integrity?
Clearly, they do nothing to restore integrity.
However, they do discourage voting.
Minorities, poor people, and young people — who tend to vote Democratic — are more likely to vote early and to register and vote the same day.
Many of these provisions — early voting, pre-registering young people, and same-day registration and voting — were enacted specifically to encourage more people to vote.
And under those laws, North Carolina has done a great job of increasing not only its registered voters, but also the percentage of them who vote.
Almost all of us agree that the right to vote is our most precious right, a cornerstone of democracy, something we have been willing to fight and die for.
So then why are we changing laws that encourage more people to vote by making it easier and more convenient?
And please don’t tell me that early voting is “no big deal” — that those of us who favor it are a bunch of whining liberals.
Anything that encourages voting is a big deal — and rightly so.
Finally, I will leave you with one final thought on the war against voting.
I don’t think most North Carolinians are aware of the cost of this war.
The state has a Department of Justice, led by an elected Attorney General, to defend state laws in the courts. However, our Republican leadership, did not trust our Democratic Attorney General, to defend the new election law.
So our Republican leaders — the very ones who cut taxes and guard the public purse — hired private attorneys at public expense.
According to the News & Observer, Gov. Pat McCrory?s private lawyer has already billed the state over $300,000 at $360 an hour. And our Republican leaders in the General Assembly also hired their own private lawyers, and, so far, their tab is more than $1 million.
That might be enough to make a person think that they want to change the voting laws more than they want to cut spending.
