Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: *****BREAKING NEWS***** Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law [View all]Princess Turandot
(4,899 posts)21. This very long opinion reads like a primer on the deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters...
worth reading if you have the time.
...Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the States true motivation. In essence, as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), the State took away minority voters opportunity because they were about to exercise it. As in LULAC, this bears the mark of intentional discrimination. Id.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the States true motivation. In essence, as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), the State took away minority voters opportunity because they were about to exercise it. As in LULAC, this bears the mark of intentional discrimination. Id.
......In sum, the array of electoral reforms the General Assembly pursued in SL 2013-381 were not tailored to achieve its purported justifications, a number of which were in all events insubstantial. In many ways, the challenged provisions in SL 2013-381 constitute solutions in search of a problem. The only clear factor linking these various reforms is their impact on African American voters. The record thus makes obvious that the problem the majority in the General Assembly sought to remedy was emerging support for the minority party. Identifying and restricting the ways African Americans vote was an easy and effective way to do so. We therefore must conclude that race constituted a but-for cause of SL 2013-381, in violation of the Constitutional and statutory prohibitions on intentional discrimination.
https://mgtvwnct.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/4th-circuit-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-voter-id-law.pdf (The opinion starts on page 9).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
*****BREAKING NEWS***** Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law [View all]
DemocratSinceBirth
Jul 2016
OP
it was “passed with racially discriminatory intent" is all too obvious. They over-reached again.
L. Coyote
Jul 2016
#59
Great - now what are the odds the pollworkers will conveniently "forget" this?
whatthehey
Jul 2016
#16
This very long opinion reads like a primer on the deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters...
Princess Turandot
Jul 2016
#21
Ok, WI, MI, NC...I know there is another state. How many states this month have
AllyCat
Jul 2016
#22
Takeaway lesson: Its not just the Supreme Court justices that the president appoints,
progree
Jul 2016
#40
Very true about the wonderful news, and the importance of N.C. in this election
progree
Jul 2016
#46
That is the 4th state in the last two weeks where this law was struck down!!!
Liberal_in_LA
Jul 2016
#53