A three-judge panel recently struck down North Carolina Senate Bill 824, a law enacting a photo voter ID requirement, saying that it would unfairly target Black voters and is therefore unconstitutional. How did we get here and what is next for voter ID requirements in the Tar Heel State?
Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder did away with federal oversight for state changes in voting laws, North Carolina’s General Assembly has been attempting to pass more stringent voter ID measures. Mere weeks after the 2013 decision in Shelby County was released, North Carolina passed a voter ID law that was struck down in federal court three years later. In her opinion for the majority, Judge Motz wrote that the law discriminated against African Americans “with almost surgical precision.” The more recent SB 824, however, was less strict with regard to requirements for qualifying forms of ID than the 2013 measure.
Senate Bill 824 was passed in order to satisfy the 2018 amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that calls for a voter ID measure. Republicans were able to pass the law shortly after the passage of the constitutional amendment. Republican lawmakers did this during a lame-duck session following elections that dismantled their supermajority in the General Assembly. Governor Roy Cooper vetoed the bill but was quickly overridden. State Senator Joyce Krawiec (R-Forsyth and Yadkin) stated that the goal of the bill was to “defend against potential voter fraud but not make it difficult to vote.” It should be noted that an audit conducted by the State Board of Elections after the 2016 election cycle found only 508 possible fraudulent votes among the 4.8 million
In late 2019 a federal judge blocked SB 824 from taking effect, stating that it appeared to be unconstitutional. A North Carolina appeals court did the same in February of 2020. Allison Riggs, chief counsel for voting rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice said that the decision was made possible by “numerous legislators, election administrators, advocates and voters who were willing to stand up, fight a racially discriminatory law, and put themselves through a trying discovery process to do the right thing.” Republican Party Chairman Michael Whatley said that the decision invalidated “the votes of more than 2 million North Carolinians who voted for a constitutional amendment in 2018.” The law was then formally struck down in September of 2021 following a trial that began in April. The majority found that the law “was motivated at least in part by an unconstitutional intent to target African American voters.”
There are currently multiple legal challenges surrounding SB 824 and the voter ID amendment to the NC constitution. Holmes v. Moore is the challenge to the law at the state level. After the three-judge panel struck down the measure, lawyers for Republican House Speaker Tim Moore quickly announced plans to appeal their case to the state Supreme Court. NAACP v. Cooper is the federal lawsuit challenging the law. The first trial in that case will take place in January. Lastly, NAACP v. Moore is the state-level lawsuit challenging the constitutional amendment which led to the creation of SB 824. The NAACP lost their challenge in the N.C. Court of Appeals and have now appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The debate over voter ID in North Carolina mirrors those taking place across the country after the 2020 election cycle. 35 states currently require ID to vote, and of those, 18 require photo ID. Those who favor expanding voter ID mandates usually highlight concerns about voting fraud while those against these measures say that the laws restrict underrepresented groups from voting.
This latest voter ID law reflects the nationwide trend among states with Republican-majority legislatures introducing more voter restriction bills. Furthermore, the fact that North Carolina has instituted two controversial voting laws in only the past decade highlights the precarious state of race relations in the state. Although the judges did not contend that Republican lawmakers harbored “any racial animus or hatred towards African American voters,” they note that their intentions were to limit African American votes which likely would not have been favorable to Republican interests.
However, North Carolina was briefly the only Southern state to restore voting rights to felons upon their release from prison after a three-judge panel struck down key provisions in a 1973 voting bill. The court’s decision was then stayed by an appeals court. The State Department of Justice lawyer Orlando Rodriguez acknowledged in court that felony disenfranchisement is a practice that has a racially charged past and disproportionately affects Black Americans.
It is safe to say that North Carolina has found itself in the midst of a legal racial reckoning. Which interests will win out is yet to be known, but decisions in these ongoing debates will have grand repercussions in the state for years to come.
