Do not settle for an email blasting service or a newswire overloaded with financial statements. Standard Newswire gets your news into the hands of working journalists, broadcast hosts, and news producers.
Find out how you can start using Standard Newswire to
Sign Up to Receive Press Releases:
Standard Newswire™ LLC
209 W. 29th Street, Suite 6202
New York, NY 10001, USA.
(212) 290-1585
'[T]he District Court carefully examined the pertinent questions … in its determination that the changes to North Carolina's voting laws … do not cause racial minorities to be deprived of the opportunity to participate equally in the political process.'
Contact: Jill Farrell, Judicial Watch, 202-646-5172
WASHINGTON, July 19, 2016 /Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch announced today it has joined with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in filing an amici curiae brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case NAACP v. McCrory (No. 16-1468). The brief argues in support of a lower court ruling that the 2013 North Carolina election-integrity law, which includes, among other provisions, a requirement that voters show a photo identification card before casting a ballot, is valid.
The Judicial Watch/AEF brief was filed in support of North Carolina Governor Patrick L. McCrory, who is asking the court to sustain the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder, upholding the North Carolina voter law.
The case concerns North Carolina's adoption of common-sense election integrity measures requiring voter ID, eliminating "same-day" voter registration, reducing the early voting period, and prohibiting voters from casting provisional ballots outside of their voting precincts. The Department of Justice and other groups represented by the NAACP and the League of Women Voters filed suit, alleging this law was racially discriminatory against black voters in violation of Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act ("VRA").
In their amici brief, JW and AEF explained that the Department of Justice was wrong. First, Section 2 of the VRA only prohibits state laws that directly cause increased difficulty for voters to exercise their right to vote "because of" or "on account of" their race. The North Carolina law causes no such injury to minority voters. Furthermore, JW and AEF explained that state's voting laws are not illegal under the VRA just because plaintiffs show a statistical "disparate impact" of the law on racial groups, but rather the law must actually deny people an equal opportunity to participate based upon their race. North Carolina's requirement that voters show identification does not deny opportunities to vote based upon race. Finally, JW and AEF explained that the Department of Justice is wrongly trying to resuscitate Section 5 of the VRA, which imposed more stringent limits on states' election laws but was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder.
Judicial Watch and AEF cite statistical evidence indicating that not only has African-American voter registration and voting not declined since enactment of the North Carolina law; it has actually increased:
Elections since the enactment of SL 2013-381 [the North Carolina election integrity law] have provided real life proof that the challenged provisions of SL 2013-381 do not cause any discernible disadvantage to minority voters. Rather, both black and white voters adapt to the new rules and continue to turn out to vote at rates higher than under the former voting rules changed by SL 2013-381.
