This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/us/politics/federal-judge-upholds-north-carolina-voter-id-law.html
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Federal Judge Upholds North Carolina Voter ID Law | Federal Judge Upholds North Carolina Voter ID Law |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| RALEIGH, N.C. — A federal judge on Monday upheld North Carolina’s voter identification law, delivering a clear victory to Republican leaders in this state who defended it as a safeguard against fraud. | RALEIGH, N.C. — A federal judge on Monday upheld North Carolina’s voter identification law, delivering a clear victory to Republican leaders in this state who defended it as a safeguard against fraud. |
| The judge, Thomas D. Schroeder of Federal District Court in Winston-Salem, wrote near the end of his 485-page opinion that “North Carolina has provided legitimate state interests for its voter ID requirement and electoral system.” | The judge, Thomas D. Schroeder of Federal District Court in Winston-Salem, wrote near the end of his 485-page opinion that “North Carolina has provided legitimate state interests for its voter ID requirement and electoral system.” |
| North Carolina’s voter identification law requires people to display one of six credentials, such as a driver’s license or passport, before casting a ballot. Those who cannot may complete a “reasonable impediment declaration” and cast a provisional ballot. | North Carolina’s voter identification law requires people to display one of six credentials, such as a driver’s license or passport, before casting a ballot. Those who cannot may complete a “reasonable impediment declaration” and cast a provisional ballot. |
| Although critics of the law said that the voter identification standard was a cloaked effort to disenfranchise black and Hispanic voters, Judge Schroeder, who presided over a highly technical trial that began in January, dismissed such arguments. | Although critics of the law said that the voter identification standard was a cloaked effort to disenfranchise black and Hispanic voters, Judge Schroeder, who presided over a highly technical trial that began in January, dismissed such arguments. |
| “Plaintiffs’ contention that North Carolina’s requirement is one of the strictest in the country ignores the reasonable impediment exception,” Judge Schroeder, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote. “If North Carolina is an outlier, it is because it is one of only two states in the nation to accommodate voters who wish to vote in person but for whatever reason face an impediment to acquiring qualifying ID.” | “Plaintiffs’ contention that North Carolina’s requirement is one of the strictest in the country ignores the reasonable impediment exception,” Judge Schroeder, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote. “If North Carolina is an outlier, it is because it is one of only two states in the nation to accommodate voters who wish to vote in person but for whatever reason face an impediment to acquiring qualifying ID.” |
| Critics of the law said that they would appeal the ruling. | Critics of the law said that they would appeal the ruling. |
| “By meticulously targeting measures that were most used by people of color — in addition to imposing a restrictive photo ID requirement — the legislature sought to disturb the levers of power in North Carolina, ensuring only a select few could participate in the democratic process,” Penda D. Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project and a critic of the law, said in a statement. “This fight is not over.” |