VIVA is a sweeping overhaul of North Carolina voting law. Among its many provisions, the 2013 law shortened North Carolina’s early voting period, eliminated preregistration of 16- and 17-year- olds, ended same-day registration and required voters to present a government-approved photo ID at the polls starting in 2016.
Critics have argued the photo ID requirement imposes an unfair burden on poor, minority, elderly and student voters, who may not be able to gather the necessary documents to obtain a photo ID.
Signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory on June 22, SL 2015-103 will allow voters without a valid photo ID to cast a provisional ballot if they sign a “reasonable impediment declaration.”
Acceptable impediments include family responsibilities, lost or stolen IDs, work-schedule conflicts and transportation problems.
Voters completing the reasonable impediment declaration have the option to include the last four digits of their social security number and their birth date or present a voter registration card issued by their county’s board of elections or a document such as a utility bill or bank statement.
State, Federal Lawsuits Roiled
A total of four lawsuits seeking to overturn VIVA have been filed.
Currie v. North Carolina, filed in Orange County Superior Court on August 12, 2013, challenges the voter ID provision specifically, claiming it violates North Carolina’s state constitution. On June 22 lawyers representing both the State and Plaintiffs told Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan they needed time to study how the new provision would affect the case.
Morgan ordered the two sides to file an update on the status of the case and whether it should go forward by July 2. He is not expected to review the status report until July 13.
The state case could be dismissed.
The three federal lawsuits challenge multiple provisions of VIVA, not just the photo ID mandate. On June 26 Judge Thomas D. Schroeder ordered that challenges to the photo ID mandate would not be considered during the federal trial, which begins July 13.
Instead, Judge Schroeder ordered both sides to file a status report by noon on August 17 on the effect SL 2015-103 would have on the voter ID claims made in the case, including ” how the party requests the court to proceed, if at all, on the adjudication of such claims. ”
Loopholes and Requirements
Political reactions to the last-minute softening of the ID requirement have been mixed.
Jay DeLancy, director of the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina, called the changes “unbelievably bad.”
“The more we look at it, the more our breath is taken away at the depth of the loophole,” he told WRAL.
Press Millen, an attorney representing plaintiffs in the state case, said the new law “has eliminated a number of the things — and some of the most egregious — that we’re complaining about.”
State Board of Elections spokesman Josh Lawson was quick to remind a Daily Tarheel reporter that “The reasonable impediment declaration is not an opportunity to evade the law. It’s important voters understand this exception does not swallow the rule,” he said. “Photo ID is still required to vote a regular ballot in-person beginning in 2016.”
