Rev. Barber, who is president of the North Carolina Chapter of the NAACP, said the ID requirement unfairly burdened African American and Latino voters.
“And many of these were people who had already voted for years, for decades,” before the law was passed, he said.
Rev. Barber pointed to poverty in the North Carolina’s minority community as one barrier to obtaining the required ID, using his own daughter as an example.
His modest salary didn’t permit him to buy her a car, he said, so she didn’t have a driver’s license, only a student ID from North Carolina Central University.
Student IDs are not accepted under the new voter ID law.
He also said filling out the reasonable impediment declaration form could be intimidating to low-literacy voters.
An amendment signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory last June would allow voters without the required photo ID to sign an affidavit saying a ‘reasonable impediment’ prevented them from getting an ID. The current draft of the reasonable impediment declaration lists eight ‘impediments,’ including transportation problems and work schedule conflicts. Voters signing the form would also have to provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or show a voter registration card, or a non-photo ID such as a utility bill or bank statement.
Voters choosing the reasonable impediment option would be offered a provisional ballot.
During questioning, NAACP attorney Penda Hair showed the court a copy of the proposed reasonable impediment declaration form. Rev. Barber pointed to a box of text just above the signature line, which reads “Fraudulently or falsely completing this form is a class I felony under chapter 163 of the NC General Statutes.”
He said the felony reference would frighten voters.
“Will I get turned in? Will I need a lawyer?” he said.
Under previous North Carolina law, voters were simply asked to state their name and address and sign a poll book. Rev. Barber referred to this process as “signature attestation.”
“Before, truthfulness was only about ‘are you who you say you are,'” he said.
An impediment that seemed reasonable to a voter could be rejected by election officials, he suggested.
During his cross examination, Defense attorney Phillip Strach asked Rev. Barber he thought forcing voters who had a photo ID to show it at the polls was unconstitutional.
“I think that’s part of what we’re wrestling with in court right now,” Rev. Barber said. He repeated that the NAACP’s official stance was that signature attestation was sufficient “for years upon years upon years.”
Strach asked if the reasonable impediment option gave voters without ID a chance to cast a ballot.
Rev. Barber pointed out that those voters would get a provisional ballot, which could be discarded if their ‘reasonable impediment’ was rejected by election officials.
“In our country, the constitution doesn’t just protect the few, it protects the whole,” he said.
Strach said that under previous law there was no way for poll workers to verify the identity of the voter.
Rev. Barber insisted there was never any credible evidence of in-person voter fraud.
“There is no record. None,” he said. “What we do know is that signature attestation worked. It worked for years upon years upon years.”
Strach said what the NAACP really wanted was the elimination of the voter ID law.
“What we want is unfettered access to the ballot box,” said Rev. Barber.
