Signed into law in August 2013, VIVA is a sweeping overhaul of North Carolina voting law. The new law ended same-day registration for voters, cut seven days from the state’s early voting calendar, ended pre-registration of 16- and 17-year-olds and eliminated out-of-precinct ballots, among many other provisions.
A trio of lawsuits filed by the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to overturn the law.
Lawyers representing the state and Republican Governor Pat McCrory are seeking dismiss the lawsuits and keep the law in place.
Opening Arguments: “Fragile” Rights or Constitutional Norms?
Opening arguments made plain the gulf between the two sides.
The Plaintiffs claim the omnibus law places an unfair burden on minority, elderly and young voters and violates the 14th and 26th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Section Two of the Voting Rights Act
In her opening statement, Plaintiff’s attorney Penda Hair called the right to vote “A right won with the greatest sacrifice that can be given.”
Hair called the voting rights of African-American and Latino citizens “fragile” and called the trial “a pivotal moment in North Carolina and United States History.”
She called the lawmakers that sponsored the law “voter suppressors in search of a pretext,” and said VIVA had “sparked outrage” in North Carolina’s African American community.
In his opening statement, Defense attorney Thom Farr sarcastically referred to VIVA as “this dastardly thing North Carolina has done,” and denied that the law discriminated against any voters. The law “applies equally to all voters,” he said.
He called VIVA’s provisions “majority rule practices” and said none of them had ever been declared illegal in any other state. He pointed out that New York state does not have early voting and several states do not permit same-day registration.
Witnesses Describe Long Work Hours, Limited Opportunities to Vote
Gwendolyn Farrington was the first witness to testify. A mother of three, Farrington described working 72-hour weeks at an auto plant during 2014.
“I have to be at work 6 a.m. on the line, in position,” she said. Her job offered “zero flexibility” for her to take time off and vote. This meant she was forced to cast a provisional ballot at a polling place close to her job, but outside her precinct — a ballot that under VIVA would not be counted.
“Everybody doesn’t have a lenient job,” she said. “…Other people, such as myself — we have a right to vote just like everybody else.”
Maria Teresa Unger Palmer, a naturalized citizen born in Lima, Peru, said the end of pre-registration for 16-and 17-year olds was a special problem for Latino voters. In many North Carolina Latino families, she said, teens who were born in the U.S. were often the first generation eligible to vote.
“I knew kids were going to be second class citizens if they didn’t avail themselves of the right to vote,” she said, and added their parents “can’t teach them what they don’t know.”
She said creating a class of citizens who believe they can’t participate in government would breed resentment.
“I’ve lived in countries where that’s how it works and I don’t want the United States to be that way,” she said.
Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, President of the North Carolina NAACP also testified. Defense attorney Phillip J. Strach asked him if the NAACP demanded integrity when its members voted on internal issues. Barber said they did and jokingly added the NAACP even charged a “poll tax” in the form of membership dues.
Reverend Jimmie Hawkins, Pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Durham called comparing internal NAACP votes to state and national elections “a weak line of questioning.”
“I think the defense is basically wasting the court’s time,” he said.
The trial is expected to last up to four weeks.
