The measure now heads to Governor Pat McCrory’s desk, WFAE reports.
The Governor is expected to sign the bill.
House Bill 836 and the ‘Reasonable Impediment Declaration’
Signed into law by Governor McCrory in 2013, VIVA is a package of sweeping changes to North Carolina voting law. The new 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.
House Bill 836 offers a series of “Voter ID Modifications” easing VIVA’s strict voter ID requirement. Those modifications include allowing voters to sign an affidavit called a “reasonable impediment declaration” instead of showing a photo ID.
In its original form, VIVA offered voters the option of getting a free photo ID via the Department of Motor Vehicles.
But the steps necessary to obtain the ID, such as taking time off work or gathering required documents, could pose problems for poor and minority voters.
House Bill 836 lists eight reasonable impediments. They include lost or stolen identification, lack of birth certificates or other documents needed to obtain an ID, lack of transportation and work schedule conflicts. Voters using the form would also have to provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or show a voter registration card.
Voters completing the reasonable impediment declaration would be offered a provisional ballot.
The bill also permits voters to use expired IDs if the ID did not expire more than four years before the election.
“A Joke of a Process” but Swift Passage
The voter ID modifications were tacked onto House Bill 836 during a conference committee. The original bill did not mention voter ID laws, WRAL reports.
This left some lawmakers unaware of the voter ID changes until the bill came up for a vote on Thursday, June 18.
“This is a joke of a process. We had no notice this provision was going to be voted on today,” said Sen. Josh Stein, D-Wake.
Some Democrats complained they weren’t given enough time to review the changes, but the bill passed the Senate 44-2 and the House 104-4.
“Fail-Safes” and Feedback
The voter ID modifications received mixed reviews from lawmakers and advocates.
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and other Republicans said the changes were put in place in response to public comments at a series of hearings held in early June on proposed rules for accepting or rejecting photo IDs at the polls.
“What that provision represents is some of the feedback to try to make sure that everyone who is eligible to vote has an opportunity to not only cast their vote but have their vote counted,” Berger said.
Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, called the modifications “a fail-safe.”
“If we’re going to err, we want to err on the side of the voter,” he said.
Democratic lawmakers were less enthusiastic.
“This makes a bad bill a little bit less worse,” said Rep. Mickey Michaux.
One Democrat saw the modifications as a cynical ploy to protect VIVA from court challenges. Multiple lawsuits in state and federal court are seeking to overturn the law.
“There’s a lawsuit on this law next month in Winston-Salem,” said Sen. Josh Stein.“Your lawyers have clearly told you that your voter ID law is clearly unconstitutional.”
Conservative advocates for voter ID were unhappy with the modifications.
Susan Myrick, elections policy analyst for the conservative Civitas Institute, said the bill “demolishes” voter ID in North Carolina.
“There’s no voter ID in North Carolina,” she said. “It’s over.”
Francis De Luca, president of the Civitas Institute, agreed.
“It’s a shame to lose a court case without ever walking into court,” he said.
ID Modifications Disturb State Lawsuit
The voter ID modifications threaten to disrupt at least one lawsuit seeking to overturn VIVA.
Currie v. North Carolina, filed in Orange County Superior Court on August 12, 2013, specifically challenges VIVA’s photo ID requirement on the grounds that it violates North Carolina’s Constitution.
The changes put in place by House Bill 836 could lead to the lawsuit being dismissed.
On Monday lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the defense appeared before Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan to ask for more time to assess the new modifications and their effect on the case.
“That is a fairly significant change to the voter ID provision, and we’ve not had a chance to confer with our clients,” said Anita Earls, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the case.
Judge Morgan gave lawyers for both sides until July 2 to file an update on the status of the case and indicate if it should go forward.
The new modifications will likely not affect a trio of lawsuits filed in federal court. These lawsuits, which have been combined for trial purposes, challenge multiple provisions of the sweeping VIVA package, not just the photo ID provision.
The federal trial is scheduled to begin July 13.
