“A quiet revolution”
Dr. Paul Gronke, Professor of Political Science at Reed College, is the founder and Director of the Early Voting Information Center. He conducts research on early voting and ‘no excuses’ absentee ballot voting.
Early voting first appeared in the 1980s, Gronke testified. He called the establishment of early voting “a quiet revolution” because state after state adopted it with little or no controversy. He said the steady growth of early voting in North Carolina made it “a very important and enduring part of the system.”
Gronke said his research showed African American voters rely on early voting more than white voters — especially the first week of early voting. Cutting that week would burden African American voters, who would find it difficult to adjust, he said.
Gronke said reducing early voting days would create long lines at the polls. He cited his research on early voting in the state of Florida. Florida cut six days of early voting before the 2012 election. The reduction left voters facing long lines and waiting up to 45 minutes to cast a ballot.
The final 2012 ballot was cast in Florida at 2 a.m. Wednesday, after the polls had officially closed.
In his cross-examination, Defense attorney Thomas Farr questioned Gronke’s comparison of North Carolina and Florida. He asked Gronke if he had studied the size and parking facilities of North Carolina early voting centers.
Gronke said he had not.
Farr asked if Gronke had compared the number of voting hours in each North Carolina county to the number of voting hours in each Florida county.
Gronke said he had not.
Plaintiff’s attorney Dale Ho pointed out that research had shown early voters in a given election continued to rely on early voting in subsequent elections. Ho asked Gronke what data set would be the most useful for researchers looking at the effects of VIVA in North Carolina.
“I would want to look at data over time in the state of North Carolina,” said Gronke.
“I think there’s something very significant here”
Dr. Allan Lichtman is a Distinguished Professor of History at American University and the author of nine books. Plaintiff’s attorneys asked Lichtman to examine the intent of both the North Carolina General Assembly and Governor Pat McCrory in crafting and passing VIVA.
Lichtman said in 2013 the North Carolina General Assembly was “looking at a major shift in voting strength” from whites to minorities.
African Americans are 60 percent more likely to vote for Democrats, he said.
Dr. Lichtman said his analysis identified two “pivot points” in the drafting and passage of H.B. 589, which would become VIVA.
The first pivot point was the initial passage of H.B. 589 in April 2013 in the North Carolina House of Representatives, he said. This early version of the bill had only a photo ID requirement and was passed after what Lichtman called a “lengthy, open” process.
The second pivot point happened in June 2013, after the Supreme Court struck down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain states to get federal “pre-clearance” before changing voting laws.
After the Supreme Court decision, H.B. 589 expanded to a 57-page omnibus bill ordering sweeping changes to North Carolina election law.
Lictman said that while lawmakers claimed the expanded bill would simply bring North Carolina election law into line with other states, the proposed law became “the most restrictive in the nation.”
“As an historian, I think there’s something very significant here,” Lichtman said.
Lichtman said the new law dropped state college IDs, public assistance IDs and government employee IDs — all disproportionately held by African Americans. He also said African American voters were more likely to cast out-of-precinct ballots and use early voting.
Lichtman said one-party control of the state’s government was the key to passing such a massive overhaul.
In his cross-examination, Farr asked Lichtman if he had studied when other states’ laws made photo ID mandatory at the polls. VIVA had a built-in two-year wait, Farr pointed out.
Lichtman said he had not studied other states’ deadlines for presenting photo ID.
Farr asked Lichtman if he agreed restricting the types of IDs accepted at the polls would reduce confusion. Lichtman responded that Georgia accepted more forms of photo ID than North Carolina and had not had any confusion at the polls.
Farr also pointed out that originally same-day registration, early voting and out-of-precinct ballots had also been passed by a state government under one-party control.
Each of the provisions had been adopted while Democrats controlled the General Assembly.
Farr said passengers could not board an airplane using a student ID. In response, Lichtman read a passage from the official TSA manual saying passengers could present two non-photo IDs.
Two such IDs would get a passenger on a plane, Lichtman said, but not into a voting booth in North Carolina.
Farr asked Lichtman if he had ever worked at the North Carolina State Board of Elections, been an election official or received training in how North Carolina verifies voter registrations.
Lichtman said he had not.
