On September 23, Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan declined to dismiss the case, captioned Currie v North Carolina, despite a new amendment softening the voter ID provision of VIVA.
He also put further proceedings in the case on hold until after North Carolina’s 2016 primary elections, now scheduled for March 15, 2016.
Last-Minute Amendment to Controversial Law
Signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory on August 12, 2013, VIVA is a sweeping overhaul of North Carolina election law. Its multiple provisions alter nearly every aspect of the state’s voting process, including shortening the early voting period, ending out-of-precinct voting, scrapping a program to pre-register 16-and 17-year-olds and requiring all voters to present one of eight state-approved photo IDs to cast a ballot.
On August 13, 2013 the Currie plaintiffs, a group of civil rights organizations and individual voters, filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court challenging the photo ID provision of VIVA on the grounds it violated North Carolina’s Constitution.
The case had not yet gone to trial when the North Carolina General Assembly unexpectedly passed House Bill 836, a measure designed to soften the photo ID requirement, on June 18, 2015
Signed into law by Gov. McCrory on June 22, the bill gave voters lacking ID the option of signing an affidavit called a “reasonable impediment declaration.” Voters using the affidavit could cite one of eight official “reasonable impediments,” including lost or stolen IDs and work schedule conflicts. They would also have to present a voter registration card or provide the last four digits of their Social Security number. They would then be offered a provisional ballot.
Neither Repealed Nor Replaced
After the amendment passed, Defense lawyers asked Judge Morgan to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the amendment did not end the photo ID requirement, and that the amendment itself could be repealed at any time.
In June, Republican Rep. Michael Speciale told the Beaufort Observer he might “introduce a bill to scrap the ‘impediment’ exception.”
In his order Judge Morgan ruled the photo ID requirements “have not been repealed nor replaced, but merely supplemented” by the amendment.
Both sides have agreed to let the amended law go into effect for the 2016 primary, in order to assess its impact on voters.
