Voting Restrictions and the Future of Elections

By Katie Kaufman

Katie Kaufman is a sophomore at Bowdoin College studying Government and Legal Studies.

On Wednesday October 8th, the Supreme Court blocked a ruling to uphold two components of North Carolina voting law—a ban on same-day voter registration and out-of-precinct voting. This ruling blocked an October 1st decision to overturn the law by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and was reversed in favor of the state of North Carolina. [1] Supporters of increased voting restrictions in North Carolina argued that a late change would stir confusion among voters. [2]

Civil rights groups and voters were concerned the current voting law indiscriminately targeted black voters, who statistically use same-day registration more than whites. In 2010, over 21,000 voters registered to vote on Election Day. This past May, due to the change in election law, over 400 votes were not counted in election primaries. [3]

“We are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling today,” said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. “Tens of thousands of North Carolina voters, especially African-American voters, have relied on same-day registration, as well as the counting of ballots that were cast out of precinct, for years.” [4]

Although it is not clear how each judge voted, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. The case was decided without explanation, but judges who struck down the ruling may have done so because they feared confusion that might develop from changing voting laws near an election. [5]

Ginsburg thought aspects of the 2013 election law "risked significantly reducing opportunities for black voters to exercise the franchise in violation" of part of the U.S. Voting Rights Act. [6]

The Supreme Court’s ruling follows along the line of a 2006 Supreme Court case Purcell v. Gonzalez, which said lower courts should hesitate to change voting rules recently before an election to avoid voter confusion and chaos. [7]

In Purcell, the Supreme Court ruling stopped new voter ID’s in Arizona. The judged ruled,  “Faced with an application to enjoin operation of voter identification procedures just weeks before an election, the Court of Appeals was required to weigh, in addition to the harms attendant upon issuance or non-issuance of an injunction, considerations specific to election cases and its own institutional procedures. Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” [8]

Debate over the constitutionality of voting laws raised the question about to what extent courts would intervene to protect voting rights, especially in states where Republican legislatures have made it more difficult to vote. [9]

Three judges appointed by Democratic presidents made the earlier decision, which was overturned. Commonly, rulings by liberal judges have blocked voting laws, which would restrict minority voting. Republicans are considering this a victory. Voting laws in North Carolina are important to both Republicans and Democrats who are fighting in a close election. As of October 9, a USA Today poll puts Senator Kay Hagan two points ahead of Republican Thom Tills. [10]

The NAACP division in North Carolina and League of Women Voters are among the groups that are filing lawsuits in response to this decision. The lawsuits will not go to trail until next summer, meaning this law will be enforced in the upcoming elections. In North Carolina, the voter registration deadline was Friday, October 10, and early voting began on October 23. [11]

Similar cases have been brought to court in states such as Ohio and Wisconsin. The claims were brought under the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act [12].

Just weeks ago, a ruling in Ohio struck down voting restrictions. In Wisconsin, a recent Supreme Court ruling blocked a law in Wisconsin that required voters to present photo IDs. While Democrats were disappointed with the rulings in North Carolina and Ohio, they considered the decision in Wisconsin a success. [13]
 

[1] Robertson, Gary. "Supreme Court Allows New Voting Restrictions In North Carolina To Go Into Effect." The Huffington Post. October 8, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2014. 
[2] Berman, Ari. "The Supreme Court Approves the Country’s Worst Voting Restrictions in North Carolina." The Nation. October 8, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2014.
[3] Rhodan, Maya. "Supreme Court Allows North Carolina Voting Law to Stand in Midterm." Time Magazine. October 8, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2014.
[4] Gordy, Cynthia. "SCOTUS Blocks Appeals Court Order, Obstructs Voting Access by Reinstating Restrictive Measures." Advancement Project. October 9, 2014. Accessed October 22, 2014.
[5] Wolf, Richard. "Justices Uphold North Carolina's Voting Restrictions." USA Today. October 9, 2014. Accessed October 21, 2014.
[6] "Ruling Day Registration NC Election." ABC News. October 8, 2014. Accessed October 22, 2014.
[7] Denniston, Lyle. "Constitution Check: Should a Law That Is Ruled Unconstitutional Be Enforced?" Yahoo News. October 16, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2014.
[8] "Purcell v. Gonzalez." National Law Journal. Accessed October 22, 2014.
[9] Friedman, Brad. "GOP’s Disturbing Voter ID Win: How a Brutal Texas Law Just Got Reinstated." Salon. October 15, 2014. Accessed October 22, 2014.
[10] Wolf, Richard. "Justices Uphold North Carolina's Voting Restrictions." USA Today. October 9, 2014. Accessed October 21, 2014.
[11] Gerstein, Josh. "Supreme Court OKs North Carolina Voting Changes." Politico. October 8, 2014. Accessed October 19, 2014.
[12] Hasen, Richard. "How to Predict a Voting Rights Decision." Slate. October 10, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2014.
[13] Richmond, Todd, and Steve Karnowski. "U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Wisconsin's Voter ID Law." Green Bay Press Gazette. October 9, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2014.
 
Photo Credit: Flickr user Vox Efx