RALEIGH — Gov. Pat McCrory Monday signed into law a bill requiring voters to produce a photo ID when they go to the polls, a measure that was hailed by Republicans as a means for heightening ballot security but which was criticized by Democrats as a thinly disguised effort at voter suppression.

The measure signed by McCrory also reduces the early voting period by a week, ends early voting on Sunday, ends same-day voter registration, and does away with pre-registration of 16 and 17-year olds.

“North Carolinians overwhelmingly support a common sense law that requires voters to present photo identification in order to cast a ballot,” McCrory said in a statement. “I am proud to sign this legislation into law. Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote.”

North Carolina becomes one of 34 states with some form of voter ID law.

But critics said North Carolina has one of the most severe law – not accepting college IDs for example or out-of-state licenses.

Civil rights groups have vowed to challenge the constitutionality of North Carolina’s law in court.

Among other things, they argue it unconstitutionally sets up two classes of voters – those who vote in person who must show a photo ID and those who vote by mail who do not have to show a photo ID.

The bill was passed along partisan lines by the Republican majority in the legislature, over strong opposition of Democrats.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) on Monday signed into law one of the nation’s most wide-ranging Voter ID laws.

The move is likely to touch off a major court battle over voting rights, and the Justice Department is weighing a challenge to the new law, which is the first to pass since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.
(Rob Taylor/AP Photo/The Daily Reflector)

(Rob Taylor/AP Photo/The Daily Reflector)

The measure requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls and shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days. It will also end pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-old voters who will be 18 on Election Day and eliminates same-day voter registration.

Democrats and minority groups have been fighting against the changes, arguing that they represent an effort to suppress the minority vote and the youth vote, along with reducing Democrats’ advantage in early voting. They point out that there is little documented evidence of voter fraud.

Republicans say that the efforts are necessary to combat such fraud and that shortening the window for early voting will save the state money. They also note that, while the North Carolina law makes many changes to how the state conducts its elections, most of its major proposals — specifically, Voter ID and ending same-day registration — bring it in line with many other states. More than three-fifths of states currently have some kind of Voter ID law, and even more have no same-day registration. Not all states allow in-person early voting.

“While some will try to make this seem to be controversial, the simple reality is that requiring voters to provide a photo ID when they vote is a common-sense idea,” McCrory said in a statement. “This new law brings our state in line with a healthy majority of other states throughout the country. This common-sense safeguard is commonplace.”

A spokesman for the Democratic Governors Association said McCrory’s “cynical” move will come back to haunt him.

“When he ran for governor, Pat McCrory pretended to be a moderate pragmatist,” the spokesman, Danny Kanner, said. “Today, he proved that he’s just another cynical, ultra-conservative ideologue intent on disenfranchising voters who might not be inclined to vote Republican.”

While there is significant resistance to Voter ID laws on the left, polls generally show the American people support them by large margins. Recent North Carolina polls and a Washington Post poll last year showed nearly three-quarters support requiring voters to show photo ID.

The Post poll also showed, though, that Americans are split when it comes to whether it’s more important to fight voter suppression or to combat voter fraud. And while Voter ID polls popularly, the bill covers much more than that.

Several similar efforts have passed in recent years in other states with Republican-controlled state legislatures and GOP governors, but North Carolina’s has drawn a particularly high degree of backlash from the left, given how far-reaching and all-inclusive the new law is.

The Justice Department has suggested it will fight the new law, which comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act. States like North Carolina are no longer required to obtain preclearance from the Justice Department for such changes after the Court struck down the formula used for determining which states and jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression require preclearance.

The Justice Department is also looking to challenge a new Voter ID law in Texas and has also fought against a new Voter ID law in Florida.

The other big change in the law — a reduction in the number of early-voting days — could diminish Democrats’ historical advantage in early voting, which accounted for more than half of ballots cast in North Carolina last year.

But Republicans note that the law still requires the same number of hours of early voting — just over a smaller period of time. County election officials can either extend hours on a given day or provide more early voting locations.

Other provisions in the new North Carolina law would prohibit paid voter registration drives, end straight-ticket voting (in which a voter can vote for all candidates of one party by voting just once — another area in which Democrats benefit) and loosening restrictions on poll watchers who can challenge a voter’s eligibility.

The state legislature gave the law final approval in late July.

The changes come as the state has fallen under Republican control for the first time in more than a century. North Carolina’s state legislature went Republican for the first time since Reconstruction after the 2010 election. McCrory then won in 2012, becoming the state’s first Republican governor since the early 1990s.

McCrory also recently signed an extensive new abortion restrictions law – another move that has earned him significant opposition from the political left.

 djones520 wrote:
The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The ID part seems sensible enough, but why the rest? What's wrong with letting people vote early? I guess it's because I'm not from the US, but I don't see the issue this is supposedly aimed at addressing.

djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?

Frazzled wrote:I would like to see what provisions are made for free IDs and availability to get such before I pass judgement. Not understanding the beatdown on early voting though.

 azazel the cat wrote:

djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?

Because mail-ins are predominantly GOP voters.

 djones520 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?

Because mail-ins are predominantly GOP voters.

Citation please.

 azazel the cat wrote:

djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?

Because mail-ins are predominantly GOP voters.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The ID part seems sensible enough, but why the rest? What's wrong with letting people vote early? I guess it's because I'm not from the US, but I don't see the issue this is supposedly aimed at addressing.

Early voting is predominantly Democrat voters

GREENSBORO, N.C. – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina, and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice today filed a lawsuit challenging North Carolina's voter suppression law signed hours ago by Gov. Pat McCrory. The suit specifically targets provisions of the law that eliminate a week of early voting, end same-day registration, and prohibit "out-of-precinct" voting. It seeks to stop North Carolina from enacting these provisions, arguing that they would unduly burden the right to vote and discriminate against African-American voters, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

"This law is a disaster. Eliminating a huge part of early voting will cut off voting opportunities for hundreds of thousands of citizens and turn Election Day into mess, shoving more and more voters into even longer lines," said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Florida similarly eliminated a week of early voting before the 2012 election, and we all know how that turned out – voters standing in line for hours, some having to wait until after the president's acceptance speech to finally vote, and hundreds of thousands giving up in frustration. Those burdens fell disproportionately on African-American voters in Florida, and the same thing will happen in North Carolina. We should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of several North Carolinians who will face substantial hardship under the law, and on behalf of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute, North Carolina Common Cause, and Unifour Onestop Collaborative, whose efforts to promote voter participation in future elections will be severely hampered if the measure takes effect.

North Carolinians use early voting in vast numbers. During the 2012 election, 2.5 million ballots were cast during the early voting period, representing more than half the total electorate. More than 70 percent of African-American voters utilized early voting during the 2008 and 2012 general elections.

Early voting provides flexibility in finding time to vote and significantly eases the burden of arranging transportation to a voting site. This is particularly critical for low-income voters, who are more likely to have hourly-wage jobs that don’t afford them the time to get to the polls on Election Day or during common work hours. Work, combined with child-care responsibilities, places great demands on voters living in poverty. Poverty in North Carolina is higher among African Americans, meaning a reduction in early voting opportunities will disproportionately impact voters of color.

"Today's lawsuit is about ensuring that all voters are able to participate in the political process," said Allison Riggs, staff attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. "Taken together, the new restrictions in this law will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, depriving many of our most vulnerable citizens from being able to easily exercise a constitutional right. Additionally, the Voting Rights Act prohibits the state from implementing voting changes that will make it harder for Black voters to cast a ballot – and that’s exactly what this law does."

Eliminating same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting also imposes hardship and silences the people’s voice. In recent elections, North Carolinians could register, or update their registration information and vote, in one trip to an early voting site. In 2012, approximately 250,000 people did so. The new law eliminates this opportunity to register, effectively disenfranchising tens of thousands.

As for out-of precinct voting, for over a decade voters who accidentally cast a ballot in the wrong precinct could still expect to have their votes counted for races such as governor and president. If this law takes effect, those votes would be void.

"This law is a blatant attempt to make it harder for and dissuade many North Carolinians from registering and casting a ballot. As we have seen in other states, drastic cuts to early voting hours will result in longer lines and have a disproportionate impact on our state's most marginalized citizens, especially the low-income, elderly, and disabled who rely on early voting," said Chris Brook, legal director for the ACLU of North Carolina.

The case, League of Women Voters of North Carolina et al. v. North Carolina, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?

Because mail-ins are predominantly GOP voters.

Citation please.

Mail-in voters are predominantly armed forces or the elderly, and here in NC they vote GOP.

 djones520 wrote:

Military mail in votes comprise about roughly 200,000 votes. 32 million early votes occured last election. Most states that reported by political persuasion showed that Dems were the bigger number of voters. Only 3 reported Republicans with more votes then Dems, as opposed to 9 states that were the other way around.

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

BTW, NC was 47% votes registered Dems to 31% registered Republicans.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm aware of the numbers.

And if you were to break down the Democrats, it would be predominantly younger voters who utilized "same day voter registration" or the currently funded "voter registration drives" that occur in high school for anyone who is going to be 18 by the time voting comes around.

Both of those avenues are being closed down as part of this bill.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Military mail in votes comprise about roughly 200,000 votes. 32 million early votes occured last election. Most states that reported by political persuasion showed that Dems were the bigger number of voters. Only 3 reported Republicans with more votes then Dems, as opposed to 9 states that were the other way around.

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

BTW, NC was 47% votes registered Dems to 31% registered Republicans.

I'm aware of the numbers.

And if you were to break down the Democrats, it would be predominantly younger voters who utilized "same day voter registration" or the currently funded "voter registration drives" that occur in high school for anyone who is going to be 18 by the time voting comes around.

Both of those avenues are being closed down as part of this bill.

 whembly wrote:
So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm aware of the numbers.

And if you were to break down the Democrats, it would be predominantly younger voters who utilized "same day voter registration" or the currently funded "voter registration drives" that occur in high school for anyone who is going to be 18 by the time voting comes around.

Both of those avenues are being closed down as part of this bill.

o.O

Um... I'm not sure I'd agree with that.

 whembly wrote:
So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?

 Forar wrote:
It's in the news now because the USSC recently ruled on pertinent legislation. At least one state was so excited they started the wheels in motion a mere 2 hours after the decision was passed down. Make no mistake, somewhere, someone will try this far closer to an election specifically because it's not easy to do.

Also, doesn't ignore the fact that it is an expense that will disenfranchise some, because they cannot get the time off work, or they are living on such a tight budget that a day off and $20-50-whatever is more than they can afford. Thus, poll tax.

Also also, doesn't change the fact that it's a solution to a problem that for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Show me the rampant voter impersonation fraud and I'll cheerfully back you on it. 26 cases out of 197,000,000 (ABC says that's roughly 0.00000013% of votes cast in a 4 year period) means that whatever costs associated with the program are effectively wasted resources.

 whembly wrote:

Also also, doesn't change the fact that it's a solution to a problem that for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Show me the rampant voter impersonation fraud and I'll cheerfully back you on it. 26 cases out of 197,000,000 (ABC says that's roughly 0.00000013% of votes cast in a 4 year period) means that whatever costs associated with the program are effectively wasted resources.

It's only when they're caught that you'd see 'em... you can google-fu that... but it's waaay more than 26 cases.
This is Cincinnati all by itself...

Whembly's Article wrote:The board started with 80 suspicious cases and now is down to 19. Officials say the majority of the cases turned out to be simple misunderstandings.

According to county documents, Richardson's absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.

"There's absolutely no intent on my part to commit voter fraud," said Richardson.

According to BOE records, her name appeared on an absentee ballot list prior to Election Day. The board's report states poll workers should have updated the signature poll book by flagging "absentee voter" next to the names of those who appeared on the list. Upon investigation it was found that none of the voters who appeared on the list were flagged, which included Richardson. The staff could not locate that supplemental list when asked.

7 big examples...

There's numerous cases of the DEAD were registered...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Also also, doesn't change the fact that it's a solution to a problem that for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Show me the rampant voter impersonation fraud and I'll cheerfully back you on it. 26 cases out of 197,000,000 (ABC says that's roughly 0.00000013% of votes cast in a 4 year period) means that whatever costs associated with the program are effectively wasted resources.

It's only when they're caught that you'd see 'em... you can google-fu that... but it's waaay more than 26 cases.
This is Cincinnati all by itself...

Sometimes I wonder if you read your own news articles.

Then I realize that you do not.

Whembly's Article wrote:The board started with 80 suspicious cases and now is down to 19. Officials say the majority of the cases turned out to be simple misunderstandings.

According to county documents, Richardson's absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.

"There's absolutely no intent on my part to commit voter fraud," said Richardson.

According to BOE records, her name appeared on an absentee ballot list prior to Election Day. The board's report states poll workers should have updated the signature poll book by flagging "absentee voter" next to the names of those who appeared on the list. Upon investigation it was found that none of the voters who appeared on the list were flagged, which included Richardson. The staff could not locate that supplemental list when asked.

I will not deny that it is fishy that a woman who has worked as a volunteer at a voting station would double-vote, and mail in an absentee ballot filled out for her granddaughter as well--but that is still potentially just innocent misunderstandings.

Riiight... moving along...

7 big examples...

There's numerous cases of the DEAD were registered...

Fraudulent registration is not the same as impersonation.

 whembly wrote:
So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?

That's always been my question - especially when so many States will also issue them for little to no cost.

 Forar wrote:
Even ignoring the cost, sometimes it's difficult to obtain one (limited hours, limited offices, etc).

Sometimes when certain individuals are feeling less than subtle, you'll find reduced offices and hours in very distinct locales.

Reading between the lines isn't generally all that difficult in those cases.

To vote, you must prove your identity and address. You have three options:

Option 1
Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.

Example: driver's licence.

Option 2
Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

Example: health card and hydro bill.

Option 3
Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.

Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?

That's always been my question - especially when so many States will also issue them for little to no cost.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So are you actually suggesting that getting a free photo ID between now and the next set of large elections (2016) is an unreasonable burden as people simply won't have the time needed? That there are people who will not have a single day off for almost two and a half years?

Oh look, your country requires ID to vote - http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

To vote, you must prove your identity and address. You have three options:

Option 1
Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.

Example: driver's licence.

Option 2
Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

Example: health card and hydro bill.

Option 3
Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.

Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.