One Year After Shelby Decision, States Have Moved to Restrict Voter Access

Lawyers head to court Monday to seek an injunction against North Carolina’s voter-suppression law, currently the harshest in the country.

Penda D. Hair is Co-Director of Advancement Project, a Washington, D.C.-based racial justice group working at the community level to protect voting rights across the country.  
National Journal
Penda D. Hair
July 7, 2014, 6:57 a.m.

One year ago, the Su­preme Court opened the floodgates for state le­gis­latures to re­strict vot­ing ac­cess. In Shelby County v. Hold­er, the Court struck down the for­mula for Sec­tion 5 of the Vot­ing Rights Act — a vi­tal pro­vi­sion that, for nearly 50 years, re­quired fed­er­al pre­approv­al of vot­ing changes in jur­is­dic­tions with a his­tory of dis­crim­in­at­ory prac­tices. These were mostly in the South, where the greatest battles of the vot­ing-rights move­ment were played out dur­ing the 1964 Free­dom Sum­mer. Em­boldened by the Shelby de­cision, and left with no fed­er­al over­sight, state after state has im­ple­men­ted, passed, or pro­posed dis­crim­in­at­ory bills that re­strict ac­cess to the bal­lot.

These policies in­clude stricter voter-iden­ti­fic­a­tion laws, cuts to early vot­ing, bans on same-day re­gis­tra­tion, voter-roll purges, and “show me your pa­pers” laws re­quir­ing proof of cit­izen­ship in or­der to re­gister. They have passed both in the states that were pre­vi­ously covered by Sec­tion 5 pre­clear­ance, as well as states that fell out­side of the VRA cov­er­age for­mula. Many of these reg­u­la­tions dis­par­ately af­fect com­munit­ies of col­or, the eld­erly, stu­dents, and low-in­come cit­izens.

Just weeks after the Shelby rul­ing, for ex­ample, North Car­o­lina gained the no­tori­ous dis­tinc­tion of passing the worst voter-sup­pres­sion law in the coun­try. Im­me­di­ately after it was signed in­to law, Ad­vance­ment Pro­ject — the or­gan­iz­a­tion for which I serve as co­dir­ect­or — brought a suit in fed­er­al court chal­len­ging the law on be­half of the North Car­o­lina NAACP. In light of the ava­lanche of pro­vi­sions de­signed to re­strict vot­ing, we had to fight back.

That North Car­o­lina law not only re­quires strin­gent forms of photo iden­ti­fic­a­tion be­fore North Car­olini­ans can gain ac­cess to the bal­lot, it also shortens the early vot­ing peri­od by a full week, ends out-of-pre­cinct vot­ing for statewide races, and ter­min­ates same-day re­gis­tra­tion and preregis­tra­tion of 16 and 17 year olds. Each of these meas­ures had formerly ex­pan­ded the par­ti­cip­a­tion of voters of col­or. For ex­ample, 70 per­cent of Afric­an-Amer­ic­an voters who voted in 2012 used early vot­ing.

Ad­vance­ment Pro­ject law­yers will be in fed­er­al court in North Car­o­lina on today to ask for a rul­ing tem­por­ar­ily block­ing North Car­o­lina’s blatant at­tempts to lim­it the in­flu­ence of voters of col­or in the up­com­ing elec­tions. We’ll ar­gue that North Car­o­lina’s harsh voter law is in­ten­tion­ally and dis­pro­por­tion­ately bur­den­some for Afric­an-Amer­ic­an and Latino voters, in vi­ol­a­tion of Sec­tion 2 of the VRA, as well as the 14thand 15thAmend­ments of the Con­sti­tu­tion.

Be­cause the case doesn’t go to full tri­al un­til 2015, an in­junc­tion is ne­ces­sary to pre­vent the dis­en­fran­chise­ment of hun­dreds of thou­sands of North Car­o­lina voters in the 2014 midterm elec­tions — which could be cru­cial in pre­vent­ing the pas­sage of even more dev­ast­at­ing policies in the state. State le­gis­lat­ors didn’t stop at ser­i­ously re­strict­ing the right to vote in North Car­o­lina. They also gut­ted pub­lic edu­ca­tion, changed tax policy to re­ward mil­lion­aires while hurt­ing work­ing fam­il­ies, cut un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits, and re­fused to ex­pand Medi­care for North Car­o­lina’s work­ing poor. Without a full elect­or­ate, voters in the state have little chance of over­turn­ing these policies.

While North Car­o­lina’s law is the gold stand­ard for le­gis­lat­ors who want to cherry-pick their con­stitu­ents, oth­er South­ern states have joined them in the voter-sup­pres­sion race.

In Alabama, law­makers are for­ging ahead with plans to re­quire doc­u­ment­ary proof of cit­izen­ship, such as a cer­ti­fied birth cer­ti­fic­ate, an un­ex­pired pass­port, or nat­ur­al­iz­a­tion pa­pers, to re­gister to vote. Texas has already im­ple­men­ted its voter ID law — the same law that, in 2012 un­der pre­vi­ous VRA pre­clear­ance rules, the Justice De­part­ment had struck down for be­ing ra­cially dis­crim­in­at­ory. Next month, Vir­gin­ia voters will be newly re­quired to present lim­ited forms of photo ID in or­der to cast a bal­lot. Last month, Alabama and Mis­sis­sippi also im­ple­men­ted new photo ID laws.

All of these states were pre­vi­ously covered un­der the um­brella of pro­tec­tion of Sec­tion 5. Even where the blood­i­est his­tor­ic re­pres­sion of Afric­an-Amer­ic­an vot­ing rights oc­curred, new pro­ced­ures with dis­crim­in­at­ory im­pact are be­ing en­acted without any fed­er­al over­sight.

As new vot­ing reg­u­la­tions crop up and im­pose stag­ger­ing bar­ri­ers to the bal­lot, there have also been suc­cesses in the fight for equal vot­ing rights. Be­ing gran­ted a tem­por­ary in­junc­tion hear­ing in North Car­o­lina is the first step to pro­tect vot­ing rights in the state. This April, after Ad­vance­ment Pro­ject and cocoun­sel chal­lenged Wis­con­sin’s pro­hib­it­ive photo ID law, the meas­ure was struck down in fed­er­al court. Earli­er this year, a Pennsylvania court struck down that state’s photo ID law. A photo ID bal­lot ini­ti­at­ive was di­ver­ted in Nevada, while a Mis­souri amend­ment to im­ple­ment stricter voter ID re­quire­ments died in the Sen­ate.

Throughout the South, where Sec­tion 5 used to pro­tect voters of col­or, lit­ig­a­tion is on­go­ing. While it is worth not­ing these vic­tor­ies, without Sec­tion 5 pro­tec­tion, voters of col­or re­main vul­ner­able to state-level tac­tics to dis­en­fran­chise. And without in­junc­tions like the one we’re seek­ing in North Car­o­lina, pro­trac­ted leg­al battles come with the risk that on-the-ground con­sequences can crop up as cases are be­ing heard, lead­ing to dis­en­fran­chise­ment for hun­dreds of thou­sands of voters.

In a na­tion that prides it­self as a lead­ing demo­cracy, ef­forts to lim­it the vote are fun­da­ment­ally an­ti­thet­ic­al to our val­ues. Vot­ing is the one time when all Amer­ic­ans have an equal op­por­tun­ity to be heard, wheth­er you’re young or old; rich or poor; black, white, Latino, Asi­an, or Nat­ive Amer­ic­an. It’s a right that people fought for 50 years ago, in some cases even giv­ing their lives. Still today, we will keep on fight­ing to en­sure equal bal­lot ac­cess for all.

Penda D. Hair is co­dir­ect­or of Ad­vance­ment Pro­ject, a Wash­ing­ton-based ra­cial-justice group work­ing at the com­munity level to pro­tect vot­ing rights across the coun­try.

HAVE AN OPIN­ION ON POLICY AND CHAN­GING DEMO­GRAPH­ICS?The Next Amer­ica wel­comes op-ed pieces that ex­plore the polit­ic­al, eco­nom­ic, and so­cial im­pacts of the pro­found ra­cial and cul­tur­al changes fa­cing our na­tion, par­tic­u­larly rel­ev­ant to edu­ca­tion, eco­nomy, the work­force and health. In­ter­ested in sub­mit­ting a piece? Email Jan­ell Ross at jross@na­tion­al­journ­al.com with a brief de­scrip­tion of your idea. Please fol­low us on Twit­ter and Face­book.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
1 days ago

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.