Justice Department to Sue North Carolina Over Voter ID Law

The Justice Department Tuesday sued North Carolina over its obstructive voter ID law. The lawsuit signals an effort by the Obama administration to extend federal power to protect minority voters after the Supreme Court's controversial decision to strike down a portion of the Voting Rights Act, according to The New York Times.

The anticipated lawsuit implored a federal court to block North Carolina from enforcing four provisions of the law, one being a strict requirement for photo identification. The suit will also seek to reinstate the stipulation that the state obtain "preclearance" from the federal government before changing its election rules.

The court challenge marks the second voter ID lawsuit filed by the Justice Department. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division sued the state of Texas over its redistricting plan and voter photo ID law. The lawsuits are also seeking to require Texas to obtain preclearance oversight.

North Carolina's new law reduced the number of early-voting days, did away with the option of being able to vote on the same day as casting an early ballot, and prohibited provisional ballots cast by eligible voters who went to the wrong precinct from being counted.

The law also requires that voters present photo identification to cast ballots, but it does not allow public-employee IDs, student IDs or photo IDs issues by public assistance organizations. According to state data, black voters are disproportionately likely to lack identification issued by the State Department of Motor Vehicles.

All four of the restrictive provisions are being challenged by the Justice Department, The Times reports.

This past June, all five Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices voted to eliminate a portion of the Voting Rights Act that required Texas, North Carolina and six other (mostly Southern) states with histories of discrimination to obtain permission from the Justice Department before changing their election laws. The four Democratic-appointed justices dissented.

The ruling left other parts of the Voting Rights Act intact, such as the provision that prohibits discriminatory voting laws anywhere, whether or not the impact was intentional. Another provision states that when there is evidence that a state has intentionally discriminated, a court is allowed to impose federal preclearance requirements on future voting law changes.

Since the ruling came down, the Republican-majority states have hurried to impose new limits on voting laws under the guise of combating voter fraud. However, there is no evidence of significant in-person voter identification fraud. Democrats contend that the new restrictions are intended to disenfranchise groups that support Democrats, like low-income individuals, students and minorities.

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory defended the measures when signing the law last month.

"North Carolinians overwhelmingly support a common-sense law that requires voters to present photo identification in order to cast a ballot," Gov. McCrory said. "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."

Election law specialists are cautious about the Justice Department's ability to strike down these new provisions, "particularly when some of these changes, such as reducing early voting, involve measures that make voting more convenient but don't restrict direct access to the ballot box," said Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called the June Supreme Court ruling "deeply flawed" and said the Justice Department would "not allow the court's action to be interpreted as 'open season' for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights."