North Carolina’s Voter ID law is before the Federal Middle District of North Carolina with closing arguments just completed. The beef centers on the NAACP’s complaint (joined by the Obama administration) that voter identification is racist. Of course. What disagrees with the Left must be racist.
North Carolina’s law requires a prospective voter to have one of six forms of photographic identification, reduces the number of days of early voting, eliminates same day registration, and allows voters to cast provisional ballots if they say (not show) that they cannot meet the requirements (if a voter meets the requirements within a generous time frame after the voting, his provisional ballot becomes official).
The NAACP and the Obama DoJ think this is too onerous, and it disproportionately affects minorities.
This, though, is simply the racism of low expectations; it says the minorities are inherently less capable than other groups who do routinely meet these requirements.
Six forms of photo ID: driver license, driver license or non-operator identification, passport, tribal enrollment card, VA ID card, US military ID card. If a voter can’t get a photo ID, he has alternatives:
Provide their date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number, or present their current voter registration card or a copy of an acceptable document bearing their name and address. (Acceptable documents include a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government-issued document.)
Anyone who says minorities are unable to satisfy those alternatives is simply insulting that minority—and doing it on the basis of race. Of course, there will be an occasional exception who truly cannot, but these isolated occurrences do not invalidate the requirement, they simply fall into a special handling category.
Reduced early voting days: there’s no requirement to have any early voting days at all; this is nothing more than a courtesy to reduce the need for absentee ballot handling. There’s an advantage to the voter, too, to reducing the number of days for early voting: it allows the voter more time to collect information about the candidates—a late-breaking announcement of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s criminal indictment, for instance, or of a fifth filing for bankruptcy by a company owned by Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
No same day registration: this is no impediment at all; it works to the voter’s advantage, especially for the voter who has not been able to get a photo ID. Aside from reducing the lines at a polling place by not having to process same day registrations, it gives both the voter and the state more time to process the information the voter provides in order to cast a provisional ballot.
The NAACP and the DoJ are making a bogus beef. There are few things more central to our freedom than the sanctity of an American’s vote, and keeping that vote from being diluted or effectively canceled by an ineligible voter is central to protecting that vote. Photo IDs—proving that the prospective voter is who he says he is—is central to that centrality.
The courts have had a good track record in those cases selected by me for commentary at reaching proper decisions. Maybe this court also will reach a proper decision. An American’s vote certainly demands it.
