4th Circuit Reverses Activist Judge’s Voter ID Ban

  • “These [District Court decision] errors fatally infected its finding of discriminatory intent. And when that finding crumbles, the preliminary injunction falls with it.”
  • “The district court penalized the General Assembly because of who they were, instead of what they did.”
  • “The district court’s who argument also overlooked the state constitutional amendment. Fifty-five percent of North Carolinian voters constitutionally required the enactment of a voter-ID law and designated to the General Assembly the task of enacting the law.”
  • “…the sequence of events leading to enactment, legislative history, and disparate impact — cannot support finding discriminatory intent.
  • “Whatever one thinks of the weight of bipartisanship, the district court erred in discounting [Black Democrat and primary bill sponsor] Senator [Joel] Ford and ignoring the other supporting Democrats.”
  • “The district court makes hay out of the fact that a proposed amendment to include public-assistance IDs failed…[A]s far as this record reveals, this proposed amendment would not cover any existing public-assistance IDs. And the failure to adopt a meaningless amendment cannot support finding discriminatory intent.
  • “Indeed, the 2018 Voter-ID Law is more protective of the right to vote than other states’ voter-ID laws that courts have approved.”
  • “We reverse because of the fundamental legal errors that permeate the opinion — the flipping of the burden of proof and the failure to provide the presumption of legislative good faith — that irrevocably affected its outcome.”

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store