Lawsuit Filed Against Three Provisions of North Carolina New Omnibus Election Law Bill

On August 12, a lawsuit was filed against three provisions of the North Carolina omnibus election law bill that had been signed a few hours before the lawsuit was filed. The case is League of Women Voters of North Carolina v State of North Carolina, middle district, U.S. District Court. It challenges: (1) the reduction in days in which early voting is in effect (the bill reduces the early voting period from 17 days to 10 days); (2) the elimination of the ability of individuals to register to vote at the polling station during the early voting period; (3) the new law that says provisional ballots are void if they are turned in to a polling place that is different from the polling place that serves that voter’s neighborhood.

The basis for the lawsuit is that those three provisions violate the Voting Rights Act, and also the 14th amendment to the Constitution. The complaint alleges that statistical data shows that all three provisions will have more impact on African-American voters than other voters.

Here is the complaint. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.


Comments

Lawsuit Filed Against Three Provisions of North Carolina New Omnibus Election Law Bill — No Comments

  1. Hmmm.

    One more case by the usual suspects — who want to have ONLY communist regimes – by any means necessary ???

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  2. Your wording of item (3) is misleading.

    Your use of “turned in” implies that voters had picked up their ballot elsewhere and then turned it in at the wrong place.

    Instead, prior law permitted a voter who went to the incorrect polling location to cast a provisional ballot, which would be counted for races that they could have voted in if they had gone to the correct polling place.

  3. If they would go to their correct polling place, a quick search of the automated register by poll-workers would point out their correct polling place, they would not need to cast provisional ballots

  4. If a statewide means of checking an “automated” register existed at every polling place in the state, and the “automated” record contained an image of the voter’s signature, what need would there be to require a voter to go to ANY specific polling place in the state? Communal comity?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.