The Persistent Racist Accusations of the NC NAACP and its Continued Attempts to Frustrate a Voter ID Law in North Carolina | Eastern North Carolina Now

    The identification cards that are issued by the state or local government entity contain photographs of the employees taken by the employing entity or its agents or contractors.

    The identification cards are issued after an employment application process that includes methods of confirming the identity of the employee that include, but are not limited to, the social security number, citizenship status, and birthdate of the employee.

    The equipment for producing the identification cards is kept in a secure location.

    Misuse of the equipment for producing the identification cards would be grounds for termination of an employee.

    State or local officials would report any misuse of identification card equipment to law enforcement if G.S. 163A-1389(19) was potentially violated.


    The cards issued by the state or local government entity contain a date of expiration, effective January 1, 2021.

    The state or local government entity provides copies of standard identification cards to the State Board to assist with training purposes.

    (2) The state or local government entity complies with any other reasonable security measures determined by the State Board to be necessary for the protection and security of the employee identification process.

    (b) The State Board shall approve the use of employee identification cards issued by a state or local government entity, including a charter school, every four years.

    (c) The State Board shall produce a list of participating employing entities every four years. The list shall be published on the State Board's Web site and distributed to every county board of elections.

    SECTION 1.2(d) Notwithstanding G.S. 163A-1145.1, 163A-1145.2, and 163A-1145.3, the State Board shall approve (i) tribal enrollment cards issued by a tribe recognized by this State under Chapter 71A of the General Statutes; (ii) student identification cards issued by a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina, a community college, as defined in G.S. 115D-2(2), or eligible private postsecondary institution as defined in G.S. 116-280(3); and (iii) employee identification cards issued by a state or local government entity, including a charter school, for use as voting identification under G.S. 163A-1145.1 no later than March 15, 2019, for use in primaries and elections held in 2019 and 2020, and again no later than May 15, 2021, for elections held on or after that date. The State Board shall adopt temporary rules on reasonable security measures for use of student or employee identification cards for voting identification in G.S. 163A-1145.2 and G.S. 163A-1145.3 no later than February 1, 2019. The State Board shall adopt permanent rules on reasonable security measures for use of student or employee identification cards for voting identification in G.S. 163A-1145.2 and G.S. 163A-1145.3 no later than May 15, 2021. The State Board shall produce the initial list of participating institutions and employing entities no later than April 1, 2019.

    SECTION 1.2(e) Notwithstanding G.S. 163A-1145.1, 163A-1145.2, and 163A-1145.3, a student identification card issued by a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina, a community college, as defined in G.S. 115D-2(2), or eligible private postsecondary institution as defined in G.S. 116-280(3) or an employee identification card issued by state or local government entity that does not contain an expiration date shall be eligible for use in any election held before January 1, 2021. 9

    SECTION 1.2(f) Notwithstanding G.S. 163A-1145.1(d)(2), for elections held in 2019, any voter who does not present a photograph identification listed as acceptable in G.S. 163A-1145.1(a) when presenting to vote in person shall be allowed to complete a reasonable impediment affidavit and cast a provisional ballot, listing as the impediment not being aware of the requirement to present photograph identification when voting in person or failing to bring photograph identification to the voting place.

    *** Language and sections highlighted in bold are the revisions to the original draft proposed by lawmakers just prior to the start of the special lame-duck session of the NC General Assembly.

    [Source: The draft bill (S.824) - https://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2017/Bills/Senate/PDF/S824v2.pdf

    The changes made to the original draft Voter ID bill (v. 09) which gave rise to S.824 are listed in more plain terms below:

    (a) SECTION 1.1(a) adds a new section to § 163A-869: Voter Photo Identification Cards - requiring county boards of election to maintain a secure database containing the photographs of registered voters taken for the purpose of issuing voter photo identification cards.

    (b) SECTION 1.2(a) broadens the section in § 163A-1145.1: Requirement for Photo Identification to Vote in Person which lists Student ID cards as an acceptable form of photo identification. In the prior version of the bill, the only acceptable student ID cards were those issued by any of the 17 schools belonging to the UNC University system.

    (c) SECTION 1.1(b) adds a new section to § 163A-869: Voter Photo Identification Cards - adding Employment Identification cards as an acceptable form of photo identification.


    (d) SECTION 1.1(b) adds additional language to the section ("Exceptions - Reasonable Impediment") in § 163A-869: Voter Photo Identification Cards. It further includes Section (dl) which requires that a voter claiming a Reasonable Impediment to fill out a Reasonable Impediment Declaration Form.

    (e) SECTION 1.1(b) adds a new subsection to § 163A-869: Voter Photo Identification Cards - to section "Exceptions." The new exception is "Natural Disaster."

    (f) All the sections after that - Sections 1.2 (c) - 1.2 (f) - are newly-added; that is, they are new to S.824.

    E. The Opinion of the Supreme Court, Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections (2008) - upholding the constitutionality of a strict photo ID type voter ID law

    In 2005, Indiana passed a strict Voter ID law. It was the most restrictive voter law at the time. The Indiana statute required citizens voting in person on election day, or casting a ballot in person at the office of the circuit court clerk prior to election day, to present photo identification issued by the government.

    Under the law, voters MUST have a specific form of ID in order to vote. The ID must be issued by the state of Indiana or the U.S. government and must show the following:

    Name of individual to whom it was issued, which must conform to the individual's registration record

    Photo of the person to whom it was issued

    Expiration date (if it is expired, it must have an expiration date after the most recent general election; military IDs are exempted from the requirement that ID bear an expiration date)

    Voters in Indiana who are unable to or decline to produce such an identification may vote a provisional ballot. The ballot is counted only if: (1) the voter returns to the election board by noon on the Monday after the election and: (A) produces proof of identification; or (B) executes an affidavit stating that the voter cannot obtain proof of identification, because the voter: (i) is indigent; or (ii) has a religious objection to being photographed; and (2) the voter has not been challenged or required to vote a provisional ballot for any other reason. [Indiana statute §3-5-2-40.5, 3-10-1-7.2 and 3-11-8-25.1]

    The strict photo identification requirement was challenged as being an unreasonable burden on the right to vote and that challenge made its way to the Supreme Court in 2008. [Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, (2008)]. Civil rights groups (including ACORN), the Women's League of Voters, and other groups filed amici briefs challenging the constitutionality of the ID requirement. After concluding that no voter would conceivably be precluded from voting under the law, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

    Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. He opined: "Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons-e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate-is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk's office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners' right to the relief they seek."

    He concluded:

    "In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes "excessively burdensome requirements" on any class of voters. A facial challenge must fail where the statute has a 'plainly legitimate sweep.' When we consider only the statute's broad application to all Indiana voters we conclude that it imposes only a limited burden on voters' rights. The precise interests advanced by the State are therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners' facial challenge.

    Finally we note that petitioners have not demonstrated that the proper remedy - even assuming an unjustified burden on some voters - would be to invalidate the entire statute. When evaluating a neutral, nondiscriminatory regulation of voting procedure, we must keep in mind that a ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people."

    Justice Scalia wrote separately in a concurring opinion: "The law should be upheld because the overall burden is minimal and justified." He went on to state that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation. "It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class," he wrote.

    Finally, he concluded: "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not "even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting." And the State's interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden. That should end the matter."


    In addition to the challenge that the strict ID requirement was an unreasonable burden on the right to vote, civil rights groups alleged that the requirement benefitted Republicans and harmed Democrats at the ballot box (because Democrats include more poor people and minorities). Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy, disregarded that argument and wrote: "The justifications for the law should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators."

    What exactly does the Indiana Voter ID law require of each voter when he or she shows up to vote? This is important because according to the Supreme Court, the ID requirement is NOT an unreasonable limitation on the right to vote. The Supreme Court did not say it was not an unreasonable limitation on the right to vote for a WHITE person. The Court held that the limitation was not an unreasonable limitation on any person's right to vote.

    F. The Opinion of the 4th Circuit, North Carolina NAACP v. Pat McCrory (2016) - striking down the 2013 NC Voter ID Law

    Reverend Spearman points to the opinion of the leftist 4th Circuit as proof that North Carolina's 2013 Voter ID law was intentionally racist and racially-motivated, that the NC General Assembly is a racist government body, and that any law enacted in North Carolina to regulate voting (particularly to address potential fraud and integrity concerns) is nothing more than an intentional scheme to continue the historical repression of black votes. He points to the language of the opinion, which just happens to sing his favorite tune. The language also happens to be horribly offensive and I submit, legally dishonest.