United States v. North Carolina
By Jonathan H. Levy
With Americans beginning to feel the effects of the latest government shutdown, it might seem that money drives our government. But cash is closer to the car’s gasoline than its driver: gasoline powers the engine, but especially today, it is clear that the car, gasoline, and engine are useless without Messrs. Reid and Boehner in the driver’s seat, negotiating with each other. This Shutdown Tuesday, I’m thinking about those drivers and the lawsuit Attorney General Eric Holder filed Monday in Greensboro, North Carolina, challenging the Tar Heel state’s Voter Information Verification Act, signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory on August 12, 2013.
When researching the suit, captioned United States v. North Carolina, I was initially surprised that not one article I read cited or linked to the actual law. I once had a wise boss who, the morning of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision, told me to say nothing about the decision until I had read it. In his immortal words, “Reading helps you know what you’re talking about.” Obviously, I was not working for CNN or Fox. I don’t want to rant about the importance of the text in statutory interpretation, nor do I allege that those authors I read did not actually read the law. But the media ought to disseminate information and then comment upon it—in that order. The internet makes citations so easy that when one editorializes about a thing, he should encourage readers to judge the thing for themselves. I’ve already cited to the Act above but it’s so easy, I’ll do it again: Voter Information Verification Act.
The complaint speaks in racially charged language, noting for example, that no African-Americans voted for the legislation. But thankfully, the complaint does not equate voter ID laws to poll taxes, as Mr. Holder claimed last year. Such forbearance, however, does not indicate a strong foundation.
The Department of Justice’s complaint claims the Act has a discriminatory intent and purpose. The Act’s leading section, codified in Article 14A of Chapter 163 of North Carolina’s General Statutes requires in-person voters to present one of several forms of valid identification. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina, and Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, who signed the complaint, argue that because in 2010, black North Carolinians had “higher rates of poverty” than whites with less access to a DMV able to issue proper identification, the bill discriminates in effect and by design. This allegation is half-hearted. First, Justice offered a report by the State Board of Elections (“SBOE”) showing that about five percent of registered voters had no proper identification from the DMV. The Complaint, however, omits an important qualification: that the SBOE does not account for people who lack DMV identification, but possess another valid form. The original report clearly states this qualification, but Justice strategically omits it. Thus, the Complaint speaks of a worst-case scenario. But even so, the numbers do not clearly show discrimination. For example, 14.3% of non-Hispanic black households in North Carolina lacked access to a vehicle, as compared to 4.3% of non-Hispanic white households. It is therefore factually accurate to say that access to vehicles is disproportionate, but query whether this difference is statistically significant.
Next, the Complaint mentions in passing that the exhaustive list of valid identification is unnecessarily narrow and excludes, for example, utility bills and student identification from a North Carolina college. Nevertheless, if the Act’s purpose is to match a face with a name, a utility bill is obviously insufficient, and student identification is overinclusive because international students, not eligible to vote, would carry such a card.
The rest of the Complaint deals with the restrictions on early voting, the elimination of preregistration, and the elimination of same-day registration. Rand and Samuels again point to statistics about how African-Americans disproportionately use these erstwhile provisions.
According to the Justice Department, this disproportionate treatment amounts to discrimination because the North Carolina General Assembly heard and ignored testimony about such a disparate impact. Set against a background of North Carolina’s racial discrimination and the fact that the legislature explicitly waited for the Shelby County v. Holder decision to pass the Act the uneven effect conclusively proves discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments says the Justice Department. The allegations thus rest on nothing but statistical conjecture.
Finally, it should be noted that the Department of Justice challenges these law under the Voting Rights Act—the very same Act some feared was gutted in the Shelby County decision. Whether or not the specific allegations in United States v. North Carolina have merit, it is clear that Attorney General Holder has power to enforce the Voting Rights Act and ensure the widest franchise possible.
Preferencing based on race is reprehensible in all its forms. But the basis of an allegation of racial discrimination cannot be res ipsa loquitor, much less ipse dixit. Let us challenge our leaders to provide more proof before spending taxpayer dollars on such frivolous lawsuits. Let us use our hard-won civil rights legislation to help eradicate discrimination to the extent required by humanity. With such rights firmly secured, let us soon elect some drivers willing to serve us and cooperate with one another.