US federal district judge upholds North Carolina voting law as constitutional - JURIST - News

## Summary
News JillWellington / Pixabay In a 134-page decision, the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Thursday upheld a North Carolina voting law as constitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). To succeed on a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim on the basis of a suspect class, disparate impact is not enough; the challengers must show that the law was enacted with discriminatory purpose under Village of Arlington Heights v. She then discussed the applicability of each of the Arlington Heights factors in determining discriminatory purpose: (1) the historical background; (2) the specific sequence of events leading to the law’s enactment, including any departures from the normal procedural sequence of the legislative process; (3) the law’s legislative history; and (4) whether the law bears more heavily on one race than another. Consequently, this Court, having given careful consideration to the preliminary injunction record, the limited evidence presented at trial, and the arguments of counsel, concludes that it is compelled by controlling case law to render Judgment in favor of the Defendants on both Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment claim and Plaintiffs’ § 2 claim under the Voting Rights Act.

## Article Content
News
JillWellington
/ Pixabay
In a 134-page decision, the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Thursday
upheld
a North Carolina voting law as constitutional under the
Fourteenth
and
Fifteenth
Amendments as well as the
Voting Rights Act of 1965
(VRA).
The law in question,
SB 824
, among other things, requires photo identification cards when voting and expands the number of poll observers and the class of voters who can question ballot integrity to any registered voter of the county. The plaintiffs
challenged
that these provisions as having a disproportionate impact on “minority voters, ultimately resulting in ‘the effective denial of the franchise and dilution'” of the voting strength of people of color.
To succeed on a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim on the basis of a suspect class, disparate impact is not enough; the challengers must show that the law was enacted with discriminatory purpose under
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation.
Under the VRA, however, discriminatory “results” are sufficient and must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.
Judge Loretta Biggs delved into the lengthy history of racial discrimination against Black people in North Carolina. She then discussed the applicability of each of the Arlington Heights factors in determining discriminatory purpose: (1) the historical background; (2) the specific sequence of events leading to the law’s enactment, including any departures from the normal procedural sequence of the legislative process; (3) the law’s legislative history; and (4) whether the law bears more heavily on one race than another.
As to the first, the judge found that the evidence supported a finding of racially discriminatory purpose in the historical background of SB 824. As to the second and third factors, she did not find a discriminatory intent. Finally, the judge found that the disparate impact of SB 824 favors a finding of discriminatory purpose.
Judge Biggs went on to discuss some of the mitigating impacts of SB 824 and how the law in general is more permissive than its predecessor. She also emphasized how legislative provisions must be accorded a presumption of good faith enactment. Ultimately, she held in favor of the state, noting:
This action was initiated over seven years ago. Since that time, the law of the United States Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals related to the issues presented by the instant case have undergone, and continue to undergo, dramatic change. Consequently, this Court, having given careful consideration to the preliminary injunction record, the limited evidence presented at trial, and the arguments of counsel, concludes that it is compelled by controlling case law to render Judgment in favor of the Defendants on both Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment claim and Plaintiffs’ § 2 claim under the Voting Rights Act.
Currently, 13 states do not
require
a photo ID to vote. The decision comes amidst the contentious passage of the
SAVE Act
in the House of Representatives, which would require
American citizens to show documents such as a passport or birth certificate to register to vote.

---

## Expert Analysis

### Merits
- The plaintiffs challenged that these provisions as having a disproportionate impact on “minority voters, ultimately resulting in ‘the effective denial of the franchise and dilution'” of the voting strength of people of color.

### Areas for Consideration
N/A

### Implications
- The plaintiffs challenged that these provisions as having a disproportionate impact on “minority voters, ultimately resulting in ‘the effective denial of the franchise and dilution'” of the voting strength of people of color.
- To succeed on a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim on the basis of a suspect class, disparate impact is not enough; the challengers must show that the law was enacted with discriminatory purpose under Village of Arlington Heights v.
- Finally, the judge found that the disparate impact of SB 824 favors a finding of discriminatory purpose.
- Since that time, the law of the United States Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals related to the issues presented by the instant case have undergone, and continue to undergo, dramatic change.

### Expert Commentary
This article covers law, discriminatory, voting topics. Notable strengths include discussion of law. Readability: Flesch-Kincaid grade 0.0. Word count: 508.