
of Ms. Gallegos-Merrill, who was a Republican candidate for local office in North Carolina who likely lost her race because of voting irregularities that would be addressed by HB 589.
According to Judicial Watch’s motion:
In 2012, [Gallegos-Merrill] ran for
County Commissioner of Buncombe County and lost a very close election.
She alleges that this loss was due to same-day registration during early
voting and to improperly cast ballots…. Merrill has made concrete plans
to run again for that office in 2014 and has taken steps to make that
happen…. Any ruling from this Court reversing the repeal of same-day
registration during early voting or enjoining the enforcement of North
Carolina’s photo ID law, would “impair or impede” Merrill’s interests
including her immediate electoral prospects for 2014.
On the day the bill passed, Attorney General Eric Holder in a speech to the National Urban League concerning the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby Co. v. Holder said that a DOJ voting rights lawsuit against Texas, “is the Department’s first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last.” This statement was widely seen as a reference to a potential lawsuit against North Carolina over its photo ID law. A former Holder spokesman, Matt Miller, said the next day that “[f]rom everything I’ve read, the writing’s on the wall that the North Carolina law is going to draw a DOJ challenge.”
On July 29, 2013, a group of political activists attended a meeting at the White House with Attorney General Holder, Labor Secretary (and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights) Tom Perez, and President Obama. Those attending included representatives from the ACLU, the NAACP, and Rev. Al Sharpton. Sharpton subsequently told MSNBC that, based upon what he heard at the “unprecedented” meeting, he expected action regarding North Carolina “when this governor signs the bill.”
When HB 589 was signed into law on August 12, two private lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Court. A complaint by the National Association of Colored People (NAACP) alleged violations of the 14th and 15th Amendments and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). A complaint by the League of Women Voters also alleged violations of the 14th Amendment and the VRA. On September 30, the DOJ filed its complaint, asking the court to require federal pre-clearance before the state could enforce the HB 589 provisions. On November 26, the DOJ moved to consolidate all three cases.
In its Motion for Intervention, Judicial Watch argues:
The photo ID law at issue seeks, among
other things, to prevent voter fraud. Where there is such fraud, North
Carolina voters are harmed by having their votes diluted. In
considering Indiana’s photo ID law, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit noted that “[t]he purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce
voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to
vote by diluting their votes – dilution being recognized to be an
impairment of the right to vote.”… North Carolina’s voters, including
Merrill, are threatened with the same kind of injury.
(Click link below to read more)
READ MORE Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment