Some details on NC voter rights case

In bench trials, there's only one opinion that matters:

U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder has given lawyers arguing against and for the changes between two and three weeks to make their case in a bench trial that could test the constitutionality and sweep of new voting rules adopted in Republican-led states.

The trial begins almost a month before the 50th anniversary of the landmark Voting Rights Act, which knocked down state and local efforts to keep African-Americans from voting.

I tried to find a stream or a live-blog to follow, but no luck so far. If anybody reading this finds something like that, please drop it in the comments or send me a message and I'll do it. Here are the three main issues being adjudicated:

-- Reducing the state's early voting period by a week.

-- Eliminating pre-registration for those aged 16 and 17.

-- And not allowing people to cast provisional ballots if they went to the wrong precinct to vote.



The 26th amendment challenge?

What's happening with the other case that was challenging the provisions of the law that impacted college students, violating the 26th amendment?

Working on it...

I chased some info down, but had to postpone continuing, so I could take my mom to get some tests. And now I'm at a different computer. ;/ But before I stopped, I found a court document that said the case would begin on July 13? The same day as the other one, which leads me to believe they may have combined 2-3 cases into one. Still looking.

Okay, this is crazy

I'm still thinking like three cases were rolled into one, including the college students (Louis M. Duke etal) case, and are part of what's happening now in Winston-Salem, but tracking down recent court documents is getting harder the more I look. It's probably me, so I'm going to step back for a few minutes before diving back in.


This is helpful. I only wish the news media had made that clearer in the coverage.

And tell any reporter you see to stop referring to it as a "Voter ID" law. That's only a small part of it and it really misrepresents the sweeping changes the bill, as a whole, put into place.

Here you go, Teddy.

I believe the college students are the "young intervenors" mentioned in the case summary:

Plaintiffs include the United States of America (the “United States”) in case 1:13CV861, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and several organizations and individual
plaintiffs (the “NAACP Plaintiffs”) in case 1:13CV658, and the League of Women Voters of North Carolina along with several organizations and individuals (the “League Plaintiffs”) in case
1:13CV660. Additionally, the court allowed a group of young voters and others (the “Intervenors”) to intervene in case 1:13CV660. (Doc. 62 in case 1:13CV660.) Considered together,
Plaintiffs raise claims under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 42
U.S.C. § 1973. (Doc. 1 in case 1:13CV861; Doc. 52 in case 1:13CV658; Docs. 1 & 63 in case 1:13CV660.)