Black People Are Not Children, Nor Are They Special
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 322: What the Bible Says About Gifts
A Pile of Dog Poop Doesn’t Stink As Bad As a Mountain of...
When All They Have Are Lies
When a Hug Becomes a Crime: A Warning From West Virginia
Being Investigated for Good Reason: Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll
They Broke the Law, Censored the Truth, and Pardoned Themselves. We Must Never...
Germany's Economic Stagnation Has a Root Cause — and It's in the Classroom
Manosphere: Masculinity Without Virtue and Sacrifice
Israeli Firm Picked for Texas Desalination Plant
Violent Rioters Attack Journalist Covering Antifa Activity Outside of ICE Detention Center
Maryland Man Pleads Guilty to Stealing $270K in Social Security Disability Benefits While...
Platner Maintained Sexually-Suggestive Profile on 'Predator's Paradise' App Known For Chil...
Illegal Alien Sentenced to Nearly 3 Years for 20-Year Identity Theft, Benefits and...
White House Calls NYT Report on Vance Social Media Advice 'Complete Fake News'
Tipsheet

Federal Court Refuses To Block N.C. Voter ID Law

Federal Court Refuses To Block N.C. Voter ID Law

At Netroots Nation, liberals slammed voter ID laws, labeling them something akin to “Jim Crow” laws. Yesterday, the U.S. District Court For The Middle District Of North Carolina refused to block the state’s voter ID law, which will be enforced in the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

Here's what the Court said in their opinion:

After careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ complaints state plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and should be permitted to proceed in the litigation. However, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be granted in this circuit only upon a “clear showing” of entitlement.

After thorough review of the record, the court finds that as to two challenged provisions of SL 2013-381 [ NC’s voter ID law], Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing they are likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying legal claims. As to the remaining provisions, the court finds that even assuming Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, they have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm - a necessary prerequisite for preliminary relief - before trial in the absence of an injunction. Consequently, the motions for preliminary injunction and the United States’ request for federal observers will be denied. This resolution renders the motions to exclude expert testimony moot.

You can read the entire opinion below:

NC Opinion On Voter ID by electionlawcentercom

Over at PJ Media, J. Christian Adams, who served as an election lawyer in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote that the DOJ actually spent tax dollars on a "turnout-doesn’t-matter-because-life-is-harder" expert to help make their argument (emphasis mine):

Advertisement

The Justice Department had actually argued that even if black voters turned out at higher rates under voter ID (which they do), because blacks have to take the bus more and their life is generally harder, then voter ID and curtailing early voting violates the Voting Rights Act.

The Justice Department actually used your tax dollars to pay for an expert to introduce the turnout-doesn’t-matter-because-life-is-harder argument. Enterprising folks will submit a Freedom of Information request to find out how many tens of thousands of dollars that nonsense costs you.

Hans von Spakovsky, former DOJ voting official, says it is going to be a very bad weekend for lawyers at the Justice Department Voting Section. “Eric Holder has been beaten now twice in the Carolinas on voter ID. Today’s ruling shows just how wrong he is when it comes to election law.”

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement