NC asks US Supreme Court to delay elections law ruling

Posted October 2, 2014

Voting in N.C., voting generic

— After a federal appeals court refused to block the implementation of its Wednesday ruling that restores same-day voter registration in North Carolina and the counting of ballots cast out-of-precinct on Election Day, state Attorney General Roy Cooper asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay in the case.

“Voters in North Carolina have a right to understand the rules governing their exercise of the franchise without flip-flopping of those rules days and weeks before they vote,” states the request, which was directed to Chief Justice John Roberts.

The request cites an Ohio case this week in which the Supreme Court stepped in so that laws trimming early-voting time and eliminating same-day registration could be enforced.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the two provisions of an elections law passed last year, but they denied to issue an injunction against other sections of the law, such as reducing the length of early voting and eliminating straight-ticket voting.

Rev. William Barber, state president of the NAACP, which challenged the elections law, said the injunction should remain in place.

"The 4th Circuit appropriately ruled that the lower court was wrong to claim that this massive voter suppression law would not cause irreparable damage. If any voter is denied their right to vote in November, that is irreparable," Barber said in a statement.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • skeeter II Oct 3, 2014

    I believe that the U S Supreme Court will say, "use the new rules for the November 2014 election". Everyone has had sufficient time to learn where they are to go to vote this November. The effort should be on making sure the Poor and others know where to go vote. The same effort being put into voiding these laws should be used to help everyone get to the poll to vote -- early voting or regular election day voting!

    If early voting is stirring up so much trouble and problems, why not return to "everyone votes on election day" and only allow absentee voting for those with written justified reason for requesting one!

  • stymieindurham Oct 3, 2014

    One has two years before each election to register. That same person also has two years to make plans to vote on election day. What's with all these special concessions that have to be made for "special people"???????

  • jackaroe123 Oct 3, 2014

    View quoted thread

    That's all very well and good, but planning ahead is not a requirement for voting. Being eligible to vote is the major requirement. Factors beyond that should be based on the logistics, not some judgment of the voter. We'd all prefer voters be more informed, but we don't quiz people in line then send them home if they don't pass our little test b/c that's not what it should ever be about. Making voting easier is a good thing. Your personal style is yours, and it works for you. You can't possibly be advocating that everyone do it your way or not do it at all, are you? That would be completely disrespectful of all other circumstances.

  • miseem Oct 3, 2014

    View quoted thread

    If a constitutional amendment is passed limiting gun ownership, limiting gun ownership will not be unconstitutional. Short of that, how do you expect anyone can take your guns away, liberal or conservative. This is simply the attitude the NRA has been pushing for decades, and the only people benefiting are the gun and ammunition industry, a few disturbed, attention seeking individuals shooting up schools and theaters, and illegal gun owners. Nothing coming down the pike legislatively has limited any legally entitled gun owner from purchasing any weapon suitable for hunting or self defense. Unless you consider a 100 round magazine essential for hunting or self defense. In which case, you may need to visit a shooting range a little more often. And very few locations have magazine limits.

  • miseem Oct 3, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Unethical, yes. Maybe not unconstitutional unless it is intended to restrict voting by certain groups. But I guess that being an unethical political group intent on barely skirting constitutional issues in limiting voting rights is OK for some people.

  • John Phillips Oct 3, 2014
    user avatar

    YES, constitutional right to vote. NO constitutional right to vote early. NO constitutional right to same day registration/voting. NO intent to suppress votes by modifying the voting rules put in place by the state of NC. The state gave a lot of early voting options, now cutting down the amount of early voting is somehow illegal? It is certainly not unconstitutional.

  • Jack Jones Oct 3, 2014
    user avatar

    This article and the ruling have nothing to do with ID, but rather two other parts of the voter suppression law: 1.) eliminating "One Stop" voter registration 2.) not counting votes cast at an unassigned polling station.

  • Dukefan1 Oct 3, 2014

    GOP and respectful in the same sentence - I doubt it.

  • flyfish42 Oct 3, 2014

    Why are Republicans so anathema to increased voter participation? Used to be that everyone sought higher voter participation.

  • Terry Watts Oct 3, 2014
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    And if by circumstance, their ballot is lost in the mail, that's just too bad for them???

    Why is it when the Federal Courts say that portions of the law violates Section 2 of the VRA, you're still defending the law???