Stay on North Carolina’s 2013 Voting Law Holds After SCOTUS Review

Photo: Shutterstock

As the presidential election looms ever closer, states around the country are taking actions that will affect the way people vote in November. Many of those states are looking for ways to restrict voting and make it harder to get to the polls. One such state, North Carolina, has been dealt a number of legal blows to their plans to do exactly that.

In 2013, the Republican majority legislation in that state passed an omnibus bill that introduced a number of hurdles for voters. It required photo IDs at the polls, cut back on early voting, eliminated same-day registration, banned out-of-precinct voting, and prohibited early registration for young voters. These actions were purported to fight “election fraud,” an issue that numerous studies and experts have illustrated doesn’t exist.

Many critics have argued that the restrictions affect African American voters more than anyone else, and the 4th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and issued a stay that prevents the law from functioning through November. They found that the bill was aimed at “African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

Now, the Supreme Court of the United States has come to a 4-4 tie on the issue, meaning that they have handed down no official judgment, and that the stay will remain in place until after the presidential election.

If there had been a full court of nine justices, the tie could not have happened and the Supreme Court would have set a precedent. The tie broke down along liberal and conservative lines, so the court would likely have repealed the stay if Justice Scalia were still alive.

As it is, this does count as a win for voting rights advocates, and it might embolden activists in other states to challenge discriminatory voting laws. It might also have legislators trying to pass similar laws pause for thought, as the North Carolina law has served as a model for other states.

What do you think? Are the voting restrictions that states have enacted—or attempted to enact—designed to affect minority and young voters more than any others? Do you think voting rights activists will be encouraged to challenge other states’ voter rights restrictions by the lower court’s decision? Do you think this is even an issue? Please share your thoughts in the comments.