[EL] North Carolina voter id ruling/more Cruz loans

Fri Jan 15 16:23:09 PST 2016

    Federal Court Denies NAACP Preliminary Injunction in North Carolina
    Voter ID Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79062>

Posted onJanuary 15, 2016 3:56 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79062>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Winston Salem-Journal: 
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/judge-denies-preliminary-injunction-in-voter-id-law-voters-will/article_b0cd7668-cc8e-5c4c-9068-a391ca9dd4ba.html?platform=hootsuite>

    A federal judge denied a preliminary injunction against North
    Carolina’s photo ID requirement Friday.

    The ruling by U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder means that
    voters will have to show a photo ID during the March 15 primary.
    Early voting begins in that primary, which includes candidates for
    U.S. president, on March 3.

UPDATE: The judge’s 54-page opinion and order ishere 
<http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/sites/ncmd/files/opinions/13cv658moo_0.pdf>.

In a detailed opinion, the court concludes: “On the present record, 
NAACP Plaintiffs have failed to clearly demonstrate that they are likely 
to succeed on the merits or that the balance of the equities or public 
interest favors an injunction.”

The court found that with the reasonable impediment exemption to the 
law, the law is not all that burdensome and is therefore unlikely to be 
found to be illegal:

    When the State did not have a reasonable impediment exception, NAACP
    Plaintiffs claimed the burden imposed on the socioeconomically
    disadvantaged was too severe. Now that the State has sought to
    accommodate these voters with the reasonable impediment exception,
    Plaintiffs claim that the exception swallows the rule and that the
    State need not have a photo-ID requirement. This court finds any
    alleged diminution in achieving the State’s purported interest to be
    more than offset by the reduction of burden achieved by the
    reasonable impediment exception.

Significantly for how the district court is going to decide not only the 
voter id challenge, but the challenge to North Carolina’s restrictive 
voter rule overall, the court looks likely to reject claims that the law 
was enacted with an unconstitutional racially discriminatory purpose:

    Finally, NAACP Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the photo-ID provision of
    SL 2013-381 on the grounds it was adopted with discriminatory
    intent. The question of discriminatory intent in these cases –
    including as it related to the photo-ID requirement – was fully
    tried by this court in July 2015. As noted above, the record in that
    case is extensive (over 20,000 pages), and the court is working
    diligently to decide all claims related to all of the other
    challenged provisions of SL 2013-381. Thus, the court is not
    prepared to definitively resolve that claim here, especially since
    evidence as to the reasonable impediment exception has yet to be
    heard at trial. But the court has considered all evidence of intent
    (including that related to other the challenged provisions) and can
    say that, based on its current review, NAACP Plaintiffs have not
    demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the
    photo-ID intent claim.

I think:

 1. This denial of a preliminary injunction is unlikely to be reversed
    on appeal, given this record.
 2. This is a careful, thoughtful opinion, which shows the judge making
    a serious effort to deal with the evidence.
 3. Although the court does not express a view on the other issues in
    the case, or on the section 2 claims generally, if I were a betting
    person I’m guessing this judge is likely to reject the other
    challenges to North Carolina’s law (which is consistent with the
    impression I had from reading about the arguments over the summer),
    leaving the potential for a btter result in the 4th Circuit (perhaps
    ultimately to be reviewed by the Supreme Court).  But this is
    speculative on my part at this time.

This post has been updated.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79062&title=Federal%20Court%20Denies%20NAACP%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20in%20North%20Carolina%20Voter%20ID%20Case&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=79062&action=edit>

    “Ted Cruz Failed to Report a Second Campaign Loan in 2012”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79060>

Posted onJanuary 15, 2016 3:50 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79060>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/us/politics/ted-cruz-failed-to-report-a-second-campaign-loan-in-2012.html>:

    he Republican presidential candidateTed Cruz
    <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/ted-cruz-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per>,
    already facing scrutiny fornot disclosing a Goldman Sachs loan
    <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-wall-street-loan-senate-bid-2012.html>he
    used for his 2012 Senate campaign, also failed to disclose a second
    loan, from Citibank, for the same race, according to a letter he
    sent Thursday to federal election officials.

    The one-page letter said that the “underlying source” of money for a
    series of personal loans Mr. Cruz made to his Senate campaign in
    Texas included both bank loans, which totaled as much as $1 million.
    Both loans were “inadvertently omitted” from the required filings,
    the letter said. Previously, Mr. Cruz has only acknowledged using
    the loan from Goldman for his campaign.

    The latest disclosure casts further doubt on his oft-stated story of
    having liquidated his entire family savings of slightly more than $1
    million to fuel a come-from-behind win in the Republican primary.
    The tale has become part of a campaign narrative of a populist,
    scrappy Mr. Cruz putting everything on the line to overcome a
    wealthy establishment opponent.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79060&title=%26%238220%3BTed%20Cruz%20Failed%20to%20Report%20a%20Second%20Campaign%20Loan%20in%202012%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=79060&action=edit>

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160115/7c04e011/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160115/7c04e011/attachment.png>