NC NAACP Vows to Continue Advocacy for Voters as Federal Judge Rules on North Carolina’s Discriminatory Photo Voter ID Law
RALEIGH, N.C - Nearly two years after the trial concluded, a federal Judge ruled in favor of Defendants in a federal challenge to North Carolina’s photo ID law, citing drastic changes in the law of Federal Courts as the driving force behind the decision.
Despite the immediate ruling’s failure to overturn the discriminatory law, the Federal District Court agreed with Plaintiffs throughout the decision, including recognition of the deeply discriminatory racial impact of the law, stating that “the record before this Court makes clear that [because of this law] it is simply much more difficult for racial minorities to vote and to have their vote counted.” In her ruling, Federal Fourth Circuit Court Judge Loretta Biggs recognized the regression in civil rights law since the case was filed: “The law of the United States Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals related to the issues presented by the instant case have undergone, and continue to undergo, dramatic change. Consequently, this Court…concludes that it is compelled by controlling case law to render Judgment in favor of the Defendants...”
This ruling arrives as shifts in the federal landscape continue to threaten the foundations of our democracy. Through the SAVE Act, the Trump administration has pushed for proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration, a measure that would create new barriers for millions of eligible voters who lack required documentation. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could gut what remains of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The decision also comes against a backdrop of seismic shifts in North Carolina’s political landscape. This week, Phil Berger, the named defendant in this case, conceded his state Senate primary race after losing by just 23 votes. The razor thin margin in this race underscores a truth voting rights advocates have long known: every single vote matters, the people have power, and that is why the attacks on the right to vote are increasing.
The NC NAACP and its legal team are reviewing all options including the scope of our appeal in the coming weeks, against this backdrop. Ultimately, the truth, the law, and the will of the voters will bring justice and tides will change. Already, even under the current discriminatory law, we have fought back to ensure that every eligible voter must be allowed to cast a vote with or without a photo identification and must be offered a reasonable impediment form to allow for them to cast a ballot. But, failures in the administration of the law, disinformation, and misinformation about voter’s rights have done great harm.
Witness Cedric Baker, a hardworking father of three and first-time voter, was ultimately disenfranchised in 2024 as a direct result of this law. Because his ID had expired, it was not accepted and he was given a provisional ballot. He noted that he had not known he even needed a photo ID to vote. Due to his work schedule conflicting with the DMV hours of operation, he was unable to return with an acceptable ID in time to have his ballot count.
Witness Robert Fletcher, a retiree and voter since the 1970s, had his wallet stolen, which held his photo ID. He managed to obtain a temporary ID from the DMV, but it expired by the time he went to vote, resulting in him being required to cast a provisional ballot due to the voter ID requirement. He was unable to return to complete the burdensome photo ID cure process due to family obligations, resulting in his vote being denied.
Mr. Baker, Mr. Fletcher, and thousands of other North Carolinians have been wrongly disenfranchised by this law. The law requires that we understand the implications of discriminatory voter suppression in the context of statewide elections that are often determined by a fraction of a single percentage point.
Caitlin Swain, Executive Director of Forward Justice and leading attorney on the case explained, “This fight is far from over. The evidence of discrimination before the court, strongly credited throughout the 130-page opinion, and the week’s worth of expert testimonial evidence, excluded over vehement objections by our clients, more than overcame Plaintiff's burden in this case. Let us be clear: the number of North Carolinians impacted by this discriminatory photo voter ID law since its implementation, and the numbers of voters denied the right to vote due to this law, are results-changing numbers. As the Court recognized, the burden of this law is significant, and it falls disproportionately on Black voters. The people of this state want free and fair elections. North Carolinians do not want their neighbors unjustly denied the right to vote and they do not want discrimination at the ballot box. That is exactly what the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act requires, and we will not stop fighting until that fundamental right is fully recognized.”
NC NAACP President, Deborah Dicks Maxwell says, “We remain undeterred because we know our history, and we know North Carolina. This decision will help to shine a spotlight on all the voters that the General Assembly’s previous majority wanted to disenfranchise. We understand the assignment. Our work is to ensure that voters know they are welcome in this democracy and that their voices and votes are needed now more than ever. There are 221 days until the general election, which is expected to bring a historic turnout as the primary did. We will continue the fight against illegal discrimination and to ensure voters know their rights and know that they are protected in exercising them - including that they should be given the option to vote even if they do not have one of the required forms of photo identification.”
Irving Loyner, Legal Redress Chair for NC NAACP says, “We are disappointed with Judge Biggs’ conclusion of law, which she felt compelled to make based on her understanding of new and different legal standards. We are encouraged by her repeated factual conclusions that the North Carolina Photo Voter ID statute poses “a significant disparate burden” upon African American voters in North Carolina. This factual conclusion resulted from the strength of the evidence which we presented at trial. Not included in Judge Biggs’ analysis was plenary evidence presented during the trial of this case which addressed the “good faith” which she felt compelled to attribute to the actions of the North Carolina General Assembly. On that and other legal points, we vigorously disagree with the ultimate decision which Judge Biggs rendered. Because of the high importance that we attach to the right to vote, we can’t retreat from decisions, statutes, and other actions which are designed to disenfranchise African Americans and people of color in this country and State. Accordingly, we are still reviewing this opinion and the supporting law which Judge Biggs relied upon but, at this point, we lean toward appealing this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. As soon as that decision is made, which will be soon, we will make that announcement.”
Additional information: Filed in December of 2018, the lawsuit alleges that the law, SB 824, was passed with discriminatory intent and designed to dilute the voting power of Black and brown voters. In December 2019, The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the NC NAACP’s motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking North Carolina’s photo voter ID law from going into effect. In December 2020, A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction decision of the District Court, paving the way for photo voter ID to be implemented in NC.
In May of 2024 the case went to trial. Attorneys for the NC NAACP argued that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Testimony was heard from voting rights advocates, community leaders, current and former elected officials, elections officials, and community members about the the tangible harm the state's photo voter ID law is inflicting, their experiences with voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, and why they believed it should have been permanently enjoined. An information kit on the case can be found here