Voters Disenfranchised by N.C. Supreme Court

By Bob Hall, Democracy North Carolina

In early February, the N.C. Supreme Court outlawed all the ballots cast on Election Day by voters at a polling place outside their home precinct. Out-of-precinct voting began in North Carolina as part of a national effort to provide secure and accessible voting opportunities. The Court's disappointing decision moves us backwards, further away from fulfilling the promise of "one person, one vote."

At a minimum, the Supreme Court has just disenfranchised more than 11,000 citizens who followed the rules and cast provisional ballots. Many of them weren't notified where to vote because of the backlog in processing a record number of new registrations. On the other hand, more than one million North Carolinians cast out-of-precinct ballots during the early voting period in 2004. Inexplicably, the Supreme Court allows those votes to count but rejects those cast out-of-precinct on Election Day.

The Court's decision is simply wrong when it says the State Board of Elections counted these "improper" votes in an "unauthorized," "unilateral" manner. Legislative leaders of both major parties knew that the 2003 state law authorizing provisional ballots would allow out-of-precinct and partial-ballot voting in the voter's "jurisdiction" (i.e., county). NCGS 163-166.11(3) and (5) indicate ballots shall be counted "in whole or in part" after a determination of "all ballot items on which . . . the individual was eligible under State or federal law to vote."

After the 2003 law passed, the State Board of Elections staff developed regulations to administer the provisional voting process fairly and efficiently. Those regulations, including how to handle out-of-precinct voting, were approved by the Republican and Democratic members of the Board and by the U.S. Justice Department, which must pre-clear election changes in compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act.

As the Court notes, North Carolina's statutes speak about "the precinct" as central to the voting process. The new law does create conflicting language in the statutes. But rather than disenfranchise voters, we should insist that state law be amended to define clearly a fail-safe method for fraud-free, out-of-precinct, same-county voting similar to the early voting process. The language in the state constitution requiring a person to vote in their "precinct, ward or other election district" should also be clarified to make it plain that "other election district" means "county."

Given today's technology and mobility, the precinct has become an obsolete administrative unit for casting a ballot, as the popularity of early voting demonstrates. The Court's decision is wrong when it says there is "no way" to allow out-of-precinct voting "without overwhelming delays, mass confusion, and the potential for fraud." In fact, there was no evidence in the record that out-of-precinct balloting caused "mass confusion" or similar problems in North Carolina.

The Court uses speculation and fear of chaos to justify a decision it did not need to make. The justices seems not to understand the mechanics of securing the integrity of the voting system, nor do they recognize how the out-of-precinct voting tool is especially helpful to voters who recently registered or moved within the county, who don't have the freedom to take off several hours from work, or who don't have easy access to transportation. Out-of-precinct voting especially helps working class, young, and minority voters. Our research shows that black voters cast more than one third of the state's out-of-precinct ballots, while less than one fifth of all votes in November's election came from African Americans.

To now throw out all these votes, to spurn these voters who obeyed the rules, sends a terrible message. The State Board of Elections, encouraged by the Democratic Party, made a major mistake when it didn't fix the problem of 4,438 lost votes in Carteret County. Now the state Supreme Court, encouraged by the Republican Party, has disenfranchised another group of voters. In a state where barely half the adults register and vote, we should be applauding citizens who follow the rules and vote, not finding ways to dismiss their efforts.

(Source, emphasis added.)