By Wendy Underhill
Voter ID laws are back in the news, with a New York Times piece on what they may mean for the fall’s election, and court rulings in Texas and North Carolina last week. The court actions brought to mind the old maxim “don’t change horses in the middle of a stream,” with the stream being, in this case, the run-up to a major election.
That’s because in both cases the status quo was maintained—the voter ID laws in place in those states can stay in place, at least for now, and at least in part because sudden changes in election policy are unwise. (For the legal scholars out there, it’s the Purcell Principle in effect.)
In North Carolina, a 2013 election reform law that included a voter ID requirement among several other changes was upheld in federal court. That law went into effect this year for the first time in the March primary, and remains in effect while appeals are pending.
In Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block Texas from using its strict voter ID law this year. The 2011 law has faced challenges from the get-go, and in lower courts has been found to be unconstitutional. Still, it is in effect while awaiting a hearing in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled for May.
The court’s refusal to block the law, as plaintiffs had requested, included setting a deadline: either the 5th Circuit rules by July 20, or the Supreme Court will look at the request again. This decision was based on “time constraints” that Texas faces in preparing for the November election. Election officials and voters both benefit when the rules are crystal clear well in advance.
North Carolina and Texas are two among nine states that plan on having strict voter ID laws in place for the November election—unless, of course, the appeals decisions go the other way. (A total of 33 states will require a voter to show some form of ID this year.)
In the long term, the question is, what’s next for voter ID in North Carolina, Texas and other states? Another maxim provides an answer: “It ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings.” In this case, the fat lady isn’t a soprano, it’s the Supreme Court, which many observers think will take up one of these cases in due time. Only then will the states know what’s final.
Wendy Underhill is the program director for elections and redistricting at NCSL.
Email Wendy