The Voter Suppression Myth Takes Another Hit
DECEMBER 31, 2014
In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Robert Popper, Senior Attorney for Judicial Watch, describes how changes to North Carolina’s election laws have increased black turnout and registration, according to turnout data. Changes that were made to the election laws include requiring voters to cast ballots in their home precinct, eliminating same-day registration, and changing early voting from 17 days to 10 days. Despite this positive change, the League of Women Voters and NAACP allege, as plaintiffs in N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, that these changes in North Carolina’s election laws will lead to voter suppression of minorities. Judicial Watch supports these changes to North Carolina’s election laws, since they promote election integrity and reduce the chances of voter fraud. Read more about Judicial Watch’s efforts to counter voter fraud through its Election Integrity Project here.
This quote from Robert Popper, featured in the article, summarizes why election integrity laws have a positive impact in the states they are implemented in:
North Carolina is the latest example of allegedly “suppressive” laws that failed to suppress votes. The adoption of controversial voter-ID laws in recent years in Georgia and Tennessee had no negative effect on minority turnout, which either remained stable or increased. For example, according to surveys by the U.S. Census Bureau, turnout among blacks of voting age in Tennessee in 2012 remained stable within the margin of error, and was around 4% higher than white turnout. Turnout among Hispanic voters rose. It is becoming harder to ignore the data suggesting that the “voter suppression” narrative is a myth.