Judge will decide on NC voter ID law. Five takeaways from day one in the courtroom.

A federal judge heard arguments in a longstanding challenge to North Carolina’s voter ID law on Monday. Depending on how she rules, the newly enacted requirement could be blocked before the November election.

Here’s what you need to know from day one of the trial.

Challengers argue the law has racist origins and impacts

The NAACP’s lawsuit, which was first filed in 2018, argues that North Carolina’s voter ID requirement discriminates against Black and Latino voters.

Kathleen Roblez, a lawyer representing the NAACP, said in her opening statement that the case was about “impermissible, intentional racial discrimination.”

She noted that the law was passed by a legislature that was found to be unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered, with the final votes coming shortly before new lawmakers took office and broke the Republican supermajority.

Roblez also said that expert reports will show the law has racist impacts. Plaintiffs commissioned a survey of North Carolina voters conducted by Matt Barreto, a political scientist at UCLA. They say it found that 93.9% of white respondents had a photo ID compared to 87.6% of Black respondents and 83.3% of Latino respondents. Details have not yet been aired in court.

Lawmakers argue the law is “one of the most permissive”

Republican lawmakers, who are named as defendants in the case, deny that the voter ID law is racist and argue that it offers broad accommodations to voters that minimize any potential disenfranchisement.

David Thompson, a lawyer representing the lawmakers, called the requirement “one of the most permissive voter ID laws in the country” in his opening statement.

He noted that free voter IDs are available at all county board of elections offices and voters can fill out ID exception forms when they go to the polls if they don’t have any identification.

Thompson rebutted claims that the gerrymandered legislature which enacted the law did so with racist intentions, saying “a legislature built on discrimination would not have created all these exceptions.”

He also cited data from the primary election in March in which over 99.9% of voters who voted in-person did not have any issues with the ID requirement.

Advocate witnesses say voter ID adds barriers to voting

The NAACP brought a variety of witnesses from advocacy organizations on Monday, who testified that the voter ID requirement made it harder to vote and created more work for get-out-the-vote groups.

Deborah Maxwell, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said the ID requirement is an additional hurdle to voting, which is already difficult for minority voters, especially in rural areas.

“This state has made it as hard as it can for marginalized individuals to vote,” she said.

The plaintiffs also called on Elma Hairston, president of the High Point NAACP, to testify. She said that her organization had spent valuable resources informing voters about the ID requirement, which could have instead gone to youth educational programs.

On cross examination, lawyers for the defendants questioned Maxwell and Hairston about the process of becoming a member of the NAACP, noting that potential NAACP members faced paperwork and costs to join, and drawing a comparison between those steps and those for voting.

Witnesses criticize free IDs and exceptions

A frequent topic of questioning during witness testimony were the exceptions and accommodations the legislature enacted alongside the voter ID requirement.

The NAACP’s witnesses questioned the effectiveness of the state’s new free voter ID cards as well as the exceptions to the ID requirement.

Maxwell noted that the free IDs are only available at county board of elections offices, some of which can be located far away from rural voters who, if they need the ID, already do not have driver’s licenses.

Iliana Santillan, the executive director of El Pueblo, an advocacy group for the Latino community, said the process of filling out an ID exception form can cause hesitation among some voters.

“People are very hesitant to fill out any kind of document,” she said, noting that some Latino voters have parents who are in the country without legal authorization and are wary of government attention. “... There’s a lot of fear within our community,” she said.

Some expert witnesses won’t be able to testify

Judge Loretta Biggs did not allow the NAACP to bring in several witnesses to provide expert testimony.

They had planned on putting James LeLoudis, a history professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, on the stand, but Biggs said the plaintiffs had not given defendants enough time to prepare for the testimony.

In her opening statement, Roblez said LeLoudis’ report to the court traces the history of racism in North Carolina politics, including recurring cycles of expansion of voting rights followed by “white backlash.”

Reports from LeLoudis and other expert witnesses will remain in the court record, but Biggs said that allowing live testimony could case “substantial prejudice” toward the legislative defendants.

This is a bench trial, meaning there is no jury. Biggs, taking into account the entirety of the court record, will make the final ruling in this case.