NC Policy Watch offers an excellent and comprehensive review of the NC GOP's voter suppression agenda, with lots of dirty details showing their intent was and is nothing but discriminatory.
Proponents of what would become one of the most restrictive voting laws in the nation were keen on learning just whose votes they’d be suppressing. And when the numbers placed before them revealed that in large part those votes belonged to African Americans, seniors, and young voters, they pushed their bill to passage in a hurry.
“From the very conception of House Bill 589, the main sponsors of the bill had sought and obtained information from the State Board of Elections indicating that the challenged provisions repealed practices used disproportionately by African Americans,” groups opposing the new voting law said in recent court filings.
Though still in the midst of a battle with lawmakers over disclosure of such emails and documents in advance of a July 2015 trial, those groups and the U.S. Department of Justice are now asking the court to block the state from enforcing voting changes during the November 2014 elections.
The fact that the legislature and governor are moving mountains to maintain secrecy and keep their work out of the public spotlight speaks volumes about their motives and intent. This is the "transparency" that Thom Tillis and Pat McCrory promised.
Despite two court rulings to the contrary, lawmakers are still holding on to plenty of documents, claiming still that the privilege protects them from disclosing records in their possession — regardless of whether they’ve already been produced by or shared with third parties, like state agencies and lobbyists. But the groups challenging the law say that the court has already rejected that argument and that in any event, many of those documents are public records that must produced.
“Such communications are likely to shed light on the sequence of events leading up to passage of HB 589 and reveal contemporaneous statements and viewpoints held by the decision-makers, all highly relevant to the question of discriminatory intent,” the Justice Department said in a recent court filing.
Documents already produced by agencies like the State Board of Elections prove that point.