Barbara Lee v. VA State Board of Elections
843 F.3d 592
4th Cir.2016Background
- Virginia enacted SB 1256 (Va. Code § 24.2-643) in 2013, requiring photo ID to vote but allowing provisional ballots that could be "cured" by presenting photo ID within three days; the law also provided free state photo IDs without documentary requirements.
- Plaintiffs (two individual voters and the Democratic Party of Virginia) challenged SB 1256 after a bench trial, alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the First, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments.
- The district court, after a seven-day trial and extensive factual findings, concluded plaintiffs failed to prove disparate impact, discriminatory intent, or an unconstitutional burden; it denied injunctive relief and entered judgment for defendants.
- On appeal, plaintiffs argued (1) §2 disparate-impact denial/abridgment of minority voting opportunity; (2) intentional racial and age discrimination under the Constitution; (3) unconstitutional undue burden under Anderson-Burdick; and (4) a Twenty-Sixth Amendment violation.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: it found (a) SB 1256 imposes only a modest, non-substantial burden similar to laws upheld in Crawford because Virginia provides free IDs and cure procedures; (b) plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent; and (c) no violation of §2 or the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1256 violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act by producing a disparate burden on African Americans and Latinos | SB 1256 imposes a disparate inconvenience because minorities are statistically less likely to have qualifying photo IDs, so the law denies/abridges their opportunity to vote | Law provides provisional ballots, a three-day cure window, and free photo IDs without documentation; no evidence voters were denied the opportunity to vote | No §2 violation: plaintiffs failed to show members of protected classes have less opportunity; cure procedures and free IDs prevent denial/abridgment |
| Whether SB 1256 was enacted with racially discriminatory intent (Fourteenth/Fifteenth Amendments) | Circumstantial evidence (party-line votes, history of discrimination, timing after Shelby County certiorari, pattern among Republican-controlled states) shows discriminatory motive | Legislative record shows neutral objectives (aligning with HAVA, preventing fraud, confidence); process was normal and no direct evidence of intent | No discriminatory intent: record did not show Arlington Heights factors or the unusual, targeted features present in McCrory |
| Whether SB 1256 imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote under Anderson-Burdick | The travel/time to obtain a free photo ID and to cure provisional ballots is cumbersome for some voters and unjustified by the State’s interests | Burden is minimal and less than the Indiana statute upheld in Crawford; State interests (HAVA conformity, fraud prevention, voter confidence) are legitimate and sufficient | No undue burden: Anderson-Burdick/Crawford control; Virginia’s lighter accommodations and legitimate interests justify the law |
| Whether SB 1256 violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment by abridging young voters’ rights | Young voters are less likely to hold qualifying IDs; law disproportionately burdens them | No specific evidence of age-based intent or of denial/abridgment beyond general inconvenience; same accommodations apply | No Twenty-Sixth Amendment violation: plaintiffs failed to show discriminatory intent or abridgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (invalidating §5 preclearance formula and altering enforcement context for state election laws)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholding a photo‑ID law under Anderson‑Burdick and characterizing the burden of obtaining a free ID as not substantial)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (articulating framework for assessing burdens on voting rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (clarifying that reasonable, nondiscriminatory election regulations need not receive strict scrutiny)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (setting standard for proving discriminatory intent in government action)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (describing §2’s results test and how electoral structures can interact with historical conditions to cause inequality)
- League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) (addressing §2 and disparate burden analysis in voting cases)
- North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) (invalidating parts of a state election law where the record showed targeted, racially discriminatory intent)