State of South Carolina v. United States of America
898 F. Supp. 2d 30
D.D.C.2012Background
- SC Act R54 is a new voter ID law challenged under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
- Pre-existing SC law allowed non-photo voter registration cards to vote; Act R54 preserves that for those with non-photo cards via a reasonable-impediment affidavit.
- Act R54 adds three new qualifying photo IDs and creates free avenues to obtain IDs (free photo voter registration card and free DMV photo ID).
- The reasonable-impediment provision requires an affidavit at the polling place listing why a photo ID hasn’t been obtained; notaries may witness affidavits at polling places.
- SC officials interpret the provision broadly to allow voting with non-photo IDs so long as the affidavit is truthful; this interpretation is adopted as a condition of pre-clearance.
- The court pre-clears Act R54 for future elections (beginning 2013) but does not pre-clear the 2012 elections due to timing and implementation concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Act R54 have a discriminatory retrogressive effect under Section 5? | DOJ argues the law burdens minorities relative to the pre-existing law. | SC contends the expansive reasonable-impediment provision neutralizes retrogression and expands ID access. | No discriminatory retrogressive effect found. |
| Was Act R54 enacted for discriminatory purpose under Arlington Heights? | DOJ asserts discriminatory motives may be inferred from history and effects. | SC argues the law is facially neutral, with legitimate aims and mitigations negating discriminatory purpose. | No discriminatory purpose found. |
| Should Act R54 be pre-cleared for the 2012 elections? | DOJ sought pre-clearance to cover 2012 given timing and impediment provision. | SC believed implementation could be managed in 2012 with existing timelines. | Not pre-cleared for 2012 elections; pre-clearance granted for future elections from 2013 onward. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. (2008)) (upholds legitimate interests in voter ID; discusses provisional ballots)
- Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012) (provisional ballots and ameliorative effect considerations)
- Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012) (discusses burden and ameliorative provisions in evaluating retrogression)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. (1977)) (guides purpose prong analysis for discriminato ry intent)
- Feeney, Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v., 442 U.S. 256 (U.S. (1979)) (intent requires more than awareness of potential disparate impact)
- Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (U.S. (1975)) (deference to state law interpretations in part of statutory context)