"Expert" Witness Calls Voter ID Law "Racist" Without Even Reading It

On Monday, a trial began before the North Carolina Superior Court to determine whether a 2018 law to implement North Carolina's voter ID amendment is constitutional. Emory University professor Carol Anderson was called to testify to the link between the law and racially biased voting restrictions of the past. The only problem? She hadn't read the law being challenged before writing a report about it and didn't even know who sponsored the bill that enacted the law.

A press release from North Carolina Senate Leader Phil Berger noted:

The expert witness called to testify against the voter ID law admitted she hadn’t read the bill before writing her report, didn’t know the primary sponsor was an African American Democrat, and didn’t know that the bill included seven Democratic-sponsored amendments. . .

This “expert” testimony reveals the anti-voter ID case is based on nothing but fiery rhetoric and baseless smears. The person called upon to testify about the bill as an expert witness didn’t even bother to read it before concluding that it’s surely “racist.”

As the Lawyers Democracy Fund points out, requiring photo ID to vote is a measure that most voters support.

So what is actually in the law that the witness considers to be racist? According to a fact sheet from the North Carolina General Assembly:

• The measure is among the most permissive photo voter ID laws in the country.

• Dozens of photo IDs are acceptable for voting, including driver’s licenses, student IDs, tribal IDs, military IDs, public assistance IDs, state and local government IDs, passports, and more.

• The law also creates a new photo voter ID to be provided for free at county boards of elections to voters who request one.

• Any voter without a photo ID at a polling place may fill out a “reasonable impediment” form and still cast a ballot.

The testimony from Professor Anderson is just the latest example of groups on the Left who are not interested in the facts when it doesn't fit their voter suppression narrative.