Citing COVID-19 concerns, Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon partially granted a temporary injunction that limits the enforcement of Alabama's voter ID law and witness/notarization requirement for absentee ballots in Jefferson, Mobile, and Lee counties. The ruling also prohibited any prohibition of curbside voting. Changing the rules less than a month before the election will likely be problematic. Widespread problems were reported during recent primary elections in states where last-minute changes were made to voting laws.

According to Politico, citing a sweeping survey by the Knight Foundation, “voter suppression” is a myth.  While Politico does not put it exactly that way, here is a key paragraph that makes that point:

Democratic campaign committees and activist groups have been spending millions of dollars to fight against a range of legal obstacles on voting, believing that making voter registration easier and keeping polls open longer would inspire more Americans to turn out.

But to nonvoters themselves, those issues don’t seem to be at the forefront of their minds . . .

Structural issues such as voter ID laws and difficulty accessing polling places didn’t come up enough to even be marked in the Knight survey results. 

Recently, voter ID has received renewed attention as President Trump has taken to Twitter and rallies to express his support for election integrity nationwide. Notably, the President tweeted last week that “No debate on Election Security should go forward without first agreeing that Voter ID must play a very strong part in any final agreement”. The debate the President refers to surrounds the Democrats’ attempt to pass provisions of H.R.1, an elections overhaul that circumvents state control of elections, handing power to the federal government.  In the words of Senate Leader Mitch McConnell HR 1 is the "Democrat Politician Protection Act."  HR 1 would effectively eliminate Voter ID. 

On Friday, a North Carolina state court judge struck down North Carolina's voter ID constitutional amendment, which passed in November with over 55% approval by the state's voters.  The judge's rationale was particularly strange and troubling:

A North Carolina judge on Friday voided new state mandates requiring photo identification to vote and also limiting income tax rates. He ruled the GOP-controlled legislature lacked authority to put those constitutional amendments on the ballot because lawmakers had been elected from racially-biased districts two years earlier.

Wake County Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins sided with the state NAACP, which had argued that General Assembly was “illegally constituted” because federal judges had declared the district maps used in the 2016 legislative elections illegal racial gerrymanders.

While the ABA, nonpartisan and Republican legal circles all agree that Thomas Farr is well qualified to be a District Court Judge, Senator Schumer and DC-based liberal judicial smear groups are attacking Mr. Farr.  The irony is that the items they are attacking him for are supported by Democrats!

First, Mr. Farr is being attacked for defending North Carolina’s voter ID law for his client, the state of North Carolina.  Putting aside the lawyer's ethical duty to his clients, voter ID is supported by a large majority of Democrats in every survey released.  The most recent survey put the numbers at 63% support for a photo ID requirement from Democrats and more interesting, 69% support from lower-educated Democrats.

The Pew Research Center released a new, extensive poll on election issues today.  This poll shows that Americans still support a requirement that voters show photo voter ID at the polls prior to voting by strong bipartisan margins:

And although about nine-in-ten Republicans (91%) favor requiring a photo ID to vote, a smaller 63% majority of Democrats favor this policy.

Much has been made in the press regarding the 53,000 voter registrations filed shortly before the registration deadline in Georgia that Secretary of State Brian Kemp was allegedly holding and not processing in order to suppress voters.  But it turns out to be the usual story: Secretary Kemp was following state law by checking the identity numbers provided in the registrations before registering the new voters and many of the "new" voter registrations either belonged to people who did not exist or who were already registered to vote.