raw/train/33/1484434933.json

{"source_url": "https://electionlawblog.org", "url": "https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108630", "title": "Federal court issues preliminary injunction against 2018 NC voter ID law", "top_image": "https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/favicon1.ico", "meta_img": "https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/favicon1.ico", "images": ["http://www.wklegaledu.com/ProductImages//d6aa21a6-37e0-4a14-88f1-e03916dcd5f0/images/9781454891277_FC.jpg", "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/sites/default/files/styles/book_jacket/public/imagecache/external/7c76fbfa722f7399a2273b0dfc106569.jpg?itok=IpT7Lemg", "http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/remedies.4th.jpg", "http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/el6e.png", "http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/1454804041.jpg", "https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/favicon1.ico", "http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/follow_me-a.png", "https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/em-cover.jpg", "https://electionlawblog.org/archives/UCILawlogo_hi-res_small.jpg", "https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/ee-2-cover.jpg", "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/sites/default/files/styles/book_jacket/public/imagecache/external/f3966cedc81db3f7e24b838078fbb7bc.jpg?itok=ditUPkwf", "http://electionlawblog.org/archives/images/supremecourt.gif", "http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon32x32.png", "https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/hdrELB33-20180810-1.jpg", "https://electionlawblog.org/share_save_120_16.png", "http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/plutocrats-cover.jpg", "https://electionlawblog.org/archives/facebook.gif", "https://c.statcounter.com/10448416/0/4b609e62/0/"], "movies": [], "text": "The law, enacted over the Governor\u2019s veto, usually requires a qualifying photo ID to vote. As compared to the previous ID law passed in the wake of Shelby County and invalidated in 2016, it expands the list of acceptable IDs (to a list of 10 different types, though with limits on student and government employee IDs) and the means of getting a free ID, applies to absentee as well as in-person ballots, and allows for a voter with a reasonable impediment to getting a photo ID to say so at the polls in order to vote a ballot that should count \u2026 if the administrative process works smoothly.\n\nThe court enjoined the law as the product of discriminatory intent, but found that the proven impact was (at least at the preliminary stage) insufficient to make out a \u201cresults\u201d violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Stay tuned for the inevitable appeal.\n\nCoverage of the federal court\u2019s decision is here, here, and here. The order itself is here.", "keywords": [], "meta_keywords": [""], "tags": [], "authors": ["Justin Levitt"], "publish_date": null, "summary": "", "article_html": "", "meta_description": "", "meta_lang": "en", "meta_favicon": "/wp-content/uploads/favicon1.ico", "meta_data": {"viewport": "width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, maximum-scale=2.0, user-scalable=yes", "generator": "WordPress 5.3.2"}, "canonical_link": "https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108630"}