Before opening the floor to speakers, George McCue, the board’s rulemaking coordinator, stressed that the board did not have the power to change the law already passed by the General Assembly. He asked speakers to make comments relevant to the rules rather than about their views on the law itself. Despite this, many speakers expressed their disapproval with the law before making their comments on the rules. 

Kasey DeLancy attended the hearing and noticed this trend of disapproval. However, she said she does not think anything could have been done to prevent the widespread disapproval of attendees. 

“I feel like it (turnout) was slanted toward those who oppose voter ID,” she said.

Despite their opposition to the law itself, many speakers commended the board for writing what they felt were fair and flexible rules in determining whether or not a person’s presented identification is acceptable. 

Voter Fraud 

Still, some speakers expressed support for the law on the basis that it will curb voter fraud. Carl Lobst said the law was fair and helped ensure the integrity of the voting process. 

“Otherwise how can any lawful citizen have confidence that their lawful use of the franchise is not overturned by fraudulent, illegal voting?” he asked. 

Greg Walter said every fraudulent vote cast negates the legitimate votes of other people. 

“I believe there is a lot of it going on. It’s just been warily investigated and prosecuted,” he said. “And until this law was passed it was very, very easy to cast multiple votes.”

The proposed rules allow people whose addresses do not match on their identification and registration to still vote. Walter suggested requiring these people to sign an affidavit and go on record explaining why the discrepancy exists. 

Walter moved from North Carolina and now resides in Florida, but he said his name remained on the North Carolina voter rolls for some time. He argued that people in similar circumstances could show a passport with an out-of-state address and still be allowed to vote. 

Still, other speakers criticized this oft-employed argument about fraud. 

Isabel Carson, an attorney in Asheville, said the law is addressing “a largely nonexistent problem.” 

“Evidence of voter fraud is scarce and insubstantial when compared to the widespread disenfranchisement effects of these voter ID restrictions,” she said. 

Substantially similar 

Many people expressed support for the rule that names on registration and identification must be “substantially similar.” This would allow for variations in the order of names and for changes with maiden and middle names. 

Jane Hipps said she went by her middle name growing up and dropped her first name after getting married. It took the North Carolina Department of Transportation 30 years to accept her new name, she said. 

“The question then was: Is Jane Bates Hipps the same person as Jane Hipps? My question now is: If this were my situation in 2016, would I be able to vote?” she said. “According to the rules, variations of maiden and married names are OK. Let’s keep this provision exactly as it is.”  

Kim Hoang, however, still thought the rules could be more accommodating for variations in names. A student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Hoang said the proposed rules might be narrow for immigrant families.  

“They may have names they go by that are different from the name that is either on their government-issued ID or registration,” she said. “For example, a person’s birth name may be Thunuyen… But she might go by Tracy just to make things easier.” 

Reasonable Resemblance 

Most people also thought the rule suggesting voters must only reasonably resemble their identification pictures was fair. 

However, some still showed concern over how judges will determine what constitutes reasonable resemblance. Kathleen Barnes, speaking on behalf of the Transylvania County NAACP, noted that people recognize each other based on characteristics such as hair color, skin tone, height and weight — characteristics the proposed rules say election officials should not base their decisions on.  

“I think we’re putting an unfair burden on election officials to make these judgments of reasonable resemblance,” she said. “I think it could cause disenfranchisement. At the very least it could cause a slow-down in the lines.”

She worried this slow-down could lead to disenfranchisement for people who have to get back to work and do not have the time to wait in long lines. 

Aiden Carson, speaking on behalf of the Asheville League of Women Voters, said the rules need more clarity because “enforcement of the rule is bound to vary from official to official, precinct to precinct.” 

“The League of Women Voters supports the constitutional right of all eligible voters,” she said. “And we urge the State Board of Elections to make rules that are clear, unambiguous and uniformly enforceable so that any such rules will fully safeguard the long-fought-for rights and privileges so important to the citizens of our state and to the preservation of that most important right in a democracy — to be able to vote.”

Monitoring bias

Because of the subjective nature of determining definitions of “substantially similar” and “reasonable resemblance,” several speakers advocated for programs to monitor potential bias in election officials. 

Many also encouraged the board to draft rules requiring documentation of the election officials who determine that certain people do not have valid forms of identification. 

Kathleen Valenti suggested requiring election officials to go through a training program that would make them more aware of potential biases. 

She said the board should be proactive in implementing these programs “given the fact that bias is such an unconscious kind of process psychologically.”  

Pending litigation

A few speakers commented on advertisements that people will have to show identification to vote in 2016, pointing out that the law is still caught up in litigation. 

“By telling people they’re going to have to have an ID, that is going to keep many people away,” Barnes said. 

She cited studies showing a decrease in voter turnout in Pennsylvania after its voter identification law was struck down because many people still believed they would have to show a form of identification. 

“What we suggest that you do is advertise you may need a voter ID to vote in 2016 pending upcoming court decisions,” she said. “I think that would be a much more fair way to look at things.”

Watch the hearing

To see a video of the public hearing held in Sylva last week, visit www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol7Y2DQsrZs, courtesy of Canary Coalition.