In response to your distorted Oct. 2 editorial “ Push to suppress” regarding the election law ruling: It is important to share with some facts you omitted.
You mentioned that the Fourth Circuit – in a 2-1 split opinion – overruled two portions of the election law. What you failed to reference is that other important parts of the law highly criticized by special interest groups and the mainstream media have been allowed to move forward, including early voting that expands after-work hours for voters and the implementation of voter ID by the 2016 election cycle.
You also reference the taxpayer tab for defending this “misguided” legislation. You incorrectly say that the N.C. General Assembly has outside counsel because it didn’t trust the attorney general when, in fact, the N.C. General Assembly has hired outside counsel to co-counsel alongside the attorney general. And while you seem overly concerned about the tax money spent to defend this common-sense legislation, I have yet to see your concern regarding the copious amount of tax dollars the federal justice department has spent prosecuting the state on a law that was passed in due process, is supported by nearly two-thirds of North Carolinians and is in line with other state election laws that have been affirmed by higher courts.
Finally, I can’t let you mislead readers with the statement that voter fraud has been “virtually nonexistent” when in our state last year the N.C. State Board of Elections had to order an entirely new municipal election for the town of Pembroke after finding voter irregularities. This was on the heels of the State Board of Elections’ investigating and finding real evidence of potential fraud in voter registrations statewide.
While you chastise us with misinformation about the truth of this law, we will continue to defend it and its common-sense provisions that protect voter integrity in North Carolina while protecting every citizen’s constitutional right to participate.
State Rep. David Lewis, Dunn
The writer, a Republican, represents N.C. District 53. The length limit was waived for a fuller response to the editorial.