The Justice Department filed suit against North Carolina on Monday, charging that the Tar Heel State’s new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls violates the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against African-Americans. 
 
 Attorney General Eric Holder announced the lawsuit at Justice Department headquarters, flanked by the three U.S. attorneys from North Carolina. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 “Allowing limits on voting rights that disproportionately exclude minority voters would be inconsistent with our ideals as a nation,” Holder said. “And it would not be in keeping with the proud tradition of democracy that North Carolinians have built in recent years.” 
 
 (QUIZ: How well do you know Eric Holder?) 
 
 Holder charged that North Carolina’s legislation wouldn’t just incidentally hurt African American turnout, but was intentionally designed that way. 
 
 “The Justice Department expects to show that the clear and intended effects of these changes would contract the electorate and result in unequal access to participation in the political process on account of race,” the attorney general said. 
 
 The suit, filed in Greensboro, N.C., asks that the state be barred from enforcing the new voter-ID law. However, the case goes further, demanding that the entire state of North Carolina be placed under a requirement to have all changes to voting laws, procedures and polling places “precleared” by either the Justice Department or a federal court, the source added. 
 
 Until this year, 40 North Carolina counties were under such a requirement. However, in June the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the formula Congress used to subject all or part of 15 states to preclearance in recent decades. 
 
 (PHOTOS: Eric Holder’s career) 
 
 The justices’ 5-4 ruling outraged civil-rights advocates, but did not disturb a rarely used “bail in” provision in the law that allows judges to put states or localities under the preclearance requirement. Civil rights groups and the Justice Department have since seized on that provision to try to recreate part of the regime that existed prior to the Supreme Court decision. 
 
 North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, signed the voter ID measure into law last last month. 
 
 “Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote,” McCrory said at the time. “This new law brings our state in line with a healthy majority of other states throughout the country. This common-sense safeguard is commonplace.” 
 
 A law mandating a photo ID for voting was not on the books in North Carolina during the 2012 presidential election. Such a measure passed in 2011 but was vetoed by then-Gov. Bev Perdue, a Democrat. The Legislature failed to override her veto. 
 
 (PHOTOS: 7 controversial voter ID quotes) 
 
 DOJ’s lawsuit objects to the law’s photo ID requirement as well as three other key provisions: the elimination of the first seven days of early voting that took place in 2012, the end to same-day voter registration during the early voting period, and the end to the option of provisional ballots for voters who show up at the wrong polling place. 
 
 The chief of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Jocelyn Samuels, said the lawsuit argues that the law has the “purpose, intent and effect of discriminating on the basis of race.” 
 
 A North Carolina Board of Elections study in April of this year found that more than 300,000 registered voters in the state did not have a Department of Motor Vehicles-issued ID. African-Americans accounted for 34 percent of those who did not match with the DMV records, although they account for only about 22 percent of registered voters in the state. 
 
 Proponents of voter ID laws have argued that they prevent voter fraud, but Holder said Monday that there’s no evidence such a phenomenon is widespread. 
 
 “The proof of that is simply not there,” Holder said. “All the studies I have seen, that are reputable, indicate this concern about vote fraud is something that is made up.” 
 
 Holder also said some of the provisions in the North Carolina law didn’t seem to have any logical connection to fraud. “It’s hard to see how…cutting back on early voting hours has anything to do with vote fraud,” he said. 
 
 DOJ moved in July to put Texas, which had been subject to preclearance statewide until the June Supreme Court ruling, back under preclearance requirements. That move came first in a pending lawsuit over redistricting in the state and later in another case over that state’s voter ID law. 
 
 In the Texas cases, the Justice Department is asking that the state be put under preclearance for ten years. However, in the North Carolina case, federal government lawyers are not seeking a specific duration for the new preclearance requirement. 
 
 Judges have yet to act on those requests. However, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, complained that the Justice Department’s demand disrespected the Supreme Court decision. 
 
 “This end run around the Supreme Court undermines the will of the people of Texas, and casts unfair aspersions on our state’s common-sense efforts to preserve the integrity of our elections process,” Perry said in a statement. 
 
 In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that an Indiana voter ID law was constitutional. However, the justices did not deal with the question of whether that law or a similar law in another state might violate the Voting Rights Act. Civil rights advocates have insisted that the Voting Rights Act puts a greater burden on states seeking to restrict voting when doing so disproportionately affects minority groups. ||||| The U.S. Department of Justice will file a lawsuit Monday to stop North Carolinas new voter ID law, which critics have said is the most sweeping law of its kind, according to a person briefed on the departments plans. 
 
 Attorney General Eric Holder, who has said he will fight state voting laws that he sees as discriminatory, will announce the lawsuit at noon Monday, along with the three U.S. attorneys from the state. 
 
 Critics said the law will disenfranchise African-American and elderly voters, while the Republican-led General Assembly in Raleigh said the law will protect the states voters from potential fraud. 
 
 In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act, which required a handful of mostly Southern states to get approval from the Justice Department before making changes to their voting laws. The entire state of North Carolina wasnt covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, though several counties were covered by the landmark law and had been subjected to additional federal scrutiny. 
 
 Since that case, the Obama administration filed suit in August to stop a new voter ID law in Texas. North Carolina is the second state it has sued since the so-called preclearance list of Southern states was overturned by the Supreme Court. 
 
 The North Carolina ID law, which was signed by Gov. Pat McCrory in August, goes into effect for the 2016 elections. It requires voters to show a valid, government-issued ID before casting a ballot. It also has a number of other provisions, which will be challenged in the federal lawsuit, according to the person briefed on the Justice Departments plans. 
 
 Among them: the elimination of seven days of early voting; the elimination of same-day registration during early voting; the prohibition against counting provisional ballots that are cast when a voter shows up at the wrong polling place. 
 
 But requiring voters to show a government-issued ID is believed to be the heart of the lawsuit. Student IDs are not allowed. 
 
 Bob Hall, head of Democracy North Carolina, an election advocacy group, said it was important for the federal government to get involved. Hall said African-Americans are 23 percent of registered voters in North Carolina but made up 29 percent of early voters in 2012, 30 percent of those who cast out-of-precinct ballots, 34 percent of the 318,000 registered voters without state-issued IDs, and 41 percent of those who used same-day registration. 
 
 It's important to recognize that eliminating or restricting those particular features hurt certain people, Hall said. 
 
 State Sen. Bob Rucho, a Mecklenburg County Republican who has supported the elections law changes, said Sunday night that he had not seen the complaint and could not comment. Let's see what the complaint is first, Rucho said. 
 
 The Rev. William Barber II, head of the state NAACP, which has filed lawsuits in federal court and the North Carolina courts, challenging the law, said Sunday that he was glad to have assistance from the federal government. We need every resource, including the federal Department of Justice, to stand against the fundamental attack on democracy, Barber said. This law went beyond the pale and all North Carolinians should be repulsed by this effort to turn the clock back on voting rights in this state. 
 
 The federal government will charge that the state was willfully discriminatory when it passed the law. Part of that charge is a 2013 analysis by the N.C. Board of Elections, which said that more than 300,000 registered voters did not have a DMV-issued ID. 
 
 In addition to asking that the Voter ID law be struck down, the Justice Department is seeking to have North Carolina put back on the preclearance list that requires the federal government to approve changes to voter laws. 
 
 In the Supreme Court case that struck down the preclearance list, Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court said that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act wasnt unconstitional. Section 5 requires some states and counties to get preapproval for changes to their voting laws. 
 
 But the 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder found that the preclearance list itself  which is nearly 40 years old  was outdated and unconstitutional. 
 
 Congress could pass a new list of states that need pre-clearance, though that is seen as unlikely in todays divided government. 
 
 Pennsylvania passed a voter ID law before the 2012 presidential election. A state judge delayed the implementation of that law after civil rights groups sued to stop it. Pennsylvania was not subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 
 
 Cleve Wootson contributed. ||||| — Gov. Pat McCrory on Monday signed into law a bill requiring voters to produce a photo ID when they go to the polls, and it was immediately met with legal challenges in federal court questioning its constitutionality. 
 
 The new law brings sweeping changes to the states election process by reducing the early-voting period by a week, abolishing same-day voter registration and ending straight-party voting. 
 
 North Carolinians overwhelmingly support a common-sense law that requires voters to present photo identification in order to cast a ballot, McCrory said in a statement. I am proud to sign this legislation into law. Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote. 
 
 North Carolina becomes one of 34 states with some form of voter ID law. The voter ID provision goes into effect for the 2016 election. 
 
 Now the fight moves from the political arena to the courts. 
 
 Just hours after McCrory signed the bill, two separate lawsuits challenging the law were filed in federal court in Greensboro. A third lawsuit is expected to be filed in state court Tuesday. Congressman G.K. Butterfield also asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to take swift and decisive action by using any legal mechanisms to protect North Carolinas voting rights. 
 
 With one stroke of the pen, McCrory has effectively reversed 30 years of progress and reinstated practices similar to the discriminatory Southern Strategy adopted by the Republican Party in the 60s and 70s, said Butterfield, a former N.C. Supreme Court justice. Without question, today is a shameful day for Republicans in North Carolina. 
 
 In a speech last month, Holder said his office was going to challenge a Texas voter identification law and made it clear his office would not stop with Texas. 
 
 Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the courts ruling, we plan to fully utilize the laws remaining sections to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected, he said. 
 
 Brings state in line 
 
 McCrorys decision to sign the bill was no surprise. He voiced strong support for voter ID during his campaign for governor last year. 
 
 The measure turned into a politically explosive issue when thousands descended on the legislature as part of the Moral Monday protests and many black lawmakers began comparing the bill to efforts to bring back the old Jim Crow race laws. 
 
 Emotions were made even more raw after the legislature dumped a bill passed by the House after extensive public hearings, for the more hard-line measure pushed through by Senate conservatives in the final days of the session with little public airing. 
 
 McCrory held no public signing ceremony as he has done with other legislation. Instead, he put out written and video news releases extolling the measure. 
 
 While some will try to make this seem to be controversial, the simple reality is that requiring voters to provide a photo ID when they vote is a common-sense idea, McCrory said. This new law brings our state in line with a majority of other states throughout the country. 
 
 The push for such voter ID laws began in the mid-1990s and have been passed by Republican majorities over the strong opposition of Democrats. 
 
 The idea of requiring identification to vote has since become popular with the public, and McCrory cited several public opinion polls showing 67 percent to 75 percent of North Carolinians favoring voter ID. But he did not mention other polls that show other provisions in the bill  such as shortening the early voting period  are quite unpopular with Tar Heel voters. 
 
 A new survey by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm in Raleigh, found that only 33 percent of voters support reducing early voting by a week, while 59 percent opposed it. Only 21 percent of voters support eliminating straight-party voting, while 68 percent oppose it. 
 
 McCrory did not campaign on reducing early voting, and remained largely silent about the legislatures proposal to do so. But on Monday, McCrory noted that while the new law cuts the early voting period from 17 days to 10, it still requires local county boards of elections to provide "the same amount of early voting hours as during the 2012 election. 
 
 The governor portrayed the changes as well within the norm of other states. He said a majority of states do not allow straight-ticket voting, and that North Carolina will now be one of 37 states that do not allow a person to register and vote on the same day. 
 
 An Election Day mess 
 
 Republican lawmakers hailed the measure. 
 
 I think its going to have a huge dividend for the state of North Carolina as far as restoring a level of confidence in government by making the electoral process secure, said Sen. Bob Rucho of Matthews. To say we are extreme is nothing more than liberal rhetoric, inflammatory rhetoric. 
 
 He predicted the voting changes would withstand any legal challenges. 
 
 But his Democratic colleague, Sen. Malcolm Graham of Charlotte, had a different take. 
 
 Its another step backwards for the state of North Carolina and a blow for those who are interested in fair and open elections, Graham said. What this does is set forth artificial barriers for those who have constitutional rights to vote. There is no voter fraud in North Carolina. The only fraud is what the GOP is presenting to the citizens. 
 
 In Greensboro on Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina Foundation and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed a suit targeting the elimination of the week of early voting, the end of same-day registration, and the prohibition of out-of precinct voting. It seeks to stop North Carolina from enacting those provisions, arguing it would unduly burden the right to vote and discriminate against African-American voters in violation of the U.S. Constitutions equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
 
 This law is a disaster, said Dale Ho, director of the ACLUs Unions Voting Rights Project. Eliminating a huge part of early voting will cut off voting opportunities for hundreds of thousands of citizens. It will turn Election Day into a mess, shoving more voters into even longer lines. 
 
 When Florida reduced its early voting period in 2012, Ho said, it resulted in people waiting in lines for hours, and hundreds of thousands of people giving up in frustration. 
 
 During the 2012 election, 2.5 million ballots were cast during the early-voting period, or more than half of North Carolinas total electorate. More than 70 percent of African-Americans used early voting during the 2008 and 2012 general elections, compared to 52 percent of white voters. 
 
 The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, the Philip Randolph Institute, N.C. Common Cause, and Unifour Onestop Collaborative. 
 
 The same group is expected to file a suit in state court on Tuesday challenging the voter ID provision, alleging that under Article 6, Section 1 of the N.C. Constitution, the legislature doesnt have power to set new voter qualifications. 
 
 Also on Monday, the N.C. NAACP and the Advancement Project filed their own suit, alleging that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups. 
 
 The groups also allege that it violates the 14th and 15th amendments because it imposes unjustified and discriminatory electoral burdens on large segments of the states population and will cause the denial, dilution, and abridgment of African-American voters fundamental right to vote. 
 
 Each of the laws changes, on their own, would be harmful to the voting rights of North Carolinians, said Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project. Taken together, this is the worst voter suppression law in the country. It viciously targets nearly every aspect of the voting process. 
 
 Staff Writer Ann Blythe contributed to this report. 
 
 Christensen: 919-829-4532
– North Carolina passed a controversial voter ID law in July, but if the Department of Justice has its way, the law—said to be the most sweeping of its kind in the nation—may never be enforced. The DOJ will file suit against the state today, a source tells Politico and the Charlotte Observer; Eric Holder is expected to make the announcement later today. The suit accuses North Carolina of violating the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against black voters, and asks that the state be barred from enforcing the law—which was scheduled to go into effect for the 2016 elections. It also seeks to put North Carolina back on a "preclearance" list, meaning all changes to voting laws and procedures would need to first be approved by the DOJ or a federal court. Forty North Carolina counties were subject to preclearance until June, when the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. But the DOJ can use another VRA provision to attempt to put states back under preclearance, as it is also doing in Texas. The problem with the voter ID law, as the DOJ sees it: Just 22% of registered voters in North Carolina are African American, but they make up 34% of the voters who do not have a DMV-issued ID (and thus would not be allowed to vote). The DOJ suit will also take issue with three other parts of the law: the elimination of provisional ballots for voters who go to the incorrect polling place (30% of out-of-precinct voters last year were African American); the elimination of some early voting days (29% of early voters last year were African American); and the elimination of same-day voter registration during early voting (41% of voters using same-day registration were African American).