One provision that received a great deal of attention from the judges during Thursday’s oral arguments in this case is a change to the state law that causes ballots to be tossed out if a voter shows up in the wrong precinct. For the last decade, voters who showed up at the wrong precinct would still have their votes counted in races that were not specific to that precinct, so long as they voted in the correct county. The new law prohibits these ballots from being counted at all. According to the Associated Press, that means thousands of ballots will be thrown out each election year. Judge Wynn, the only member of the panel who lives in North Carolina, appeared baffled by this provision. Explaining that he lives very close to a precinct that is not his assigned polling place, he asked the state to justify why his vote should be thrown out if he did not travel to a precinct that is further away from his home. At one point, his questions grew quite pointed—"Why does the state of North Carolina not want people to vote?" Wynn asked. At another point, he described a hypothetical grandmother who has always voted at the same place. Why not “let her just vote in that precinct?” he wondered?

North Carolina's sweeping voter suppression law, passed in August 2013 , may or may not be in effect for the 2014 election. Last month, a federal judge—a George W. Bush appointee— ruled that the law would be in effect in November, but an appeal of that decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit could prevent that. The three-judge panel hearing the appeal consists of one Clinton appointee, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, and two Obama appointees, Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd. Oral arguments were held last Thursday, before a skeptical court The judges also questioned an attorney defending the state about his contention that changing the voting laws this close to the election would disrupt the election because it would be confusing to voters and discourage them from turning out. The judges asked whether the state had any evidence at all that voters would be confused, and the attorney responded that restoring the voting rights that have been stripped would be logistically difficult for the state. Judge Floyd asked in response whether "an administrative burden [can] trump a constitutional right?"

This is a critical question in Wisconsin's challenge, as well, which will reach the Supreme Court possibly in combination with North Carolina's law. In the case of Wisconsin, a three-judge panel ignored Supreme Court precedence in a 2006 case called Purcell v. Gonzalez, in which the court reinstated a voter law that a lower court had stayed, ruling that changing the rules so close to an election could "result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase." So the Court will likely hear two cases hinging on the same prior decision; one that benefits Democrats (North Carolina) and one that benefits Republicans (Wisconsin). That should make things interesting for them.

Please contribute to help end voter suppression by electing progressive secretaries of state around the country.