# State of South Carolina v. United States of America

> District Court, District of Columbia · October 10, 2012 · 898 F. Supp. 2d 30

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799221

## Case

- **Full name:** State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants, and James Dubose, Et Al., Defendant-Intervenors
- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** October 10, 2012
- **Citations:** 898 F. Supp. 2d 30; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146187; 2012 WL 4814094
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kollar-Kotelly
- **Judges:** Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799221

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding racial disparities in ID possessions but concluding that South Carolina’s ID requirement was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose
- explaining that state officials adopted a broad interpretation of a voter ID law’s reasonable-impediment exception as litigation progressed

## Opinion text

KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge,
concurring:
I concur fully in both the Court’s excellent opinion and Judge Bates’ thoughtful concurrence. I write separately only to emphasize the importance of the reason *53 able impediment provision in future elections.
Experts for both South Carolina and the Defendants agree that as of April 2012, approximately 130,000 registered voters in South Carolina lacked a photo ID acceptable under Act R54, and those voters are disproportionately likely to be members of a racial minority. Over time, this number is reasonably expected to shrink as voters have the opportunity to obtain the free photo IDs made available under Act R54. However, the photo voter registration card is unlikely to be the panacea South Carolina portrays it to be simply because this form of identification is only available if a voter registers in person at the county elections office. New voters will continue to receive non-photo voter registration cards if they register in person at any of the myriad of other locations where voter registration is available (including public libraries, social service departments, and armed forces recruitment centers, depending on the county) or if the voter registers by mail, and must make a separate trip to the county elections office to obtain the photo voter registration card. Moreover, although Act R54 eliminated the fee for the DMV photo ID, it understandably did not alter the underlying documentation requirement. While Act R54 undoubtedly made it far easier to obtain an acceptable photo ID, some portion of newly registered voters will likely be forced to rely on the reasonable impediment provision in order to vote in the 2014, 2016, and other future elections. Thus, any narrowing of South Carolina’s interpretation of the reasonable impediment provision from what the Court has accepted and required in its opinion must itself be pre-cleared, not just to comply with the procedural requirements of the Voting Rights Act, but also because such narrowing may have the real effect of disenfranchising a group that is likely to be disproportionately comprised of minority voters.
Concurring opinion filed by District Judge BATES, with whom District Judge KOLLAR-KOTELLY joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799221. Public record. Not legal advice.