By Aaron Blake
Aaron Blake
Senior political reporter, writing for The Fix

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) is out with a new op-ed in USA Today defending his state's decision to institute a series of changes to how it conducts elections, including Voter ID.


Gov. Pat McCrory (AP Photo/Chuck Burton)

Democrats have criticized the law as voter suppression aimed at helping Republicans win elections, while Republicans say measures like Voter ID are necessary to stop voter fraud.

In the op-ed, McCrory compares voter fraud to insider trading -- something that needs to be guarded against, even if it's hard to prove or see that it exists.

"The need for photo ID has been questioned by those who say voter fraud isn't a problem in North Carolina," McCrory writes. "However, assuming fraud isn't a threat when multimillion dollar campaigns are trying to win in a state where millions of votes are cast is like believing oversight isn't needed against Wall Street insider trading."

McCrory also attacks the media, which has often labeled the measure as "restrictive." The law, among other changes, institutes a new Voter ID requirement, eliminates same-day voter registration and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year olds and shortens the number of days for early voting.

He notes that the state continues to have early voting and no-excuse absentee voting, which many states do not have.

"The changes we're making in early voting have been called restrictive by liberals and the news media. That's not true," he writes. "While the early voting calendar has been shortened, the actual number of hours a voter has to cast an early ballot is unchanged.

"When our reforms are fully implemented, North Carolina will remain a national leader in ballot access, a fact you might find surprising given the hypocritical national reporting."

The Justice Department is challenging a new Voter ID law in Texas and has suggested it might challenge the new North Carolina law as well.

Its ability to stop such changes was significantly limited by a recent Supreme Court decision, in which the court the struck down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions with a history of discrimination require pre-approval -- also known as preclearance -- for any electoral changes.

Related:

Past is present as North Carolina honors 1963 march and battles voting laws