The Charlotte Observer offers this report.
I’m quoted a few times in here, but I don’t believe I was quoted quite accurately. For example, I do not believe I said “I look at this package, and I can’t for the life of me see how it’s justified on voter ID grounds.” I believe I said that I could not see how it could be justified on anti-fraud grounds.
Further, I’m cited as follows “A federal lawsuit would have to clear a high bar, legal experts said. If the bill passes, it could be challenged under a section of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits intentional discrimination in voting. But there’s never been a successful challenge brought under this section of the law, Hasen said.”
I was referring to section 2, and it does not require proof of intentional discrimination in voting.