U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder’s decision upholding the sensible election reforms enacted in 2013 may have sent liberal activists into hysterics, but more reasonable North Carolinians should applaud the care Schroeder employed in reviewing and sustaining the law.

The judge’s 485-page opinion meticulously details the facts surrounding these contentious changes in election law. It recounts the legislative debates surrounding the 2013 law and changes made last year in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding a voter identification requirement. It acknowledges the state’s shameful history of discrimination, while acknowledging the progress of recent decades — and the absence of evidence that such discrimination persists.

And those facts knock down, one by one, the claims of voter suppression and disenfranchisement made by the plaintiffs — led by the NAACP’s state chapter, the League of Women Voters, and others.

Ending election-day voter registration, reducing the early-voting period (while extending hours and opening more early-voting sites), and ending the “preregistration” of 16- and 17-year-olds at schools did not reduce minority participation, as the plaintiffs predicted.

“The evidence shows that African-Americans have fared better in terms of registration and turnout rates in 2014, after the new law was implemented, than in 2010, when the old provisions were in place,” Schroeder wrote.

As Carolina Journal reported in 2013, even after the election reforms were enacted, North Carolina provided more liberal access to the polls than a number of traditionally “blue” states. New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut don’t allow either early voting or no-excuse absentee voting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other states allowing neither include Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Schroeder noted that while states should “make it as easy as practicable to exercise the right to vote, … a state’s repeal of a convenience or ‘failsafe’ [is not] unlawful, or unconstitutional per se,” Schroeder wrote. Every time the rules are relaxed, it becomes more difficult to ensure that those who cast ballots indeed are eligible to vote, possibly undermining the integrity of elections.

“[The] question in this case is whether plaintiffs have demonstrated that the measures violate the [Voting Rights Act] or the Constitution,” the judge said. They didn’t.

The judge concluded that “North Carolina has provided legitimate state interests for its voter-ID requirement and electoral system,” including generous time periods to register, vote by absentee ballot, and cast ballots at early voting sites (including early voting locations open on Saturdays and Sundays).

The left-wing opponents of election reforms claimed that North Carolina’s system is repressive and outside the American mainstream. Their arguments always relied upon overwrought rhetoric and not-so-subtle allegations of racism or other evil intentions.

Fortunately, Schroeder considered the facts, examined the law, and came to the proper conclusion. The opinion is a model of judicial restraint at a time far too many judges mistakenly believe their role is to write laws rather than interpret them.