Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of North Carolina Republicans in a case over a voter identification law that has lasted nearly four years.

The court concluded 8-1 that state legislature leaders may defend a legislation requiring voter identification by intervening in a federal lawsuit. The dispute began in 2018 when North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment mandating voter identification. The legislature then passed a law requiring voters to present a valid driver’s license, passport, or other municipal government-approved identity.

The Supreme Court rules 8-1 that GOP lawmakers in North Carolina can intervene in litigation to defend a state voter-ID law. The NAACP is challenging the law, and the NC attorney general (a Democrat) is defending it. GOP legislators want to intervene anyway. SCOTUS says they can.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 23, 2022

55% of the state’s voters supported the proposal, but Democratic Governor Roy Cooper vetoed the measure. The legislature overrode the president’s veto.

According to the Associated Press, the state NAACP and local chapters sued in federal court, claiming the statute discriminated against black and Latino voters (AP). According to the Associated Press, House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger wanted to intervene in the lawsuit because Republicans believed the state’s attorney general, Democrat Josh Stein, would not defend the law as vigorously as they would. A judge decided against the legislators. According to the Associated Press, a panel of three federal appeals court judges ruled in favor of the legislators before the whole court reversed the ruling.

“Through the General Assembly, the people of North Carolina have authorized the leaders of their legislature to defend duly enacted state statutes against constitutional challenge. Ordinarily, a federal court must respect that kind of sovereign choice, not assemble presumptions against it,” the Court decided.

More on this story via Daily Caller:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the sole dissenter, argued the interests of the legislator were being defended.

“States are entitled to structure themselves as they wish and to decide who should represent their interests in federal litigation,” Sotomayor wrote. “State law may not, however, override the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by requiring federal courts to allow intervention by multiple state representatives who all seek to represent the same state interest that an existing state party is already capably defending.”

The law itself is set to have its day in the state’s Supreme Court as well, but the court has yet to set a date for oral arguments, according to the AP. The law was previously blocked by a federal court that ruled the law was discriminatory. Read more…