More
    HomePoliticsUSASupreme Court Rules For Republicans In Voter ID Dispute

    Supreme Court Rules For Republicans In Voter ID Dispute

    Published on

    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.

    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…

    Latest articles

    Megachurch Takes Stand: Members to Sign Marriage Pledge or Face Expulsion – Here’s What It Says

    A Florida megachurch requires its members to swear an oath endorsing the biblical concept...

    Another Prominent Doctor Calls for Biden to Undergo Cognitive Test: ‘The American People Deserve Better’

    Can we all stop pretending that President Joe Biden is OK? While the White House...

    White House Accused of ‘Dishonesty and Evasiveness’ as Biden Physical Is Delayed Yet Again

    President Joe Biden and the White House have been dismissive of his annual physical...

    Matt Gaetz’s Amendment to Say Pledge of Allegiance Causes Dems to Absolutely Lose It

    Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida proposed an amendment to the House Judiciary Committee's rules...

    More like this

    Megachurch Takes Stand: Members to Sign Marriage Pledge or Face Expulsion – Here’s What It Says

    A Florida megachurch requires its members to swear an oath endorsing the biblical concept...

    Another Prominent Doctor Calls for Biden to Undergo Cognitive Test: ‘The American People Deserve Better’

    Can we all stop pretending that President Joe Biden is OK? While the White House...

    White House Accused of ‘Dishonesty and Evasiveness’ as Biden Physical Is Delayed Yet Again

    President Joe Biden and the White House have been dismissive of his annual physical...