Posted on 04/13/2021 4:57:43 PM PDT by Libloather
RALEIGH, N.C. - A trial that started Monday in Raleigh will help decide whether North Carolina voters will need photo identification next time they vote.
This is the state-level trial over the constitutionality of a 2018 voter ID law. There is also a separate lawsuit, over the same law, moving forward in federal courts.
No elections have been held using voter ID since the law was passed in 2018; it was put on hold until this trial.
The trial is expected to last multiple days. Monday’s schedule included opening arguments from both the plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of voter ID and the legislators who are defending it, and at least one witness for the plaintiffs.
“Your honors, voters will be harmed by this law,” Allison Riggs of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, the lead attorney for the challengers in the case, said in her opening arguments. “And they are disproportionately Black ... They are voters that face barriers to voting already. And they are voters who were targeted by previous laws, and this law, in an attempt to keep Black North Carolinians from voting.”
David Thompson of the Washington firm Cooper & Kirk, who is representing the GOP legislative leaders, shot back at that claim in his own opening arguments.
“We acknowledge the deeply lamentable and indeed shameful history of racial discrimination in this state,” he said. “But SB 824 is not part of that shameful history. It is a state-of-the-art voter ID law that both seeks to secure elections and guarantee access to all registered voters.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Why is this trial happening?
The US Supreme Court upheld the use of voter ID years ago. Since the liberals would call such a decision settled law, how can we still be having litigation over an issue which the Supreme Court has ruled on?
No. But seriously asking the question defines the questioner as an idiot.
They will rule 2 weeks before the election that it is unconstitutional. Then 6 months after the election, the SCOTUS will say it is. But the damage will already have been done. It’s happened like that over and over again.
It’s only settled law if liberals agree with it.... otherwise, they don’t give a $hit about any laws.
Democrats break and flour laws with brazen impunity!!!
If they rule it is than so is NICS and the ATF.
The ONLY PEOPLE who are against Voter ID, which is used in literally EVERY other country that has fair elections are people who understand what is being done ‘behind the scenes’. That’s why most blacks, Democrats, and others agree with Voter ID - it makes sense to them and since they’re not in on the cheating, so they don’t see a downside to it.
The moment that the Democrats stated they were against Voter ID, they should have been DISQUALIFIED from engaging in the political process, because, obviously, they don’t believe in it. This ‘issue’ isn’t even debated in other countries and they think we’re out of our minds in not having it embedded into law here.
Verifying your Identity to vote is not unConstitutional in any way.
State or federal constitution? If it won’t work at the state level, change the constitution or law. Or require drivers’ licenses or other state IDs and voter registrations.
Precisely.
This is part and parcel of Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Any disparity shown between any of the ill-defined "minority groups" and white, heterosexual Christian males, is defined as racism. No other proof needed.
According to CRT, all logic,math,reason,family,history,law,and culture has to be completely destroyed and re-constucted to their ever-changing whim... because of some past or present wrong which they define and re-define on the moment.
That is what they are demanding.
If you question them, you are defined as oppressing them, and you are not to be allowed to speak.
Dual Sovereigns. They are making an argument under the STATE Constitution. SCOTUS can’t rule on issues of the State Constitution.
The problem here is ultimately going to be that the NC Supreme Court still has a 4-3 Rat majority.
SCOTUS has zero say in this. This lawsuit is being brought under the State Constitution.
Soros put a bunch of lackeys on the NC Supreme Court back in 2018.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is constitutional.
And they are disproportionately Black ... They are voters that face barriers to voting already. And they are voters who were targeted by previous laws, and this law, in an attempt to keep Black North Carolinians from voting.”
Pretty simple.....first ask the Lt Governor, being a black man, to testify on how hard it’s been for him to vote all his life. Then you can have Ami Horowitz to play his street interviews in Brooklyn and Harlem and explain how the liberal white hipsters basically say that blacks are completely incapable of getting an ID, knowing where the DMV is and whether or not they have data plans on their phones and can get on the internet.
Northern liberals and hipsters in Charlotte and the Research Triangle have destroyed that state.
I really wish there was a serious secession movement. Allow those who want in, in. Down to the county level. Watch Mecklenburg, Durham, Chapel Hill devolve into desperate, starving islands of liberalism. And it’d be awesome to watch them eat each other.
Been the law here in Indiana since 2005. Amazingly I have saw minorities with my own eyes producing IDs to vote.
I suspect they would be surprised to know that.
If voter ID is deemed “Unconstitutional” then showing ID to purchase firearms is unconstitutional.
Just using their own methods against them.
Wish someone could submit friend of the court brief saying that.
Watch their eyes light up.
Lack of it is unconstitutional. The ‘various states’ are expected to use ‘reasonable care’ when conducting elections, and that includes identity verification using state-of-the art methods. It’s their goddam job for crying out loud.
“This Court from the time of its foundation has adhered to the principle that it will not review judgments of state courts that rest on adequate and independent state grounds.” Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 636; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45, 53; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 164; Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207.
“The reason is so obvious that it has rarely been thought to warrant statement. It is found in the partitioning of power between the state and federal judicial systems and in the limitations of our own jurisdiction. Our only power over state judgments is to correct them to the extent that they incorrectly adjudge federal rights. And our power is to correct wrong judgments, not to revise opinions. We are not permitted to render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the state court after we corrected its views of federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion.” Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207 (1935)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.