Posted on 12/18/2022 6:44:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In 2018, the North Carolina legislature passed a law that would create a new amendment to the state constitution requiring voter ID at all polling places. The law (Senate Bill 824) passed with significant support, primarily from Republicans who held a supermajority in the legislature and successfully overrode a veto by the governor. But this week, in one of the most self-contradictory rulings I’ve seen in quite a while, the state supreme court struck down the law, claiming that it was unconstitutional. Reading through the ruling is an exercise in confusion and nonsensical assumptions by the justices of the court. (The Hill)
North Carolina’s Supreme Court on Friday struck down a state voter ID requirement, finding that it was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and violated the state’s constitution.
Senate Bill 824 — which was passed by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature in 2018 over a veto from its Democratic governor — sought to implement a state constitutional amendment requiring photo ID to vote.
The court found that while the law appeared neutral on its face, it was enacted “to target African-American voters who were unlikely to vote for Republican candidates.”
The arguments being made here are identical to the ones we’ve heard from Democrats across the nation and they don’t make any more sense now than they did in the past. (Not that that’s ever stopped them from trying.) At the highest level of the court’s argument, they’re saying that the law is unconstitutional. But how do you declare something unconstitutional when it’s being put into the constitution?
The primary argument being made in this ruling is that the amendment was written “to target African-American voters who were unlikely to vote for Republican candidates.” So that’s crystal clear, right? They’re saying that the law is racist.
But the ruling then immediately turns around and claims “we do not conclude that the General Assembly harbored racial animus.” So what are they saying about the Republicans in the legislature? That they were… unintentionally racist? And yet the very next sentence says that the law “targeted voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party.” So now we’re back to the authors being racists, apparently. And we’re entirely ignoring the rather racist assumption by the court that most or all Black voters are Democrats.
The ruling also includes the usual Democratic talking point citing “the disparate impacts the law was likely to have on Black voters.” This argument has always been little more than horse-hockey. Like virtually every other state, North Carolina has bent over backward to ensure that every legal resident of the state can obtain a free voter identification card regardless of race, gender, income level, or any other demographic you can name. The information describing how to do so would be universally available. You simply have to go down to the local DMV or board of elections and ask for one. You will be given one at no charge. If anyone in the state didn’t have a valid ID under the proposed system it would be because they either didn’t want one or couldn’t be bothered to take the time to go get it.
The court went on to whine about how the legislature could have passed “a less restrictive law.” Would the justices care to explain exactly how that would work? How can a law be “less restrictive” when you’re talking about what is fundamentally a binary decision? You either need to provide some form of ID to vote or you don’t.
This entire ruling is a partisan smokescreen. North Carolina really needs to get some new justices on the state supreme court.
Won’t matter. The next court is majority Republican so chances are, the new law stands next time.
However, if the NC legislature wins the case they have before SCOTUS then this is moot. If they win, the legislature makes the rules and no running to court to try and change them.
North Carolina Supreme Court is getting new justices on the court. However, they start in January they did this case under the gun. They knew they had to take it now or it would never have passed now I guess I can start from scratch and do it all over again this time, the North Carolina Supreme Court will let it go.
Seat Name Born Joined Term ends Mandatory retirement College Law school Party affiliation Chief Paul Martin Newby May 5, 1955 (age 67) December 5, 2004 2028 May 31, 2027 Duke North Carolina Republican 1 Anita Earls February 20, 1960 (age 62) January 1, 2019 2026 February 29, 2032 Williams Yale Democratic 2 Phil Berger Jr. March 26, 1972 (age 50) January 1, 2021 2028 March 31, 2044 UNC Wilmington Wake Forest Republican 3 Robin E. Hudson February 20, 1952 (age 70) 2007 2022 February 29, 2024 Yale North Carolina Democratic 4 Tamara P. Barringer December 1, 1958 (age 64) January 1, 2021 2028 December 31, 2030 North Carolina North Carolina Republican 5 Sam J. Ervin IV November 18, 1955 (age 67) 2015 2022 November 30, 2027 Davidson Harvard Democratic 6 Michael R. Morgan October 22, 1955 (age 67) January 1, 2017 2024 October 31, 2027 Duke North Carolina Democratic
..... Outside of some wierd Liberal circular reasoning .... How can this be proven to be Racist in a court of law???? Is the council for the Defense actually that Inept????
.
The Democrats on the court need to be impeached for violating their oath to uphold the state constitution.
Their violation is clear.
It sure seems the court thinks blacks are about the dumbest people on the planet.
That will make other states to do likewise. ID is vitle to vote.. That’s why they drop it.
Is the North Carolina Supreme Court saying that blacks are too dumb to get a drivers license?
and in a month the now 5-2 Republican majority NC Supreme Court can just reverse this ruling as well as all the other insane rulings the Democrat court made.
They are so stupid they don't know how to acquire an EBT card, Obama phone, Medicaid, Welfare, or Section 8 housing.
I'm telling you, these people are hopeless—not the blacks but the people who enable them.
Nah. Just strike down (ie overturn) this ruling and rule the last one....you know the one we the voters passed in a statewide referendum in 2018 to be valid.
It’s all to ensure illegal aliens can vote for their demonrat kkkandidates.
The NC State Supreme Ct. is the most radical state court in the country. The Court said the State Legislature was racist and therefore the Court said the Legislature couldn’t vote on Amendments to the N.C. State Constitution. Forbidding a Legislative body from voting is just beyond belief.
The Court has been a dictatorship of 4 Democratic Judges vs 3 Repubs. Fortunately, in a couple of weeks, there will be 5 Repubs on the Court and only 2 Dems.
It’s only when the judges are taking peyote that they can see the constitutional penumbras.
If we don’t get sense and God back in this country.. We will lose it.
El Paso has been overrun and they are after anything they can steal.. No one in Washington is going to shut the door.. Are we going to stop the devil’s run... Or. Is there no balm in Gilead
Years ago before former speaker of the house Jim Wright passed in 2015, he was no longer driving and turned in his Texas Driver License and did not apply for a Texas ID because of “Do you know who I am?”.
Story quickly went around the Tarrant County (Texas y’all) that after the Texas Voter ID Law took effect, he was turned away at a Fort Worth polling center for not having a state issued ID and his “Do you know who I am?” failed him…he did not vote that election.
“Texas has had Voter ID for about 20 years now..”
Yep, and IDs these days have barcodes on the back. In GA they scan the barcode. The ID is tied into the driver’s license database and the voter database. It makes in-person vote fraud much harder to do. Stacy Abrams, civil rights groups and other libs fought the voter ID law in court, and lost bigly, the courts upheld the ID law and other parts of the 2021 voter laws.
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.