Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/27/2026 7:19:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
even years. That's how long Republicans in North Carolina waited for a federal court to do the right thing. On Thursday, they finally got their answer — and it came from the last place anyone expected.
U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs, an Obama appointee, upheld North Carolina's photo voter ID law in a sweeping 134-page ruling. She found that liberal voting rights groups, including the state NAACP, failed to prove the 2018 law violated the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, or the Voting Rights Act. The ruling keeps the law firmly in place heading into the 2026 midterms — and hands Republicans a significant win on election integrity.
In 2018, 55% of North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring photo ID at the polls. The legislature then passed it, and it became law. The bill is thorough and accounts for every silly excuse Democrats make against Voter ID: Free photo IDs are available at county election offices and the DMV. Accepted forms include a driver's license, military ID, or U.S. passport. Voters without ID can fill out an exception form for a provisional ballot or bring their ID in before certification. The accommodations are extensive.
Now, we all know there’s nothing discriminatory about Voter ID, but that’s the narrative that the left has long been pushing, and, for the most part, liberal judges have been striking down commonsense Voter ID laws for years. So, when I learned that an Obama judge actually made this ruling, I was pleasantly surprised. It’s not every day that an Obama-appointed judge rules for common-sense election integrity.
"Finally. After seven years, we can put to rest any doubt that our state's Voter ID law is constitutional," Republican state Sen. Phil Berger said.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Biggs emphasized in her 134-page decision that North Carolina had a "history of extensive official discrimination against African Americans" that was undisputed by parties in the case. The judge said she found evidence that the voter ID law served to disenfranchise Black and Latino voters but that precedents set by higher courts meant the evidence was not enough to invalidate the law.[…]
The decision marked a reversal for Biggs after she issued a preliminary injunction in December 2019 that blocked the state from enforcing the voter ID law for the 2020 election cycle. In that opinion, she cited the state’s "sordid history of racial discrimination and voter suppression," arguing that parts of the law were "impermissibly motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory intent."
Bump
Obama judge in a daze, does one thing right....
We all heard the current legal marijuana is far more potent than the 1960s style. Judge had to duck to avoid the swarm of bats circling overhead.
forms include a driver’s license, military ID, or U.S. passport.
Hopefully also birth certificate?
Nope.
Birth certificates don’t have a photo on them.
We’re talking about acceptable forms of photo ID’s.
My hope is that the left is pivoting, because they know that SAFE will pass.
What has always confused me is how simple our Constitution is and how it is interpreted of which it says. It means what it says. “All privileges of law defined by The Constitution defined by The Constitution are Federal Law beholden to all states. Any laws not defined by such are relegated to the individual states.”
It is that simple and we are far from constitutional law.
I wish you were right but l don’t think so.
A broken clock analogy at work.
She’s black and probably realized the first victims of the “great replacement” are blacks whose proportion of the population is shrinking due to illegal immigration.
Of course she is.
134 page ruling to state the obvious? It could be done in a sentence.
You know what they say about broken clocks.
You know what they say about broken clocks.
"Yeah, well history is gonna change."
James Tolkan, ‘Back to the Future’ and ‘Top Gun’ Actor, Dies at 94
(The background timing of BTTF was an election.)
Finally. After seven years...
A Goode Ruling for a Change:
That’s not really how the American (and antecedent British) legal system works.
A sentence on its own is just a thought, or an opinion.
A 134 page tome proves the case and justifies the thought / opinion through evidence of principles, customs, existing laws, and precedents, which hopefully provides a comprehensive rebuttal in advance of anything that an objector might decide to raise.
If the tome is comprehensive enough, it may be enough to dissuade legal challenges and appeals.
I’ve seen this in practice - a case I know where one person’s very vanilla opinion had effectively set policy for over twenty years; everybody thought it was totally outdated but they couldn’t get the policy replaced easily because it had been so detailed in the first place.
In the end it took a 1000 word forensic deconstruction of the existing policy, to prove beyond doubt that it needed to be replaced. Crucially, the author of the original policy was the one who read that deconstruction who came forward in meetings to say he’d been waiting for a decade for someone to do that - and he fully endorsed the new opinion.
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.