Skip to content

HUGE WIN FOR VOTER INTEGRITY: Supreme Court Rules 8-1 in Favor of Republicans Upholding Strict VoterID Law In North Carolina

The Supreme Court delivered a historic 8-1 ruling on Thursday and sided with Republicans in North Carolina over a voter ID bill that was in debates for over four years.

This ruling allows legislative leaders in the state to intervene in a federal lawsuit in order to defend a law mandating voter identification.

The case initially started off in 2018 after North Carolina citizens voted in unity to amend the state’s constitution to mandate voter ID in elections. State lawmakers then passed a bill that would require voters to prove their identity either through a driver’s license, passport, or other government identifications.

The state’s Democrat Governor, Roy Cooper in an unprecedented move vetoed this bill despite 55% of the state’s voters demanding this measure. The state legislature then overrode this governor’s veto.

This followed a very predictable move, and the NAACP and some other woke organizations sued the state in federal court arguing that asking for voter ID “discriminates” against black and Latino voters.

The state’s Republican House Speaker, Tim Moore, and Senate leader, Republican Phil Berger attempted to intervene in this lawsuit but the state’s attorney general, Democrat Josh Stein won’t help them defend the law to the extent that Republicans would and a federal judge ruled against the Republican lawmakers.

This was followed by a three-judge federal appeals court panel siding with the Republicans before the full court reversed the decision.

“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 ruled.

Obama nominated associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only dissenter in this SCOTUS ruling. She argued that the interests of the legislator were being defended in this case.

“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.” She added.

What do you make of this ruling? Share your thoughts in our Facebook comments!

"*" indicates required fields

Is our government corrupt?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.