SCOTUS handed proponents of election integrity a big win Thursday with a ruling related to voter ID litigation.
In 2018 the North Carolina GOP sought to intervene on behalf of voter ID stipulations which were vetoed by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper and opposed by Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein.
The Supreme Court recently ruled, 8-1, that state legislatures do have the right to intervene in cases such as these.
In this country you need an ID to do everything from buying a beer to renting a car, how could voting possibly be any different? Moreover, the idea that racial minorities cannot possibly acquire IDs is insulting and racist…
The bigotry of low expectations is a hallmark of the Democratic Party.
Here’s more on the story:
The Supreme Court rules 8-1 that GOP lawmakers in North Carolina can intervene in litigation to defend a state voter-ID law. The NAACP is challenging the law, and the NC attorney general (a Democrat) is defending it. GOP legislators want to intervene anyway. SCOTUS says they can.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 23, 2022
BREAKING: SCOTUS will allow North Carolina GOP legislators to heavily litigate voter ID laws, due to the state’s Democratic AG not doing its job in defending the statute.
— Donald J. Trump Tracker (@DJTTracker) June 23, 2022
Breitbart provided in-depth coverage of the recent decision:
In an 8-1 decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, SCOTUS held that “North Carolina’s legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in this litigation.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the case.
— John Locke Foundation (@JohnLockeNC) June 24, 2022
NC voter ID law U.S. Supreme Court case, Republican lawmakers allowed to intervene, Permission to hire outside lawyers instead of continuing to use lawyers from NC Dept of Justice under AG Josh Stein, by @CitizenWells #nc #voterid #scotus https://t.co/DCZW0SCx6k
— Citizen Wells (@CitizenWells) June 24, 2022
CNN presented some of Justice Gorsuch’s opinion:
“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,” Gorsuch wrote.
“Ordinarily, a federal court must respect that kind of sovereign choice, not assemble presumptions against it.”