Supreme Court hears arguments over defending NC’s voter ID law - WNCT
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) – The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday related to the battle over the state’s voter ID law, as Republicans question how vigorously Atty. Gen. Josh Stein (D) is defending it.
The focus of Monday’s hearing was not over the constitutionality of the law, which the Republican-controlled General Assembly passed in 2018, but rather whether Republicans should be able to step into the case and defend the law.
“We have a separate interest and as I’ve explained, they tug at one another,” David Thompson, an attorney for Republican legislative leaders, told the court.
While Democrats have largely opposed voter ID measures, Stein’s office told the nation’s highest court that they’ve provided an appropriate defense of the law since it was challenged in court.
“Petitioners have identified no daylight between their legal position and ours. Their evidence is duplicative of our evidence. And, we have prevailed in the litigation thus far,” said Sarah Boyce, deputy solicitor general.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted a lower court agreed.
She said, “Isn’t that what the district court looked at, which was how vigorously the state was defending this law, and didn’t it say that everything the legislature wanted to do the state had done but in a different way?”
Meredith College political expert David McLennan said he thinks it’s unlikely the court will intervene in this case.
“The Supreme Court usually doesn’t like to get involved in these kinds of cases because they recognize the authority of the state,” he said. “I’m just sort of watching this case with some doubt as to whether, even if the judges have some questions about the vigorousness of Atty. Gen. Stein, following this case, whether they really want to get involved in it because it does set a precedent.”
According to a post on the Supreme Court’s website, the case focuses on three issues:
- Whether a state agent authorized by state law to defend the State’s interest in litigation must overcome a presumption of adequate representation to intervene as of right in a case in which a state official is a defendant.
- Whether a district court’s determination of adequate representation in ruling on a motion to intervene as of right is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion.
- Whether Petitioners are entitled to intervene as of right in this litigation.
In 2018, voters by a margin of 55-45 approved changing the state’s constitution to require a photo ID to vote. Soon after that, the General Assembly, which still had a Republican supermajority enacted a law outlining what IDs would be acceptable and overrode a veto by Gov. Roy Cooper (D).
The law has been on hold since then while the legal battle unfolds.
The NC NAACP has attacked the constitutionality of the law, saying it would disenfranchise minority voters. Republicans have defended it as an important step to ensure integrity of elections, though in-person voter fraud has been rare in North Carolina.
It’s one of several legal challenges related to voter ID. Last month, the state Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the General Assembly should have been allowed to even put the issue on the ballot for voters to consider in the first place. The NC NAACP argues in that case that the legislature had been found to be unconstitutionally gerrymandered and lacked the authority to propose constitutional amendments.
The court also decided earlier this month to fast-track a separate case dealing with the constitutionality of the law.
McLennan said he thinks it’s unlikely the issue will be resolved in time for this year’s election.
“Knowing how slow cases move and the docket for the Supreme Court, I would say that we would be looking more at 2024,” he said.
source: https://www.wnct.com/news/north-carolina/supreme-court-hears-arguments-over-defending-ncs-voter-id-law/
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.