North Carolina residents have voted for some form of voter ID twice. Both times the courts have overturned the will of the people. The second time we voted for voter ID, the vote was for an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would require voter ID. The court struck that amendment down as unconstitutional. Wow. Well, on Tuesday there was some good news about the citizens of North Carolina’s quest for voter ID.<\/p>\n
On Tuesday, The Carolina Journal<\/a> reported the following:<\/p>\n North Carolina\u2019s 2018 voter ID law complies with the state constitution and should survive a legal challenge. That\u2019s according to briefs submitted in the N.C. Supreme Court from state legislative leaders and the N.C. Justice Department.<\/strong><\/p>\n Both briefs urge the Supreme Court to reverse a trial court\u2019s 2-1 ruling<\/a> from September 2021 in the case titled Holmes v. Moore. Two Democratic judges overruled a Republican colleague in deciding that the law, originally Senate Bill 824, violated the N.C. Constitution.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cElection legislation in North Carolina is often contentious,\u201d wrote<\/a> attorney Nicole Moss, representing Republican state legislative leaders. \u201cIn the fall of 2018, the People of North Carolina \u2014 by a 55.49% to 44.51% margin \u2014 adopted a constitutional amendment requiring photo voter ID and directing the General Assembly to enact implementing legislation.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe General Assembly at that time could have enacted a voter-ID law without any Democratic votes or any Democratic input whatsoever,\u201d wrote Moss, referencing Republicans\u2019 veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly in 2018. \u201cBut that is not what the General Assembly did with S.B. 824. Instead, the Republican supermajority worked closely with Senator Joel Ford, an African American Democrat, who co-sponsored the bill; adopted the majority of amendments offered by Democrats; obtained several Democratic votes for the bill; and otherwise engaged with Democrats every step of the way, garnering thanks even from the bill\u2019s opponents.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The article notes:<\/p>\n The state\u2019s brief also criticizes the trial court. \u201cContrary to what Plaintiffs contend in their brief, throughout the trial court majority\u2019s analysis in this case, it shifted the burden of proof to Defendants and failed to adhere to the presumption of legislative good faith,\u201d Steed wrote.<\/strong><\/p>\n Nothing presented during a trial showed that the ID law would block any eligible votes. \u201cPlaintiffs failed to establish any of the Plaintiffs would be unable to vote under S.B. 824, and in fact, the evidence at trial showed they would have multiple ways to vote under S.B. 824,\u201d Steed added. \u201cEven more telling, \u2026 they have never identified a form of ID, or any combination of IDs for that matter, which would create a lesser disparate impact than S.B. 824.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIn Plaintiff\u2019s view, no form of a voter ID law, no matter how ameliorative, would ever be acceptable to them. This evinces a fundamental flaw with Plaintiffs\u2019 position, given the legislature is under a constitutional mandate to pass a voter-ID law.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Voter ID will not solve all of our voter integrity problems, but it is a step in the right direction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" North Carolina residents have voted for some form of voter ID twice. Both times the courts have overturned the will of the people. The second time we voted for voter ID, the vote was for an amendment to the North … Continue reading