SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Republicans Defending Voter ID Laws Against Dems

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Republicans Defending Voter ID Laws Against Dems

BREITBART

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Thursday ruled 8-1 that Republican lawmakers can intervene in a court battle to defend North Carolina’s voter ID laws against Democrat officials.

In 2018, Republicans in North Carolina’s state legislature overrode a veto by Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper that amended the state’s constitution to declare that “voters offering to vote in person shall present photographic identification.”

In response, the North Carolina National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sued the governor and the state board of elections. In court, the board of elections was defended by North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, a Democrat, who previously voted against voter ID laws while in the state Senate.

Republicans in the state legislature sought to intervene in the case, arguing that the state’s interests were not being properly represented, as the governor and attorney general have both opposed voter ID laws.

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.

Gorsuch writes:

The legislative leaders seek to give voice to a different perspective. Their “primary objective” is not clarifying which law applies. They are not burdened by misgivings about the law’s wisdom. If allowed to intervene, the legislative leaders say, they will focus on defending the law vigorously on the merits without an eye to crosscutting administrative concerns. And, they add, the differences between their interest and the Board’s in this case demonstrate why state law empowers them to participate in litigation over the validity of state legislation — alive as it is to the possibility that different branches of government may seek to vindicate different and valuable state interests. Perhaps recognizing all this, the Fourth Circuit itself allowed the legislative leaders to intervene in the appeal from the District Court’s preliminary injunction ruling….

Continue reading from BREITBART….

Header featured image (edited) credit:  SCOTUS/YouTube/CNN screen shot

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.