• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US Supreme Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law

Alternative title: SCOTUS hands NC GOP an

dKVwW1.gif


https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt an unexpected blow to the voter-identification movement, refusing to reinstate North Carolina ballot restrictions that a lower court said target blacks ”with almost surgical precision."

Turning away the appeal by state Republican leaders, the justices left intact a ruling that said the provisions were racially discriminatory in violation of federal voting-rights law. In addition to requiring people to show a photo ID, the North Carolina law reduced the number of early-voting days and eliminated same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting.

The rebuff was a surprise because four conservative justices previously tried to revive the measure before the 2016 election. That effort failed because it was an emergency request that required five votes, but the court could have accepted the latest appeal with only four votes.

In a statement that accompanied the court's order Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed to uncertainty over an important procedural aspect of the case, disagreement over who was authorized to file an appeal on behalf of the state.

The Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the requirement that parts of 15 states with histories of discrimination, including North Carolina, get federal approval before changing their voting rules. North Carolina was among the first states to adopt voting changes after the decision.
 

Barzul

Member
They didn't strike it down with any real finality....they just chose not to hear the case which keeps the lower court ruling in place. They will eventually have to set precedence for this imo, maybe with the one out of Wisconsin. They can't dodge these cases forever. I'm worried what the court with it's current makeup would side with though, anyone know how Gorsuch votes on civil rights issues? It was the SC that killed enforcement of the Voting Rights Act that gave states the brazenness to pass laws this discriminatory in the first place.
 
Important to remember that the new law was originally struck down only because NC put their criteria behind deciding who to "attack" in writing.
 
They didn't strike it down with any real finality....they just chose not to hear the case which keeps the lower court ruling in place. They will eventually have to set precedence for this imo, maybe with the one out of Wisconsin. They can't dodge these cases forever. I'm worried what the court with it's current makeup would side with though, anyone know how Gorsuch votes on civil rights issues? It was the SC that killed enforcement of the Voting Rights Act that gave states the brazenness to pass laws this discriminatory in the first place.

Yeah, this. Roberts even attached a statement to not infer any motive by the SC.

Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that “[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.” United States v. Carver, 260 U. S. 482, 490 (1923).
 

HylianTom

Banned
I don't think many folks realize how fucked we are if Kennedy decides to step down.

I mean, royally fucked. For decades.
 
So I imagine it's assumed Neil Gorsuch voted in favor of the law while Kennedy voted against?
Kennedy was one of the votes to strike down the VRA.

As the article says, Roberts attached a note pointing to the problems of standing - this appeal is complicated by the fact that the AG and Gov of NC are both democrats and are perfectly happy to let the lower court decision against voter ID stand.
 
This happened with a Republican controlled Supreme Court?!?

It's not Republican controlled. It's a 4-4 divide and Justice Kennedy is the swing vote typically. But even beyond that, the divisiveness of the court is over stated. For instance, John Roberts (appointed by GWB) and Sonia Sotomayor (appointed by Obama) disagreed with each other only 4 times out of the 32 decisions in 2016. They both agree with the opinion of the court over 93% of the time, yet were appointed by different presidents, have different judicial backgrounds, and I'd imagine see the world through different lenses.
 

wildfire

Banned
This isn't over. They didn't strike it down. The struck down the appeal because for some reason there is no legal entity that is qualified to make the appeal in this case.

So individual states are stuck in a situation if lower court supports the voting restrictions and you try to appeal to the Supreme Court your fucked. But so far every lower court is determining this as illegal so these voter ID laws are getting fucked instead.
 

Ithil

Member
NC GOP are the worst of the worst, just completely immoral, shameless, cheating scumbags. Every loss they eat is deserved.
 

numble

Member
It's not Republican controlled. It's a 4-4 divide and Justice Kennedy is the swing vote typically. But even beyond that, the divisiveness of the court is over stated. For instance, John Roberts (appointed by GWB) and Sonia Sotomayor (appointed by Obama) disagreed with each other only 4 times out of the 32 decisions in 2016. They both agree with the opinion of the court over 93% of the time.

Most Supreme Court cases are simply to clear up a conflict in the Circuit Courts. If 10 Circuit Courts rule on an interpretation of an obscure term in the law one way and the rest of the Circuit Courts rule differently, the Supreme Court is just there to say that everyone should interpret it the one way.

They are divisive on the cases that can impact society, not these administrative low-hanging fruit cases where everyone agrees that "bank fraud" can also mean defrauding bank customers and not just meant to cover defrauding banks.
 

sazzy

Member
Nonsense thread title

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court is letting stand a lower court opinion from last summer that struck down North Carolina's voter ID law.

The North Carolina General Assembly had urged the court to review a lower court decision that held the law targeted "African-Americans with almost surgical precision." The Supreme Court declined to weigh in, but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote separately to stress that the denial should not be read as an endorsement of the lower court's decision.

The Supreme Court declined to weigh in, but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote separately to stress that the denial should not be read as an endorsement of the lower court's decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-voter-id/index.html
 
They didn't strike it down with any real finality....they just chose not to hear the case which keeps the lower court ruling in place. They will eventually have to set precedence for this imo, maybe with the one out of Wisconsin. They can't dodge these cases forever. I'm worried what the court with it's current makeup would side with though, anyone know how Gorsuch votes on civil rights issues? It was the SC that killed enforcement of the Voting Rights Act that gave states the brazenness to pass laws this discriminatory in the first place.
Exactly, this appears to be a largely procedural denial. If anything, in context of the full opinion (it's only two pages,) I'd take Roberts' note to not make any assumptions about the merit of the case as an indicator that they would take another case without the procedural issues this one had.
 
Yeah, this was denied on a technicality and the case itself not actually heard. But good thing is that the AG of NC is a Democrat and I imagine he/she will let this gut buried in paperwork...
 
Top Bottom