Supreme Court will hear dispute over GOP legislators' defense of North Carolina voter ID law
Source: CNN
(CNN)The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will hear a case brought by Republican legislators in North Carolina who are seeking to defend the state's strict voter ID law because they think the Democratic state attorney general is not adequately representing their interests.
North Carolina Senate Bill 824 requires a photo ID to vote. It was immediately challenged by the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, which argues that the law disproportionately impacts African American and Latino voters.
The dispute raises questions about who can act as an agent of the state to defend a law in a divided government.
The Republican politicians, Philip Berger, the president pro tempore of the state Senate and Timothy Moore, the speaker of the state House of Representatives, seek the right to intervene to defend the law. They argued in court papers that the case raises issues that are of "particular importance in the context of divided government and litigation involving controversial matters."
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/24/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-voter-id/index.html
This ought to be interesting...
Lonestarblue
(9,981 posts)Many people cannot afford a car, and they use buses and other public transportation. Obtaining a photo ID, especially if a state makes it particularly difficult, can be daunting. For example, if you cannot afford a car in my city and thus do not need a drivers license, you take the bus to work. Ut bus routes are limited because this is Texas and Republicans dont want public transportation. If the office you need to go to isnt near a bus route, youre forced to take a taxi there and back to get a photo ID. What happens if youre too poor to afford taxis? You have no photo ID.
I suspect there are a lot of poor people in North Carolina who may not want to spend the money for a photo ID. Perhaps Democrats should work with the state to set up sites in major areas near public transportation and near places where people shop to make it easier to obtain an ID.
getagrip_already
(14,742 posts)Voting is a right, driving is a privilege. If a state is going to require a photo id to vote, it should be required to pay for them.
The cost of a drivers license or ID is less than $2, printed and mailed. It's not a huge cost to any state.
And since all states have mobile units, they should be required to hold frequent mobile registration events near where people live.
oldsoftie
(12,533 posts)We've already had elections with them recently.
melm00se
(4,991 posts)requirements.
1. One document verifying age and identity
2. A Social Security card or one document proving they have a Social Security number
3. For U.S. citizens, one document proving residency
4. Standard non-operator ID card $14
jimfields33
(15,787 posts)I know a few who have gone and received them.
Ligyron
(7,631 posts)Although you think if a state required a photo ID then they, in turn, would be required to provide one to each and every citizen eligible to vote.
Period.
There once existed courts that would see that this happened but, alas
So unfortunately, the how, when and where this would occur is the roadblock the GQP has erected against Democracy, I.e., rule by the majority. Therefore if the courts wont throw out such laws or provide relief then it is up to us to defeat their attempt to rule as a minority by whatever means necessary.
oldsoftie
(12,533 posts)You dont have to use a drivers license. And here in GA, you can get a voter ID from your local precinct or get a State ID online. My mother no longer drives and thats what she got. And if you dont have a car or a computer, I know our local party workers have already advertised rides to the voting office to get IDs.
louis-t
(23,292 posts)It's the only way the traitors can win.
barbtries
(28,789 posts)gerrymandering. i loathe the fucking republicans in this state. they have a vise-like grip on the GA even though they did not win with a majority of the vote. they suck suck suck.
turbinetree
(24,695 posts)and as for as the Roberts Federalist Society majority court his track record says it all.....him and his bunch did after all just plain fuck over the Voting Rights Act.....literally....
mnhtnbb
(31,384 posts)DallasNE
(7,402 posts)This is far from the first time we have had divided government so there should be plenty of case history on such matters so what sets this apart to where SCOTUS needs to hear another case like this. About all I can think of is SCOTUS wants to strike down previous Court rulings on this matter.