Justices Rule GOP Lawmakers Can Defend North Carolina Voter ID Law

June 23, 2022 by Dan McCue
Justices Rule GOP Lawmakers Can Defend North Carolina Voter ID Law
N.C. House Speaker Tim Moore, one of two Republican state lawmakers who want to intervene in an ongoing voter ID case.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday held that Republican lawmakers in North Carolina can intervene to defend the state’s controversial voter-ID law, despite the fact the state’s Democratic attorney general is already defending it.

The 8-1 ruling in Berger v. NC NAACP did not delve into the underlying question of the lawfulness of the newly adopted ID requirements, but focused instead solely on which government bodies can defend the law in court. 

The underlying dispute arose after the state General Assembly enacted a new election law that said anyone seeking to vote must do one of three things — present an acceptable photo ID, complete a provisional ballot and later produce a photo ID, or submit a form explaining why they could not present one.

As noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion for the majority, these “photo ID cards are available free of charge in each of the state’s 100 counties without the need for corroborating documentation.”

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the bill, and the General Assembly promptly voted to override the veto. As a result, the new requirements went into effect on Dec. 19, 2018.

The next day, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sued the governor and the members of the State Board of Elections to overturn the new law.

As part of his duties, state Attorney General Josh Stein assumed responsibility for defending the board of elections.

But Republican lawmakers quickly grew concerned. Prior to being attorney general, Stein, a member of the state Senate, voted against an earlier voting ID law and signed a declaration supporting a legal challenge to it.

They also worried that, since Stein was a member of the governor’s administration, he’d be less inclined to defend the law as robustly as they’d like.

Soon, state House Speaker Tim Moore and Phil Berger, president pro tempore of the state Senate, moved to intervene, noting North Carolina law expressly authorizes them “to intervene on behalf of the General Assembly as a party in any judicial proceeding challenging a North Carolina statute or provision of the North Carolina Constitution.” 

Gorsuch said while many states mount a legal defense through the “single voice” of their attorney general, many choose not to proceed this way.

“Sometimes leaders in different branches of government may see the state’s interests at stake in litigation differently,” he wrote. “Some states may judge that important public perspectives would be lost without a mechanism allowing multiple officials to respond. 

“It seems North Carolina has some experience with just these sorts of issues. More than once a North Carolina attorney general has opposed laws enacted by the General Assembly and declined to defend them fully in federal litigation,” Gorsuch said.

This case, Gorsuch said, shows “how divided state governments sometimes warrant participation by multiple state officials in federal court.”

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor makes two points: First, the court majority goes astray by creating a presumption that a state is inadequately represented in federal court unless whomever state law designates as a state’s representative is allowed to intervene, even where the interests that the intervenors seek to represent are identical to those of an existing party. 

That presumption of inadequacy improperly permits state law, as opposed to federal law, to determine whether an existing party adequately represents a particular interest. 

Second, she said, the court errs by implying that the attorney general’s defense of the constitutionality of the voting law at issue here fell below a minimal standard of adequacy.

“In short, the court’s conclusion that state respondents inadequately represented petitioners’ interests is a fiction that the record does not support,” Sotomayor wrote. 

“In addition, the court’s armchair hypothesizing improperly displaces the district court’s firsthand experience in managing this litigation,” she continued. “States are entitled to structure themselves as they wish and to decide who should represent their interests in federal litigation. 

“State law may not, however, override the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by requiring federal courts to allow intervention by multiple state representatives who all seek to represent the same state interest that an existing state party is already capably defending,” Sotomayor concluded.

In a written statement, House Speaker Moore said, “North Carolinians overwhelmingly support voter ID, and they deserve nothing less than the strongest representation from those who would uphold the will of the voters and our constitution, not a tepid defense by an attorney general who has a record of opposing voter ID. As stated in today’s decision, ‘More than once a North Carolina attorney general has opposed laws enacted by the General Assembly and declined to defend them fully in federal litigation.’”

He continued, “The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully agreed with us that, without the participation of the General Assembly in defending voter ID, ‘important state interests would not be represented.’ Also, ‘ … while serving as a state senator the attorney general voted against an earlier voter-ID law and filed a declaration in support of a legal challenge against it.’ I am proud of our General Counsel and legal team for their diligent work on behalf of the voters. Rest assured, I will continue to fight to defend the will of the people for voter ID to become law as decided by the voters.”

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and @DanMcCue

A+
a-
  • Neil Gorsuch
  • North Carolina
  • Supreme Court
  • Voter ID
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Supreme Court

    A Supreme Court Ruling in a Social Media Case Could Set Standards for Free Speech in the Digital Age

    WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social... Read More

    March 4, 2024
    by Dan McCue
    Justices Rule Trump Can Stay on Colorado Ballot

    WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump may remain on Colorado’s... Read More

    WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump may remain on Colorado’s primary ballot, rejecting a challenge to his eligibility based on a section of the 14th Amendment that bars those who have “engaged in insurrection” from holding... Read More

    About as Many Abortions Happening in US Monthly as Before Roe Was Overturned, Report Finds

    The number of abortions performed each month is about the same as before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and... Read More

    The number of abortions performed each month is about the same as before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion more than a year and a half ago, a new report finds. The latest edition of the #WeCount report conducted for... Read More

    February 26, 2024
    by Tom Ramstack
    States Try to Convince Supreme Court to Keep Laws Regulating Social Media

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed skeptical Monday of two state laws that could redraw social media companies’ right to... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed skeptical Monday of two state laws that could redraw social media companies’ right to decide what sort of content is displayed on their platforms. The tech companies say the Florida and Texas laws that seek to limit which content they... Read More

    February 21, 2024
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Looks at EPA’s Justification for Rule to Block Interstate Pollution

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether to keep the Environmental Protection Agency’s good neighbor rule that... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether to keep the Environmental Protection Agency’s good neighbor rule that requires states to clean up their industrial pollution that could be carried by wind into neighboring states. Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia want the Supreme Court... Read More

    February 20, 2024
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Lets Virginia High School Keep ‘Race Neutral’ Admissions Policy

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The U.S. Supreme Court decided Tuesday to allow a Virginia high school to choose its own racially... Read More

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The U.S. Supreme Court decided Tuesday to allow a Virginia high school to choose its own racially influenced admissions policy rather than intervening at the request of Asian American students. The elite Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria adopted... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top