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-

In The News

Health

Voting

Supreme Court

June 29, 2022
by Dan McCue
Breyer Bids President Adieu as SCOTUS Prepares to Announce Final Rulings

WASHINGTON — The letter, delivered to President Joe Biden Wednesday afternoon, was as modest and straightforward as the man who... Read More

WASHINGTON — The letter, delivered to President Joe Biden Wednesday afternoon, was as modest and straightforward as the man who signed it. "This past January, I wrote to inform you of my intent to retire from regular active service as an associate justice of the Supreme... Read More

June 29, 2022
by Tom Ramstack
Supreme Court Expands Veterans’ Rights to Sue States for Job Discrimination

WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court ruling Wednesday broadens the rights of veterans to sue state agencies for employment discrimination based... Read More

WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court ruling Wednesday broadens the rights of veterans to sue state agencies for employment discrimination based on their military service. The ruling revives a lawsuit by a former Texas state trooper who said he was forced out of his job because of... Read More

June 29, 2022
by Dan McCue
Gorsuch Scorches Majority Over Ruling in Sovereign Authority Case

WASHINGTON — It began with a simple question: Do the federal government and a state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute... Read More

WASHINGTON — It began with a simple question: Do the federal government and a state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Native Americans against Native Americans in what the federal government continues to refer to as “Indian country”? But the ruling in the case,... Read More

June 28, 2022
by Dan McCue
Bar Association to Honor Justice Breyer

CHICAGO — Justice Stephen Breyer, on the verge of retirement after 28 years on the Supreme Court, is being awarded... Read More

CHICAGO — Justice Stephen Breyer, on the verge of retirement after 28 years on the Supreme Court, is being awarded the ABA Medal, the highest honor conferred by the American Bar Association. Breyer, who for many years has served as the anchor of the so-called liberal... Read More

June 28, 2022
by Eden Metzger
In the Wake of Dobbs, Uncertainty Grows for Foster Care System

WASHINGTON — Among the questions now being asked in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v.... Read More

WASHINGTON — Among the questions now being asked in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning 50 years of abortion rights protections, is what the long-term impact will be on the nation’s adoption and foster care systems.... Read More

June 27, 2022
by Dan McCue
Justices Side With Two Doctors Snared in Opioid ‘Pill Mill’ Case 

WASHINGTON — In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court said on Monday that prosecutors must prove doctors knowingly misprescribed drugs... Read More

WASHINGTON — In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court said on Monday that prosecutors must prove doctors knowingly misprescribed drugs to secure convictions against them for the unlawful distribution of controlled medicines, like opioids. The decision came down in a case brought by two doctors, Xiulu... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top