North Carolina's Liberal Supreme Court Rules That Part of the State Constitution Is Now Unconstitutional

The state constitution had been amended to require voter ID.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that that part of the state constitution is unconstitutional.

The primary argument being made in this ruling is that the amendment was written "to target African-American voters who were unlikely to vote for Republican candidates." So that's crystal clear, right? They're saying that the law is racist.

But the ruling then immediately turns around and claims "we do not conclude that the General Assembly harbored racial animus." So what are they saying about the Republicans in the legislature? That they were... unintentionally racist? And yet the very next sentence says that the law "targeted voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party." So now we're back to the authors being racists, apparently. And we're entirely ignoring the rather racist assumption by the court that most or all Black voters are Democrats.

The ruling also includes the usual Democratic talking point citing "the disparate impacts the law was likely to have on Black voters." This argument has always been little more than horse-hockey. Like virtually every other state, North Carolina has bent over backward to ensure that every legal resident of the state can obtain a free voter identification card regardless of race, gender, income level, or any other demographic you can name. The information describing how to do so would be universally available. You simply have to go down to the local DMV or board of elections and ask for one. You will be given one at no charge. If anyone in the state didn't have a valid ID under the proposed system it would be because they either didn't want one or couldn't be bothered to take the time to go get it.

The court went on to whine about how the legislature could have passed "a less restrictive law." Would the justices care to explain exactly how that would work? How can a law be "less restrictive" when you're talking about what is fundamentally a binary decision? You either need to provide some form of ID to vote or you don't.

The left is always warning us about "threats against democracy."

They never mention that they mean themselves.

posted by Ace at 04:00 PM

| Access Comments