On Friday, North Carolina’s state Supreme Court sided with the GOP to reverse district and voter ID rulings, and to end felons’ voting rights.
It has been less than four months since the GOP won a majority in the NC Supreme Court.
Now, the court is revisiting decisions that were made in December while the Democrats held a 4-3 seat advantage.
In December, the state Supreme Court struck down the constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2018 that would require a photo ID to be presented before voting. The court also upheld a prior ruling that political districts cannot be gerrymandered to maintain political power.
The previous rulings had declared that redistricting maps were illegal for excessive partisanship and that a voter identification law was also illegal due to its racial bias.
The previously Democrat-led court had also restored the right to vote for convicted felons.
The overturning of these rulings means that North Carolina elections will likely require a photo ID to vote in, the GOP will be granted greater latitude in drawing maps favoring their candidates, and convicted felons will no longer have the right to vote in elections.
In a statement after the rulings, Senate Leader Phil Berger (R) said, “For years plaintiffs and activist courts have manipulated our Constitution to achieve policy outcomes that could not be won at the ballot box. Today’s rulings affirm that our Constitution cannot be exploited to fit the political whims of left-wing Democrats.”
Berger’s son, Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr., commented on the voter ID laws, saying that the residents of North Carolina largely support the decision to maintain a photo ID requirement to vote.
“The people of North Carolina overwhelmingly support voter identification and other efforts to promote greater integrity and confidence in our elections,” said Berger Jr. “Subjective tests and judicial sleight of hand have systematically thwarted the will of the people and the intent of the legislature.”
“But no court exists for the vindication of political interests, and judges exceed constitutional boundaries when they act as a superlegislature,” continued Berger Jr. “This court has traditionally stood against the waves of partisan rulings in favor of the fundamental principle of equality under the law. We recommit to that fundamental principle and begin the process of returning the judiciary to its rightful place as ‘the least dangerous’ branch.”
