Thread by @DemocracyDocket

🚨⚖️COURT ALERT: Today the North Carolina Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit arguing that a state law requiring photo ID to vote was passed with the intent to discriminate against Black voters in violation of the NC Constitution.

Here’s what you need to know.🧵

In the 2018 elections, North Carolinians approved a state constitutional amendment requiring photo ID to vote. Also during these elections, Republicans lost super-majority control of the NC Legislature.

Between the elections and when the new lawmakers took power, the GOP-controlled North Carolina Legislature passed #SB824, a bill requiring all NC voters to present a photo ID when voting in person. Gov. Roy Cooper (D) vetoed the bill, but lawmakers overrode the veto.

Acceptable ID under SB 824 includes driver’s licenses, state ID cards, tribal enrollment cards, U.S. passports & more. Student and employment ID cards are acceptable, but must meet stringent requirements and schools/employers are not required to ensure cards meet the standards.

SB 824 does require the NC DMV and county boards of elections to give free photo IDs for the purposes of voting, but those IDs require documentation that may not be free to obtain, like copies of a birth certificate, U.S. passport or marriage license/divorce decree.

Additionally, there can be significant time and financial costs associated with traveling to these offices to get “free” IDs. Most offices have limited night and weekend hours and some county BOE offices are only open certain days of the week.

In 2013, after NC was released from preclearance requirements under the VRA, the Legislature passed a photo ID law called the Voter Information Verification Act. In 2016, this law was struck down in federal court for intentionally discriminating against Black voters.

The 4th Circuit found that lawmakers targeted Black voters “with almost surgical precision” with VIVA because the types of IDs excluded under the law were disproportionately held by Black North Carolinians. SB 824 retains many of the same ID provisions that VIVA did.

A group of voters, with support from @scsj, filed a lawsuit arguing that SB 824 violates the North Carolina Constitution because the law intentionally discriminates based on race, burdens the rights to vote and participate in a free election and more. democracydocket.com/cases/north-ca…

A state court temporarily blocked the enforcement of the law as litigation proceeded. Last year, following trial, a 3-judge panel found that the law was passed with the intent, at least in part, to discriminate against Black voters in violation of the state constitution.

The judges struck down SB 824 and permanently blocked enforcement. Lawmakers and state officials named in the case appealed the decision and voters petitioned the NC Supreme Court to take over and hear the case; it accepted the petition.

Oral arguments are scheduled before the North Carolina Supreme Court on Monday, Oct. 3 at 1:00 pm ET.

📺Stream the proceedings here:

Meanwhile, there’s another lawsuit about if the Legislature had the authority to propose the constitutional amendment requiring photo ID. The lawmakers who proposed the amendment, and passed SB 824, were elected under racially gerrymandered maps.

In 2016, a federal court ruled that North Carolina’s state House and Senate maps were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision. NC had to draw new maps, used for the first time in the 2018 elections.

The @ncnaacp sued, alleging that because these lawmakers were elected from gerrymandered districts they did not have the authority to propose & pass some constitutional amendments, including the amendment requiring photo ID to vote that led to SB 824. democracydocket.com/cases/north-ca…

A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and struck down the amendments, but the state appellate court reversed the decision. The NC Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that lawmakers elected under gerrymandered maps do not possess unlimited authority to amend the NC Constitution.

However, the NC Supreme Court did not strike down the amendments. Instead, the court remanded the case back down to the trial court with specific instructions for deciding whether the challenged amendments should be “retroactively invalidated.” Litigation is ongoing.

These lawsuits will affect how thousands of North Carolinians will be able to vote and we’re following along closely. Watch this space for news and find out more about the other voting rights cases we’re tracking in the Tar Heel State. democracydocket.com/cases/state/no…