Thread by @DemocracyDocket

🚨STARTING NOW: Oral arguments begin in the North Carolina Supreme Court over the state's law requiring photo ID to vote. Get background below and follow for live updates!

📺Watch along here:

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1576945373637378049

The attorney for the legislative defendants begins: "The Superior Court's determination that #SB824 was motivated by a desire to entrench Republicans by targeting African American voters is unsupportable both as a matter of law and as a matter of fact."

Legislative defendants say that the Superior Court got facts about #SB824 wrong, such as how long free IDs to vote were valid, and the lower court "presumed bad faith on behalf of the General Assembly."

Legislative defendants: "We're not asking you to re-weigh, we're saying there's not competent evidence to support the legal conclusion that this was made for a racially discriminatory purpose."

The defendants also bring up the 2005 Carter-Baker report as support for photo ID to vote. The updated report says that "it’s important to note that increasingly restrictive voter ID laws today are not what the Carter-Baker Commission endorsed." cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs…

Justice Morgan: "What level of weight would be given to the legislative history, in terms of looking at this question concerning a discriminatory intent?"

Legislative defendants: "Well, you can't presume bad faith on the basis of a past discriminatory act."

The attorney for the state defendants argued that the trial court erred when it ruled that there the photo ID law had a discriminatory impact on voters.

Justice Earls points out that it was a finding of fact in the lower court that Black voters in NC are less likely than white voters to have photo IDs to vote that are accepted under #SB824.

Justice Earls: "The reason why it was significant that so many legislators [that voted for #SB824] had voted on the prior photo ID bill [VIVA in 2013] was because it was about their knowledge about the impact on voters and who had IDs and who didn't." 1/3

Justice Earls: "And ultimately, under Arlington Heights, and under the disparate impact prong...It doesn't matter whether the legislature ultimately was right or wrong. It was what was in their minds. What were they intending?" 2/3

Justice Earls: "So the fact that they had voted on a prior law [that was struck down for discriminating against Black voters,] they knew that African American voters were more likely to lack at an ID [acceptable under the law]. That's relevant to what their intent was" 3/3

The attorney representing the plaintiffs begins: "Following years of litigation...a majority of a three-judge panel concluded that Senate Bill 824 violated the North Carolina cut protection clause" 1/2

"because it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against African American voters. The question before this court is whether that conclusion is supported by findings of fact based on competent evidence and the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes." 2/2

Plaintiffs: When looking at SB 824, you have to consider the history of "racially polarized voting in North Carolina — African Americans tend to strongly favor Democrats — and there's an incentive for Republicans to discriminate against them for political payoffs."

Plaintiffs: Expert analysis shows that "African Americans lack [acceptable photo ID to vote] 1.4 times more than whites and found that nearly 7% of African Americans lack the ID, which equates to over 100,000 voters."

^within North Carolina

Plaintiffs: "The constitutional harm alleged here is not that fact a particular voter is not going to come to be able to vote...the harm here...is that voters are being treated differently and that the fundamental rights to vote for certain individuals is being burdened."

Chief Justice Newby: "How does that show discrimination?"

Plaintiffs: The impacts of #SB824 "fall on a particular class that is less able to overcome them because of the history of discrimination...and it's negative consequences on political participation."

Legislative defendants say that the plaintiffs' argument that lawmakers passed SB 824 to target Black voters to "entrench Republican power" isn't true because 4 Democrats voted for final passage of the bill.

Arguments have concluded before the North Carolina Supreme Court. A summary of the arguments will be on our website soon. Once the court issues its opinion, we'll update you on the ruling!

Subscribe to the free Democracy Docket newsletter to get weekly updates on voting rights and democracy sent straight to your inbox. democracydocket.com/newsletters