TOMORROW: The newly Republican-led North Carolina Supreme Court will rehear a case challenging a strict photo ID law that was previously struck down by the then-Democratic court last year for intentionally discriminating against Black voters.

Here's what you need to know.🧵
In 2018, North Carolina passed voter suppression law #SB824, which severely limited the list of acceptable photo IDs for voting. North Carolina voters filed a lawsuit, arguing that the law was passed with the intent to discriminate against Black voters.
democracydocket.com/cases/north-ca…
SB 824 has many of the same ID provisions as SB 589, another North Carolina law that was struck down by the 4th Circuit in 2016 for targeting Black voters "with almost surgical precision." democracydocket.com/cases/north-ca…
A trial court struck down #SB824, ruling that it WAS enacted with the intent to discriminate against Black voters in violation of the North Carolina Constitution. The court found that Black voters are 39% more likely to lack qualifying ID than white voters.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/no…
Republican lawmakers took the case to the North Carolina Supreme Court. In December 2022, the Democratic majority on the court agreed with the lower court and permanently blocked #SB824.
democracydocket.com/news-alerts/no…
Normally, this would be the end of the case. But after the November 2022 elections, the court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. Republican lawmakers took this opportunity to ask the state's highest court to rehear two cases they lost last year.
In an unprecedented move, the Republican justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court granted GOP lawmakers' requests to rehear both cases — despite there being no changes in any facts, laws or the state constitution.
democracydocket.com/news-alerts/no…
Rehearing is a rare phenomenon and is typically only granted in extenuating circumstances. Many legal experts and prominent North Carolinians have expressed serious concern over the court's decision to grant rehearing. democracydocket.com/analysis/north…
Earlier today, the North Carolina Supreme Court reheard Harper v. Hall, the state-level redistricting case underlying the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark case Moore v. Harper. Everything you need to know about Harper can be found here:democracydocket.com/analysis/north…
Tomorrow, Wednesday, March 15 at 12:45 pm ET, oral argument over the photo ID law will be held in the North Carolina Supreme Court. We'll be live tweeting the argument, so watch this space for updates and subscribe to stay up to date on this case: democracydocket.com/subscribe

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Democracy Docket

Democracy Docket Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DemocracyDocket

Mar 15
HAPPENING NOW: The North Carolina Supreme Court is rehearing a case challenging a strict photo ID law that was previously struck down by the court last year.

Stream the oral argument here: youtube.com/@supremecourto…

Follow along for live updates.🧵
Get background on the law, why the court is rehearing this case and why it's so notable here.👇
Here's who will be arguing today:
⚖️Voters will argue that the law is discriminatory and urge the court to affirm its previous decision to strike down the law.
⚖️GOP lawmakers will argue that the court's previous ruling was wrongly decided and urge the court to reinstate the law.
Read 32 tweets
Mar 14
STARTING SOON: The North Carolina Supreme Court will rehear Harper v. Hall, the state-level case behind Moore v. Harper.

Watch along here:

Follow along for live updates.🧵⤵️
Participating in argument today:
-GOP state lawmakers asking to reverse rulings that said the Legislature's maps are gerrymandered. We'll refer to them as GOP lawmakers.

-Voters & groups asking the court to protect voting rights. We'll refer to them as the pro-voting groups.
Read 30 tweets
Mar 13
Court Watch: Tomorrow, the North Carolina Supreme Court will rehear Harper v. Hall — the state-level case behind Moore v. Harper — which blocked the state's congressional and legislative maps for partisan gerrymandering.

Here's what you need to know.🧵 democracydocket.com/analysis/north…
In February 2022, the NC Supreme Court (NCSC) — which had a Democratic majority at the time — struck down the NC Legislature's congressional and legislative maps for partisan gerrymandering, finding that the maps unfairly benefited Republicans and violated the state constitution.
In all the maps, districts were drawn in ways that could only be explained by partisan gerrymandering — like the cracking of Democratic areas and splitting Democratic-leaning counties into multiple congressional districts.
Read 15 tweets
Mar 6
Pro-voting groups and voters submit their briefs in two previously decided voting rights cases that the North Carolina Supreme Court's new GOP majority agreed to rehear. Here's what the groups are arguing.🧵
Shortly after the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped from blue to red in the 2022 midterms, GOP lawmakers asked the court to rehear two voting cases they previously lost. Despite all facts and laws remaining the same, the GOP majority on the court agreed to rehear both cases.
In Holmes v. Moore, the court struck down the state's strict photo ID law for violating the North Carolina Constitution, ruling that it was enacted to intentionally disenfranchise and discriminate against Black voters.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 6
HAPPENING NOW: The 5th Circuit is hearing oral argument in a case challenging Texas’ “wet signature” requirement to register to vote.

Stream the proceeding here: 5thcircuit.streamguys1.com/houston

Follow along for live updates.
Texas law requires individuals who submit their voter registration applications electronically or through fax to also provide a copy of their application with a "wet signature" — meaning signed with pen on paper.
.@votedotorg filed a lawsuit arguing that Texas' "wet signature" requirement violates federal law, including the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects voters from being disenfranchised for trivial reasons.
democracydocket.com/analysis/this-…
Read 30 tweets
Mar 2
BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court asks the parties in Moore v. Harper for supplemental briefs about if the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to reopen the state-level case impacts if SCOTUS should review the case. democracydocket.com/moorevharper Screenshot of Supreme Court order:  (ORDER LIST: 598 U.S.) T
This may indicate that SCOTUS is considering dismissing Moore v. Harper as improvidently granted, or DIG for short. SCOTUS can only rule on final decisions from a state Supreme Court. Since the North Carolina Supreme Court is reopening the case, SCOTUS may step back.
SCOTUS could decide to keep Moore v. Harper and rule on it anyway, regardless of what the North Carolina Supreme Court does. The North Carolina Supreme Court is scheduled to rehear the state-level version of Moore on March 14.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(