Thread by @DemocracyDocket

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.👇

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1635740891074756609

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.

Oral argument has begun. GOP lawmakers make their opening arguments: “The record in this case does not support a finding of racially discriminatory intent.”

GOP lawmakers argue that the court presumed bad faith by the North Carolina Legislature when it enacted #SB824: “Time after time…the trial court drew bad faith inferences when good faith inferences were just as available, if not more available.”

Justice Earls (D): "Your argument is that we should rehear and change our opinion because we got it wrong the first time?"

GOP lawmakers: "Yes."

Earls asks why rehearing is warranted in this case. The GOP lawmakers argue that several facts were previously misunderstood or overlooked and provide a basis for the court to rehear this case.

Earls: "Help me understand when any case would be final. Because in every case, there are two sides to the argument and the side that loses believes that we misapprehended the law and got it wrong. So where do we draw the line, when do we not allow rehearing?”

Justice Morgan (D) says that all of the criteria were met to rule that the Legislature enacted the law with discriminatory intent: “How many more factors do you need in this case for the presumption to have been rebutted that the Legislature had discriminatory intent here?”

Morgan: “If discriminatory intent is found...as a contributing factor, and the trial court found those facts, and you agree that those facts are found here, then why would the trial court [have made an] error?”

GOP lawmakers reply: “Well, I don't agree with…the trial court's finding that the particular Arlington Heights factors tended to support the finding of discriminatory intent. We absolutely contest that.”

Earls: “Certainly you agree that there's a difference between just being able to go and cast a ballot, and whether or not that ballot is actually counted.”

GOP lawmakers argue that there is no evidence that anyone would be prevented from voting as a result of the photo ID law.

Earls points out no election has been held with the photo ID law in effect and asks GOP lawmakers if courts “can only assess the impact of a racially discriminatory law after it's been in effect.” The GOP lawmakers say no.

The GOP lawmakers argue that the opposing party is accusing the Legislature of wanting to have more Republicans to get elected and by knowing that Black people disproportionately vote for Democrats, they targeted them.

GOP lawmakers say the "only way that” makes it more likely that they get more votes by targeting Black voters is if “individuals are actually prevented from voting."

Earls asks the GOP lawmakers: "You're not contending that the only way that racial discrimination can be proved in the elections context is if there's direct evidence of discriminatory intent…" 1/2

Earls: "The whole point of Arlington Heights is that a law that's neutral on its face may nonetheless have been passed with discriminatory intent." 2/2

GOP: "It would be theoretically possible, yes."

The voters begin their opening arguments. This side wants the court to affirm its previous decision to permanently strike down the photo ID law because it was enacted to intentionally discriminate against Black voters.

The justices ask about legal precedent for presuming bad faith in the Legislature’s acts and cite a U.S. Supreme Court case, Abbott v. Perez, that dealt with this presumption of good faith by a legislature.

The voters bring up a previous photo ID law #HB589 with similar ID provisions that was struck down by a federal court: "In HB 589, the Legislature looked at race data." 1/2

Voters: "The Legislature understood that the forms of ID that were included in HB 589 were going to create racial disparities in possession rates. It knew that… dozens of members of the HB 589 Legislature were part of the Legislature that voted for SB 824.” 2/2

Justice Berger (R) says that no GOP lawmaker made direct statements that their intent by passing this photo ID law was to intentionally discriminate against Black voters. Voters reply that while the law is facially neutral, it can still be discriminatory in intent and effect.

Voters: "We hope in 2023 that we are well past the point where legislators are going to stand up...and proclaim an intent to disenfranchise African American voters."

Berger: "At what point would the North Carolina Legislature be able to pass a voter ID law?"
Voters argue that would require changing certain facts in the record of the case and speculating on future actions.

Voters argue that it is notable that Republicans passed this photo ID law during the "lame duck" session after they lost their supermajority. Berger asks if that same logic should apply to the North Carolina Supreme Court's December 2022 decision striking down the law.

Voters say no because the case was heard in October, before the election, and was ruled on during the court’s term: “It’s like comparing apples to oranges.”

Voters: "Whether the law will perfectly disenfranchise one group or another does bear more heavily on African American voters because they're disproportionately more likely to lack qualifying ID, more likely to face difficulties acquiring ID…as we saw under HB 589."

Voters: "This court's precedent is that a trial court's finding is not wrong just because you might also be able to draw a different conclusion from the facts. That's all that the [GOP lawmakers] are asking this court to do: draw their preferred inference from the facts."

The GOP lawmakers begin their rebuttal: "There are four or five basic factual mistakes in the majority opinion which perhaps speaks to the haste with which it was made."

The GOP lawmakers say that the Legislature was blamed for "seeking racial data" when enacting previous photo ID law #HB589 and did not seek racial data this time: "That's held against them again; it's like a Catch-22 regardless of what they do."

Oral argument has concluded. The court can:
1. Side with the GOP lawmakers to reverse its previous decision and reinstate the photo ID law.
OR
2. Side with the voters and affirm its previous decision to strike down the law for discriminating against Black voters.

This concludes oral arguments for both voting rights cases that the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to rehear. Yesterday, the court heard a case over the state's district maps. Subscribe stay up to date on both of these cases: democracydocket.com/subscribe