This is potentially important:
In a trio of rulings Friday, the N.C. Supreme Court restored the state’s voter ID law, took state courts out of partisan gerrymandering disputes, and ended voting for felons who have not completed their sentences.
Each ruling split the court, 5-2. Republican justices supported the majority decisions. Democrats dissented.
The rulings will affect North Carolina’s upcoming elections, including the next set of congressional and legislative election maps.
In a trio of opinions totaling 436 pages, the N.C. Supreme Court has restored North Carolina’s voter ID law, ruled that state courts cannot consider partisan gerrymandering claims, and ended voting for felons who have not completed their sentences.
What happened to cause the reversal? An election. The previous court had a 4-3 Democrat majority. There was an election in November, and two of the Democrat justices were replaced by Republican ones, giving the court its present 5-2 Republican split.
It’s another reminder that justice is not blind, especially in cases such as these which directly concern politics and elections. Interestingly, the present court casts this as a retreat from politics by the court, because the previous decisions were judicial overreach in which the court negated actions by the legislature:
“There is no legal recourse available for vindication of political interests, but this Court is yet again confronted with ‘a partisan legislative disagreement that has spilled out . . . into the courts.’ This Court once again stands as a bulwark against that spillover, so that even in the most divisive cases, we reassure the public that our state’s courts follow the law, not the political winds of the day,” wrote Justice Phil Berger Jr. for the majority.
The voter ID law had been passed by the NC legislature and rejected by the previous NC Supreme Court. The legislature also is in charge of redistricting, but the previous court had thrown out the maps drawn by the Republican-dominated legislature. This new court adds that “state courts will no longer hear lawsuits challenging election maps because of claims of excessive partisanship.” The power rests in the legislative branch. The court stated:
The constitution does not require or permit a standard [for redistricting fairness] known only to four justices. Finally, creating partisan redistricting standards is rife with policy decisions. Policy decisions belong to the legislative branch, not the judiciary.
This would not be happening now but for the recent election in North Carolina that put Republicans in charge of the court. I’d like to know how it was that there was a Democrat majority in that court in that state to begin with, and then how the voters became convinced that the party balance of the court needed changing during the 2022 campaign. Was it about personalities, or general policy? Can the GOP in other states learn from the experience?
If you want to know how many states elect judges and how many don’t, it’s complicated because there are a great many different systems for it. Here’s a list and chart.
Bonchie points out that this ruling is likely to affect the next election:
What that means is that the map that was ultimately adopted for the 2022 election was drawn in such a way as to guarantee a near-neutral split between Republican and Democrat seats. That allowed Democrats to win several seats they would have otherwise lost…
The GOP has a very slim majority in the House of Representatives right now. All it would have taken were a few bad candidates or scandals to arise during the next election to hand the gavel over to Hakeem Jeffries. Having a high probability of an extra four seats in North Carolina is just the breathing room Republicans need to ensure they hold onto power, no matter what happens with the presidential election in 2024.
The post North Carolina’s SCOTUS reverses previous rulings on redistricting and restores some voting safeguards appeared first on The New Neo.