SCOTUS Lets North Dakota Enforce Full Voter ID Law For Upcoming Midterms
Source: Talking Points Memo
By Tierney Sneed
October 9, 2018 5:38 pm
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed North Dakota to enforce for the midterm elections its full voter ID law, which a federal judge had previously sought to relax in a lawsuit brought by Native Americans in the state.
The law lets voters who dont have the required ID show certain supplemental documentation with their name and street address. Native Americans in the state had challenged a provision in the law requiring that the address be a residential street address, rather than a PO Box or other kind of address, given that some members of some tribes dont have residential street addresses.
A federal judge ruled in favor of the challengers and expanded the laws requirements so documents with non-residential street addresses were acceptable. However, an appeals court blocked that ruling for the 2018 elections, and the Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to leave appeals court order blocking the expansion of the law in place.
The Supreme Court did not give the full breakdown on how the justices voted on the issue, but Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly noted their dissent, with Ginsburg writing that the the risk of disfranchisement is large.
Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scotus-lets-north-dakota-enforce-full-voter-id-law-for-upcoming-midterms
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
rurallib This message was self-deleted by its author.
mountain grammy
(26,626 posts)SCOTUS can decide elections.. remember 2000?
rurallib
(62,427 posts)to appoint 4 more much younger Republicans (Kavie, Gorsuch, Alito and Roberts) that will be on the SCOTUS for another 25 years. Had they allowed the count to be completed which Gore would have won there would be at least 2 Dems or at least middle the road instead of Roberts and Alito.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)rurallib
(62,427 posts)OhNo-Really
(3,985 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)The liberal block could have brought this case before the court if they had wanted to.
These vote totals are never announced. Occasionally, one of the Justices will read a statement from the bench on why the court should hear a case, but this is very rarely / almost never done.
OhNo-Really
(3,985 posts)ruling.
Who voted in favor of this case?
Not Ginsberg, not Kagan, crickets from Sotomeyer who, by the way, brough another ND case to the court.
Did she vote to disenfranchise North Dakota voters with no atreet addresses?
Calista241
(5,586 posts)If the Supreme Court declines to take a case, the lower courts ruling stands.
The Justices on the Supreme Court will vote of whether to hear a case or not.
We never learn the vote totals of this process, and as i mentioned, its only rarely that a particular Justice will object to the court not taking a case by saying something from the bench.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)"Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court this weekend, did not participate in the courts decision."
rurallib
(62,427 posts)Sorry
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Just giving a heads up
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)feed us and taught us how to survive when we arrived on this continent and this is their reward? We deny them a vote.
Shame on US, I am ashamed.
procon
(15,805 posts)approved it.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Kajun Gal
(1,907 posts)Fullduplexxx
(7,866 posts)Did anyone learn anything ....
NoMoreRepugs
(9,436 posts)dalton99a
(81,527 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,461 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-for-tribal-north-dakotans-to-vote/
Could be the difference in control of the Senate.