Linkedin Share
Wire

Ballot Integrity Breached: State Supreme Court Goes Woke, Strikes Down Vital Voter ID Law

Linkedin Share

The Supreme Court of North Carolina has eroded election integrity in the state by striking down a 2018 state constitutional amendment requiring voters to show a valid photo ID before being allowed to cast their ballots.

In its 89-page ruling Friday, the high court decided 4-3 that while Senate Bill 824 requiring voter ID appeared neutral on its face, its intent was to discriminate against North Carolina’s black voters.

Associate Justice Anita Earls, a Democratic former social justice warrior, wrote in the majority opinion of Holmes v. Moore that “the statute was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose.”

“The provisions enacted … were formulated with an impermissible intent to discriminate against African American voters in violation of the North Carolina Constitution,” she said.

Earls, who has taught African-American studies at Duke University, is an acolyte of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, an appointee of the 44th president, Barack Obama.

Trending:
Massive Migrant Caravan Marches Toward US with LGBT Flags Flying as Mexican President Snubs Biden at Summit

Earls is also a friend of left-wing activist Ben Jealous, a former president of the NAACP, which has claimed that requiring voter ID is “racist” because it disenfranchises black Americans.

Do you support voter ID laws?

Essentially, Earls and the three other liberal justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court promoted the idea that black people are uniquely incapable of getting ID cards, either through some form of employment or via state driver’s licenses.

Not only is this ruling a breach of ballot integrity, but it’s also based on a racist stereotype that infantilizes an entire demographic.

Ironically, the state high court’s liberal majority admitted in its ruling that most voters have at least one form of identification — all while insisting that a voter ID law disenfranchises black voters.

“While most people who have one of the acceptable forms of photo identification do not run the risk of being disenfranchised by this statute, the experiences of plaintiffs and other witnesses at trial showed that for themselves and others like them, the risk of disenfranchisement is very real,” Earls wrote.

Related:
27-Year-Old Model's Father Speaks Out After Son's Death - Reveals Likely Cause

NC Supreme Court Ruling by The Western Journal

This nonsensical contention is insulting to the countless Americans of all colors who have some form of ID, which is required to do the following:

  • Apply for welfare.
  • Apply for food stamps.
  • Apply for a job.
  • Rent a house or apartment.
  • Drive.
  • Buy alcohol.
  • Rent a car.
  • Open a bank account.
  • Pick up a prescription.
  • Get on an airplane.
  • Enter many buildings, including on college campuses.
  • Adopt a pet.
  • Rent a hotel room.

A 2016 interview conducted by filmmaker Ami Horowitz in left-wing Berkeley, California, and in the predominantly black New York City borough of Harlem destroyed the notion that voter ID laws are racist and suppress the black vote.



Indeed, the rest of the developed world recognizes how important it is to require people to show identification when they vote in order to deter election fraud.

Starting next month, Britain will require ID to vote in national elections. All 47 countries in Europe, as well as Mexico and Canada, will require voter ID as of 2023.

The U.S. stands alone in rejecting common-sense voter ID laws, with 17 states refusing to require identification.

Let’s just call this Democratic ploy what it is: a recipe for murky election results and an incentive for voter fraud.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Submit a Correction →



Linkedin Share

Conversation