N.C. Supreme Court Hands Republicans Election-Law Victories, Citing Judicial Restraint

And these decisions could have roadmap effect in other states and/or to the SCOTUS which I have little doubt would/will concur.

First is the districting case where

".....In that case, Harper v. Hall, Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote for the five-justice majority, explaining that the North Carolina Constitution expressly assigns redistricting authority to the general assembly subject to specific limitations, of which partisan gerrymandering is not one.

“There is no judicially manageable standard by which to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims. Courts are not intended to meddle in policy matters,” wrote Newby. “In its decision today, the Court returns to its tradition of honoring the constitutional roles assigned to each branch.”


IOW the state constitution and federal assign the role of districting to the legislature and courts cannot assume a super legislature role. It would he up to the people to change that the courts cannot just assume such a role.

Second concerning the state voter ID law

"....“The people of North Carolina overwhelmingly support voter identification and other efforts to promote greater integrity and confidence in our elections. Subjective tests and judicial sleight of hand have systematically thwarted the will of the people and the intent of the legislature. But no court exists for the vindication of political interests, and judges exceed constitutional boundaries when they act as a super-legislature,” wrote Berger. “We recommit to that fundamental principle and begin the process of returning the judiciary to its rightful place as ‘the least dangerous’ branch.”

Berger explained that the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the voter-identification law was enacted with discriminatory intent or that it produced a meaningfully disparate impact along racial lines."

Again a matter for the people through the stage legislature. Courts do not have the authority to dictate how elections will ne managed and unproven assertions of bias or suppression notwithstanding . This similar to a case in Georgia where plaintiffs could not produce anyone who could not vote.

And lastly concern felons getting voting privileges reinstated

"...“It is not unconstitutional to insist that felons pay their debt to society as a condition of participating in the electoral process,” wrote Allen. “The General Assembly did not engage in racial discrimination or otherwise violate the North Carolina Constitution by requiring individuals with felony convictions to complete their sentences — including probation, parole, or post-release supervision — before they regain the right to vote.”

more here https://www.nationalreview.com/news...king&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=31321021

All three constitutionally based reasoned and rational decisions IMHO. And signalling the lower courts keep your hands off the election process, how they are conducted is not your realm.

 

Good decision. At some point politicians have got to learn that there's a reason why there's a separation of powers in our government. Legislation from the Bench is not good government.

 

Conservative judges overthrowing the rule of law, as is their wont.

 

Nope. Upholding the laws and Constitution as was pointed out. If you don't like it then change the law and the Constitution.

 

I doubt most of the critics of the ruling have actually read it. They see a headline and have a knee jerk reaction to it.

 

Like the Barr ruling and the recent abortion pill ruling.

 

A republican coup.

This nation is so close to over...

 

The Constitution wins again. The nation is saved because of it.