Let's Not Overlook Another Important Decision Affecting Voter ID in NC

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

I want to talk about another important case recently decided by the Supreme Court that has been a little sidelined because of the big decisions on gun rights, the big decisions on preying on the football field and of course the biggest decision of all the decision that God decision regarding that overturned roe versus wade, the case I want to talk about is called burger versus North Carolina state conference of the NAACP. And here is what's going on in that case. It's a voter ID case. So North Carolina passed a law basically saying that you need to have voter ID. You can't vote without proper ID. And this has now been contested in court. The voter ID law. But as it so happens, the Secretary of State, I'm sorry, the attorney general of North Carolina is a Democrat. He's opposed to voter ID. And so in a kind of irony, you got the NAACP suing to get rid of voter ID. And by the way, think of how ridiculous it says. This is the NAA suite basically saying that blacks don't know how to get ID. These are the same blacks, by the way, that travel on a plane. And get ID. Make doctors appointments and show their ID, open bank accounts, ensure their ID, but somehow when it comes to vote, they don't know how to get an ID and so an ID requirement becomes somehow racist, it becomes discriminatory. It becomes, quote, voter suppression, I mean, is requiring you to show ID at the TSA, travel suppression, when the bank says show me your ID before you cash a check is that banking suppression, nonsense. But in any event, you have this case, the NAACP wants to get rid of voter ID and the NAACP is counting on the attorney general of North Carolina a Democrat to be on their side. Now he's supposed to be defending the law, but he doesn't agree with the law. And so the point is he's going to make it's almost like a prosecutor who wants the guy who's accused to get off. And so what is he going to do? He's going to put on a really bad case. He's going to put on a bad case of the jewelry goes, wow, maybe the guy didn't do it. So he healed withhold evidence that is incriminating why because he doesn't agree with the prosecution. He doesn't want to go forward. And that's what's going on here. And so the Republicans basically step in and go listen, we want to be able to file briefs that support voter ID because we don't believe that the democratic attorney general is going to do a good job defending a law that was in fact passed by a Republican legislature. So that was the issue. And so earlier, lower court judges had said to the Republicans, you don't know, you can't intervene here. It's the job of the democratic attorney general to defend voter ID. If he does a bad job, he does a bad job, but it is his job. And so the question here went before the Supreme Court is simply this, do the Republicans who have an interest in the law. They passed the law. Have the right to be able to weigh in on the case. They can't displace the democratic attorney general, but they can file briefs that say to the court here are our reasons for why voter ID is a good idea. And the Supreme Court goes, yes, they can do that. You can't prevent them from doing that. In other words, the whole idea here is that our legal process is

Coming up next