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.
When I was at DOJ, Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General, great to reconnect & hear about his current work to protect our right to vote! He said: "We should never underestimate the power we have as American Citizens" to speak out about what matters to us. pic.twitter.com/M2MKgJEXGa
— Anita Earls (@Anita_Earls) February 28, 2018
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.
With my friend @BenJealous at NCSU's #MLKDay Event today, he reminded us that "Its easy to figure out what we disagree about, but what is important is to figure out what we can agree on." pic.twitter.com/Ho2uB2JuhB
— Anita Earls (@Anita_Earls) January 17, 2018
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.
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:
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.
Voter ID is already required in all but 17 states lol so how is it racist now? How is it denying people from voting? It’s really easy to walk/drive/run/crawl to a DMV and get an ID lol you need it to drive, need it to travel, why’s it bad to need it to vote? pic.twitter.com/pxvcmILgeP
— payton (@paytonagen) May 11, 2021
Let’s just call this Democratic ploy what it is: a recipe for murky election results and an incentive for voter fraud.
via westernjournal
