Source: Strict North Carolina Voter ID Law Thwarted After Supreme Court Rejects Case – The New York Times
In the midst of the genuine joy over this BIG non-decision is this, via the reprehensible John Roberts–whose court damned the Voting Rights Law in the first place:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday announced that it would stay out of a fight over a restrictive North Carolina voting law. The move left in place a federal appeals court ruling that struck down key parts of the law as an unconstitutional effort to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”
As is the court’s custom, the justices gave no reason for declining to hear the case. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a statement noting that there was a dispute about who represented the state in the case and that nothing should be read into the court’s decision to decline to hear it.
And wouldn’t you know it?
The leaders of North Carolina’s Republican-controlled Legislature seized on that point on Monday, all but stating that they would seek to enact new voting restrictions after their defeat.
I’ve got to delve into my father’s 1929 Roget’s Thesaurus to come up with some sharp synonyms for “reprehensible,” given that I have every reason to fear I’ll be commenting further on John Roberts’ behavior as chief justice.
“As if the court’s custom, the justices gave no reason for declining to hear the case.” So Roberts had to open his big mouth, via his big pen. My theory? He’s still floating around in the ether over the original decision wrecking most of the Voting Rights Act which came down to “gee whiz, it’s been SUCH a long time since Southern states were Jim Crow-ing like mad and black people have been voting and winning elections and blah blah so we don’t think those states need to be constricted by voting rights laws anymore.”
Since the states which had been restricted by the Voting Rights Act immediately and gleefully jumped into laws suppressing minority voting, it sort of made Roberts look a bit foolish, don’t you think?
So he’s still working off his original premise that states no longer need restrictions and, although the court is allowing the lower court ruling to stand, Roberts had to get his little bit in there. Still trying to justify an injudicious decision, John?
Once again, I give you the very bad Supreme Court decision, Shelby v. Holder, which did such damage to the Voting Rights Act.
Pooh to you.
And hurrah for voters in North Carolina.