The editors of The Wall Street Journal are not impressed with the legal reasoning of the Democratic majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court.
An editorial headlined, “The Philosopher Kings of North Carolina,” blasts the NC Supreme Court decision, “that unlawful gerrymandering also could be a legal excuse to undo two constitutional provisions that the voters strongly approved.”
The question before the court was if the fact that the districts for the NC legislature were ruled to be unconstitutionally gerrymandered based on race invalidated the actions of the legislature.
The majority opinion in the case states, “It would be intolerable to hold that the people of North Carolina were left without any body capable of exercising legislative authority.”
But as the editorial notes, the opinion then carves out a special exception for constitutional amendments.
The editorial states, “To that end, the majority devises an astounding multifactor test, beginning with whether the lawmakers from gerrymandered districts were ‘sufficient in number to be decisive.’
“If yes, judges must then ask whether the proposed amendment will ‘immunize legislators from democratic accountability’ or ‘perpetuate the ongoing exclusion of a category of voters from the political process’ or ‘intentionally discriminate against a particular category of citizens who were also discriminated against in the political process leading to the legislators election.’ What fountainhead of legal invention did that spring from?”
The Wall Street Journal also states about additional reasoning from the court, “These are progressive political arguments from MSNBC, not legal judgments.”
The editorial also notes that Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr. in his dissent asks the question, “When does judicial activism undermine our republican form of government guaranteed in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution such that the people are no longer the fountain of power?”
The editorial suggests that is a question the US Supreme Court might want to answer.
This is called journalism.
It seems as though Democrat judges are all political hacks.
Absolutely! Just with regard to the Supreme Court, all the Leftist judges reliably vote as one, whereas Republican appointees like Roberts and Kavanaugh are unpredictable. Leftist judges vote along party lines – regardless of the merits of the case.
The ruling was pretty straight forward. You can’t “illegally” key word rural folks! Gerrymander and then use said power to entrench interest. Ex. Guilford county can’t draw lines gerrymander the county into east Greensboro then act as if the legislation passed can be representative. Try to keep up here rural folks. This is what is illegal the GA still has power just not the power to forever rule.
Why do I suspect you have not read and or understand the ruling? The ruling essentially nullified votes cast by NC legislators and NC voters because Democrats on the NC Supreme Court searched far and wide for an excuse to overrule the will of voters and their representatives in Raleigh by deciding that “racially gerrymandered” districts would have voted differently had the districts not been “gerrymandered.” Every Democrat on the NC Supreme Court should have a plaque on their office door that reads “prognosticator.” The NC Supreme Court Democrats thumbed their noses at NC voters. Anita Earls on the NC Supreme Court had to really dig deep for this bogus reasoning. This suit was brought by the NAACP to overturn the NC voter approved voter ID law. An interesting question is why does the NAACP oppose voter ID? There is no proof that voter IDs disenfranchises voters. If it did, no state would have such laws, but they do. A testament that there is an ulterior motive for the NAACP to oppose the NC constitutional amendment approved by NC voters.
Note that the opinion was written by Anita Earls. She is from Seattle, Washington. She is the founder of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice…and a member of other advocacy groups. The NAACP has a friend on the NC Supreme Court. She has published articles on gerrymandering and her position on the subject is well known. Is it any wonder she would make up a bogus gerrymandering excuse for nullifying NC voters? She has aspirations to be on the US Supreme Court. Perish the thought. She is up for re-election in 2026. Remember that date,
Of the Constitutional Amendments presented to the people in a free and fair statewide vote, the one that passed with the greatest majority was the Voter ID Requirement. The people have spoken, loud and clear. But the political party of the Left has done, and is doing, everything in its power to prevent the implementation of this popular measure. They despise democracy…. and call themselves Democrats.
That tells you the extent of their hypocrisy.