SCOTUS Lets North Dakota Enforce Full Voter ID Law For Upcoming Midterms

WASHINGTON, D.C. - APRIL 19, 2018:  The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., is the seat of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Judicial Branch of government. (Photo by Robert Alexander/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, D.C. - APRIL 19, 2018: The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., is the seat of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Judicial Branch of government. (Photo by Robert Alexander/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed North Dakota to enforce for the midterm elections its full voter ID law, which a federal judge had previously sought to relax in a lawsuit brought by Native Americans in the state.

The law lets voters who don’t have the required ID show certain supplemental documentation with their name and street address. Native Americans in the state had challenged a provision in the law requiring that the address be a residential street address, rather than a PO Box or other kind of address, given that some members of some tribes don’t have residential street addresses.

A federal judge ruled in favor of the challengers and expanded the law’s requirements so documents with non-residential street addresses were acceptable. However, an appeals court blocked that ruling for the 2018 elections, and the Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to leave appeals court order blocking the expansion of the law in place.

The Supreme Court did not give the full breakdown on how the justices voted on the issue, but Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly noted their dissent, with Ginsburg writing that the “the risk of disfranchisement is large.”

“The risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the Secretary of State’s website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction,” Ginsburg wrote, in the dissent joined by Kagan. “Reasonable voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote in the primary election would remain valid in the general election.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court this weekend, did not participate in the court’s decision.

39
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. We need state laws that make it a felony with a minimum sentence of 30 years for trying to restrict voting rights. If these evil traitors take our rights away like this we don’t have a country. And if we don’t have a country then there is no reason to obey these right wing scumbags period.

  2. “Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court this weekend, did not participate in the court’s decision.”

    …because he had “fallen asleep” near a large keg of beer in the lobby. (He likes beer.)

  3. its the only way to fly. hit them in the face with their own fish. they got the native Americans again stole and took everything they could away from them STILL! makes me sick

  4. Glad Senator Heitkamp voted her conscience. This doesn’t bode well for her, but she can hold her head up high for standing up for the right thing.

  5. Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    The juxtaposition of those words is almost as unbearable as the words that describe the current occupant of the White House.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

33 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for nickdanger Avatar for brainpicnic Avatar for old_curmudgeon Avatar for mattinpa Avatar for navamske Avatar for voreason Avatar for jimtoday Avatar for eastlansing Avatar for tobie Avatar for davedecker Avatar for travelingprincess Avatar for esperia Avatar for georgeh Avatar for canyoncountry Avatar for thinski Avatar for frantastic Avatar for seamus42 Avatar for zeddycat Avatar for thisisourcountry Avatar for arawak Avatar for rohitpuskoor Avatar for heathendan Avatar for chris1760

Continue Discussion