Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Strict N.C. voter ID law upheld by appeals court but won't take effect yet

North Carolina voter

North Carolinians were not required to present a photo ID at the polls this fall due to ongoing litigation over the state's law.

Grant Baldwin/Getty Images

North Carolina's strict new photo ID requirement for voters will remain in limbo for the foreseeable future, even though a federal appeals court has paved the way for it to take effect.

The state's history of racially discriminatory election laws is not enough to prevent the General Assembly from imposing new restrictions, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Wednesday.

But the court continued to keep the 2018 law on the shelf during a certain appeal of its decision to the Supreme Court, alongside a separate challenge in state court. Both suits allege the 2018 measure would lead to the unconstitutional suppression of Black and poor voters.


Before the coronavirus pandemic and the surge in voting by mail made the 2020 election rules the most litigated in history, the byzantine battle over IDs in North Carolina was one of the most closely watched voting rights cases in the nation.

That's because of the state's robust record of discriminatory election rules. Shortly after the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which required North Carolina and other states with similar histories to get federal approval for any changes to election rules, the Republicans in charge in Raleigh enacted several tough new curbs, including a photo ID requirement.

That law was blocked in 2016 by the 4th Circuit, which famously concluded it was written to "target African Americans with almost surgical precision."

Two years later, lawmakers asked voters to put a photo ID requirement in the state constitution and, after the referendum secured 55 percent support, the General Assembly wrote a new version of the law and enacted it over Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto.

The NAACP and other civil rights groups then set about to block it in state and federal court. At the end of last year, federal Judge Loretta Biggs blocked the law from being implemented, agreeing with the plaintiffs' argument that its intent was rooted in racial discrimination.

The 4th Circuit disagreed, saying the judge had failed to give the General Assembly the legally required benefit of the doubt when considering the constitutionality of the law.

"A legislature's past acts do not condemn the acts of a later legislature, which we must presume acts in good faith," Judge Julius Richardson wrote for the panel, two nominated by President Trump and one by President Barack Obama. "The district court penalized the General Assembly because of who they were, instead of what they did."

Because of the litigation, the voter ID law was not in effect for this fall's election, when Trump carried the state and its 15 electoral votes by 1 percentage point and Republican Thom Tillis held onto his Senate seat by 2 points.

Seventeen other states also ask voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Another 17 states have non-photo identification laws for voting.

North Carolina's law is considered among the strictest in the nation because it requires all would-be voters to arrive at their polling places with a driver's license, passport, student ID or other form of photo identification — or else they may only cast a provisional ballot that gets counted if they show up at the county elections board by the next day with the necessary ID. Supporters say this is reasonable, and accommodates poor people, because the law requires the state to provide access to free photo IDs.


Read More

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System
a doctor showing a patient something on the tablet
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System

During my junior year of high school, I was prescribed my first benzodiazepine, called lorazepam, at 16 years of age. At the time, my parents and I did not understand the potential consequences of long-term use of benzos. Like so many other patients out there, we trusted that the healthcare system would not only provide treatment and correct guidance to move forward with my prescriptions, but I never realized they would be the force that would ruin my future and so many dreams I had for my young adulthood.

What followed was a years-long struggle with severe medication dependence and withdrawal that fundamentally changed my life for the worse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less