Connect with us

North Carolina

US Supreme Court rejects North Carolina GOP claim that could have upended elections

Published

on

US Supreme Court rejects North Carolina GOP claim that could have upended elections


WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Supreme Court, in a closely watched case with major ramifications for federal elections, ruled on Tuesday that state legislatures do not have unchecked power to decide voting laws.

In a 6-3 decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the nation’s highest court rejected the so-called “independent state legislature” theory.

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina had argued before the court in December that state legislatures should have the sole authority to decide who votes, where and how in presidential and congressional elections.

Advertisement

The prospect had raised concerns for democracy on the left — and to a lesser extent on the right — in a bitterly divided nation still reeling from former president Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results.

State legislatures have used their authority under the US Constitution’s Elections Clause to map congressional districts, set poll hours and agree on rules for voter registration and mail-in and absentee ballots.

They have also, at times, engaged in what is known as partisan gerrymandering — drawing up congressional districts to favor a particular political party.

Reggie Weaver, at podium, speaks outside the Legislative Building in Raleigh, North Carolina, Feb. 15, 2022, about a partisan gerrymandering ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Gary D. Robertson, File)

Advertisement

Their laws have been subject, however, to scrutiny by the state courts and North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers were seeking to do away with that judicial input.

The Supreme Court rejected that bid with Roberts and two other conservatives — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — siding with the three liberal justices.

“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Roberts wrote.

Obama welcomes ruling

Former Democratic president Barack Obama welcomed the decision.

“Today, the Supreme Court rejected the fringe independent state legislature theory that threatened to upend our democracy and dismantle our system of checks and balances,” Obama tweeted.

Advertisement

Abha Khanna, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling a “resounding victory for free and fair elections in the United States.”

“The Independent State Legislature Theory could have weakened the foundation of our democracy, removing a crucial check on state legislatures,” Khanna said in a statement.

Members of the US Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, April 23, 2021. Seated from left are Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Standing from left are Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP)

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in December, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the administration of Democratic US President Joe Biden, warned that accepting the “independent state legislature” doctrine would “wreak havoc” in the running of elections and “sow chaos on the ground.”

“State and federal elections would have to be administered under divergent rules,” Prelogar said. “And federal courts, including this court, would be flooded with new claims.”

Advertisement

There were also worries that a ruling in favor of the theory would allow state legislatures to override outcomes they disagreed with, as some Trump supporters had called for in the 2020 election.

The case, Moore v. Harper, stemmed from an electoral dispute in North Carolina.

The 2020 census found that the state’s population had increased, earning it an extra seat in the US House of Representatives.

North Carolina lawmakers redrew the congressional map to add a new district but the state supreme court threw it out, arguing that it favored Republicans by grouping Democrats in certain districts, diluting their vote.

North Carolina lawmakers appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that local courts were usurping their authority.

Advertisement

Independent journalism needs you

There’s no paywall on The Times of Israel, but the journalism we do is costly. As an independent news organization, we are in no way influenced by political or business interests. We rely on readers like you to support our fact-based coverage of Israel and the Jewish world. If you appreciate the integrity of this type of journalism, please join the ToI Community.

Join our Community

Advertisement

Join our Community
Already a member? Sign in to stop seeing this

You’re a dedicated reader

That’s why we started the Times of Israel eleven years ago – to provide discerning readers like you with must-read coverage of Israel and the Jewish world.

So now we have a request. Unlike other news outlets, we haven’t put up a paywall. But as the journalism we do is costly, we invite readers for whom The Times of Israel has become important to help support our work by joining The Times of Israel Community.

Advertisement

For as little as $6 a month you can help support our quality journalism while enjoying The Times of Israel AD-FREE, as well as accessing exclusive content available only to Times of Israel Community members.

Thank you,
David Horovitz, Founding Editor of The Times of Israel

Join Our Community

Join Our Community
Already a member? Sign in to stop seeing this

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

North Carolina

Former North Carolina, Arkansas QB Jacolby Criswell signs with surprising school

Published

on

Former North Carolina, Arkansas QB Jacolby Criswell signs with surprising school


North Carolina transfer quarterback Jacolby Criswell has signed to play for East Tennessee State in 2025, On3’s Pete Nakos confirmed. He spent four total seasons in Chapel Hill and will have one year of eligibility remaining.

Criswell played the first three seasons of his college career with the Tar Heels before transferring to Arkansas ahead of 2023. He played one year in Fayetteville before deciding to come back to North Carolina ahead of this season.

Criswell didn’t begin as the starter this past season but took over after Max Johnson went down with injury. He finished the year with 2,459 yards and 15 touchdowns to six interceptions.

This story will be updated.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

North Carolina

North Carolina among 18 states suing to stop Trump’s order blocking birthright citizenship

Published

on

North Carolina among 18 states suing to stop Trump’s order blocking birthright citizenship


WASHINGTON, D.C. (WITN) – Attorneys general from 18 states sued Tuesday to block President Donald Trump’s move to end a decades-old immigration policy known as birthright citizenship guaranteeing that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.

Trump’s roughly 700-word executive order, issued late Monday, amounts to a fulfillment of something he’s talked about during the presidential campaign. But whether it succeeds is far from certain amid what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle over the president’s immigration policies.

North Carolina is one of the 18 states challenging the executive order. Attorney General Jeff Jackson is asking the court to invalidate the executive order and stop it from being implemented.

“This executive order is a straightforward violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil. For over a century, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court and remains a bedrock of our constitutional framework,” said Jackson.

Advertisement

Attorney General Jackson says the Constitution leaves no room for reinterpreting this matter.

“As Attorney General, my role is straightforward as well: to defend the Constitution. That’s why I’ve joined this lawsuit, to uphold the rule of law and preserve the rights that have defined our nation for generations,” said Jackson.

Here’s a closer look at birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order and reaction to it:

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. People, for instance, in the United States on a tourist or other visa or in the country illegally can become the parents of a citizen if their child is born here.

It’s been in place for decades and enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, supporters say. But Trump and allies dispute the reading of the amendment and say there need to be tougher standards on becoming a citizen.

Advertisement

What does Trump’s order say?

The order questions that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship automatically to anyone born in the United States.

The 14th Amendment was born in the aftermath of the Civil War and ratified in 1868. It says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump’s order excludes the following people from automatic citizenship: those whose mothers were not legally in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents; people whose mothers were in the country legally but on a temporary basis and whose fathers were not citizens or legal permanent residents.

It goes on to bar federal agencies from recognizing the citizenship of people in those categories. It takes effect 30 days from Tuesday, on Feb. 19.

What is the history of the issue?

The 14th Amendment did not always guarantee birthright citizenship to all U.S.-born people. Congress did not authorize citizenship for all Native Americans born in the United States, for instance, until 1924.

Advertisement

In 1898 an important birthright citizenship case unfolded in the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he had faced denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that while the case clearly applied to children born to parents who are both legal immigrants, it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status.

What has the reaction to Trump’s order been?

Eighteen states, plus the District of Columbia and San Francisco sued in federal court to block Trump’s order.

New Jersey Democratic Attorney General Matt Platkin said Tuesday that presidents might have broad authority but they are not kings.

“The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period,” he said.

Advertisement

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a U.S. citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.

“The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says —- if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop,” he said. “There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own.”

Not long after Trump signed the order, immigrant rights groups filed suit to stop it.

Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts along with other immigrant rights advocates filed a suit in New Hampshire federal court.

The suit asks the court to find the order to be unconstitutional. It highlights the case of a woman identified as “Carmen,” who is pregnant but is not a citizen. The lawsuit says she has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent status. She has no other immigration status, and the father of her expected child has no immigration status either, the suit says.

Advertisement

“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit said. “It denies them the full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.”

In addition to North Carolina, New Jersey and the two cities, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin joined the lawsuit to stop the order.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

North Carolina

Tropical Storm Helene destroyed nearly 1,000 homes in NC, FEMA maps show

Published

on

Tropical Storm Helene destroyed nearly 1,000 homes in NC, FEMA maps show


play

Tropical Storm Helene destroyed nearly 1,000 homes when it tore through Western North Carolina Sept. 27, maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency show.

The maps, which show verified damage to homes as of Jan. 7, were presented to the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners at its Jan. 16 budget retreat.

Advertisement

In Buncombe County, Helene destroyed 340 homes, according to the maps. More than 170 were owner-occupied, while the remaining were rental properties.

The maps also show how many homes across the state sustained major damage and how many require repairs so residents can move back in.

According to the maps, 2,360 homes suffered major damage. Nearly one-third were rentals. Additionally, nearly 30,000 homes require habitability repairs, according to the maps. More than 6,000 of those homes were occupied by renters.

The number of damaged homes verified by FEMA is significantly lower than initial estimates from the state. According to a Dec. 13 damage needs assessment compiled by the N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, more than 73,000 homes were projected to be damaged, the majority of which were expected to be single-family and manufactured homes, and duplexes. In total, the state is estimating nearly $13 billion in residential damage alone.

Advertisement

The Citizen Times requested updated damage maps from FEMA on Jan. 17.

How did homes in Buncombe, Henderson, McDowell, Madison and Yancey counties fare?

Destroyed homes:

Buncombe: 340

Advertisement

Henderson: 89

McDowell: 92

Yancey: 100

Madison:11+

Major damage:

Advertisement

Buncombe: 640

Henderson: 354

McDowell: 128

Yancey: 166

Madison: 56

Advertisement

Homes requiring habitability repairs:

Buncombe: 8,920

Henderson: 3,988

McDowell: 1,442

Yancey: 1,767

Advertisement

Madison: 302

Jacob Biba is the county watchdog reporter at the Asheville Citizen Times, part of the USA TODAY Network. Email him at jbiba@citizentimes.com.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending