Kara Sears
The Supreme Court has been involved in several cases concerning voting rights and election laws. One notable case is Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), which addressed the constitutionality of voter-identification laws and their potential impact on low-income and minority voters. The Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law, finding it closely related to the state's interest in preventing voter fraud and modernizing elections. Other cases include Bush v. Gore (2000), which dealt with the use of manual recounts in a presidential election, and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), which addressed the Equal Protection Clause in relation to voter affluence. More recently, the Supreme Court ruled on a North Carolina voter ID law in 2025, allowing legislative leaders to intervene in the federal case to defend the law. The Court has also dealt with redistricting cases, such as Louisiana v. Callais, which could have implications for legal protections for minority voters. These cases highlight the complex legal landscape surrounding voting rights and the ongoing debates over election procedures in the United States.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
North Carolina's photo ID voting law
In 2018, North Carolina voters amended the state constitution to include a voter ID mandate. This law requires voters to show a photo ID to vote—a driver's license, a passport, or certain student and local government identifications. The law was challenged in both state and federal court, with the state NAACP and several local chapters arguing that the law discriminates against Black and Latino voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.
The North Carolina General Assembly has attempted to enact a voter ID law multiple times, even though the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that it was passed with racially discriminatory intent and had a discriminatory impact. In 2023, the North Carolina State Supreme Court reversed the previous decision in Holmes v. Moore regarding discriminatory photo voter ID. Despite the ongoing legal challenges, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of GOP lawmakers, allowing legislative leaders to intervene in the federal case to defend the law.
The law itself has been criticised for accepting some photo IDs but not others, and for disproportionately affecting certain groups, including senior citizens, young people, people of colour, people with disabilities, and low-income individuals who are more likely to lack the required forms of IDs. For example, while Black people make up 23% of registered voters in North Carolina, they account for 34% of those without photo ID. Socio-economic factors, such as transportation and education, also impact the ability to obtain an ID.
However, North Carolina's photo ID requirement does include some exceptions. Voters without an acceptable ID can obtain a free photo ID from their county board of elections, and a No Fee ID from the NCDMV. Additionally, voters with a religious objection to being photographed, or those who were victims of a natural disaster within 100 days of Election Day, are exempt from the photo ID requirement.
Requesting Attorney Case Law: What You Need to Know
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Indiana's voter ID law
The law has faced opposition and legal challenges, with critics arguing that it discriminates against specific groups of voters, such as Black and Latino voters, and violates the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court has been involved in cases related to voter ID laws in states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, but specific details about Indiana's voter ID law cases in the Supreme Court are not readily available in the public domain.
The Indiana Code 3-5-2-40.5 defines the criteria for "proof of identification." The photo ID must display the individual's photo, name (which must conform to their voter registration record), and an expiration date that is current or has expired after the date of the last General Election. A non-SecureID driver's license or identification card indicates that the individual has not provided adequate documentation for identity validation, lawful status, Social Security number, or Indiana residency.
If an individual is unable or unwilling to present the required ID, they can cast a provisional ballot. They then have until noon, 10 days after the election, to provide the necessary documentation or affirm that an exemption applies to them.
Construction Law: Understanding Legal Frameworks for Building Projects
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Pennsylvania's DOS cards
In the case of Applewhite v. Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that voting is a fundamental right and that any law impeding eligible, registered voters from casting their vote is unconstitutional. The Court also recognised that the law, as it was written, would disenfranchise eligible voters as the PennDOT ID—which the law claimed would be made available to everyone—could only be obtained by those with a birth certificate, social security card, and two proofs of residency.
The Court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court, asking it to assess whether the Department of State (DOS) card would meet the need to provide identification to the tens of thousands of people who need it before the upcoming election. The Supreme Court ordered the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction if it was not guaranteed that the procedures for issuing the DOS cards met the requirements of liberal access.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling was in line with the state's voting laws, which do not generally require voters to present identification while voting, except when voting at a polling place for the first time. In such cases, voters can present various forms of identification, including a driver's license, state-issued identification card, or military identification card.
It is important to note that Pennsylvania voters should only be asked for ID the first time they vote in their precinct. All mail-in or absentee voters must provide an ID number or copy of an accepted ID. Pennsylvania also has provisions for provisional ballots, which are given to voters who are unable to present an accepted ID, ensuring that eligible voters are not rejected at the polls.
UK and ECHR Case Law: Bound Together?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Louisiana's redistricting case
In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court delayed a decision on the Louisiana redistricting case, Louisiana v. Callais, scheduling it for reargument in the next term. The case centres on Louisiana's congressional map, which includes two majority-Black districts out of six total seats. The map was created after federal courts ordered the state to add a second majority-Black district to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA), but was later challenged as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
Louisiana's initial map, drawn up in 2022 after the 2020 census, included only one majority-Black district, despite Black residents comprising roughly one-third of the state's population. A group of Black voters challenged this map, arguing that it diluted the votes of Black residents. A federal court agreed that it likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote.
Louisiana then redrew the map to include a second majority-Black district stretching 250 miles from Shreveport in the northwest to Baton Rouge in the southeast. However, a three-judge federal panel ruled 2-1 that this compliance map itself violated the Equal Protection Clause by making race the predominant factor in redistricting. The state argued that it was faced with an impossible situation, as it had to balance compliance with the VRA and redistricting requirements.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court's decision to delay, arguing that the Court was avoiding a necessary constitutional confrontation. He cited the conflict between the VRA, as construed by the Court as a guarantee of group rights, and the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for individuals. Thomas and other critics of the VRA's interpretation argue that it has been twisted to engineer racial balance in political processes, endorsing a degraded theory of representation based on group membership rather than citizenship.
The Supreme Court's eventual ruling on the case could have significant implications not only for Louisiana but also for other states attempting to balance compliance with the VRA and redistricting. With a slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the decision could also affect the balance of power.
Case Management: Canadian Legal System's Efficiency
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$18.49 $19.95
North Dakota's redistricting case
The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May 2025 by a three-judge panel of the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals. This ruling erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates.
The North Dakota case is separate from another redistricting court case involving the MHA Nation and the state of North Dakota. In that case, federal judges sided with the state and the MHA Nation, which intervened, agreeing that "the State’s decision to draw subdistricts in districts 4 and 9 is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of compliance with the (Voting Rights Act)." However, the plaintiffs appealed the ruling, and North Dakota filed a motion asking the US Supreme Court to reconsider.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will take up the North Dakota redistricting case. The plaintiffs are hopeful that the Court will ultimately reverse the 8th Circuit's decision, arguing that the Supreme Court has always allowed private individuals to file discrimination claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. North Dakota maintains that the 2021 map is not discriminatory and that the tribes lack standing to sue.
Criminal vs Civil Law: 4 Key Differences
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The latest case regarding voter ID laws that the Supreme Court has dealt with is the North Carolina voter ID law case, which was ruled on February 28, 2025.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of GOP lawmakers, allowing legislative leaders to intervene in the federal case to defend the law.
The law requires voters to show a photo ID, such as a driver's license or passport, to cast their vote.
The state NAACP and several local chapters argued that the law discriminates against Black and Latino voters, violating the US Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.
Other cases include Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (Indiana), Applewhite v. Commonwealth (Pennsylvania), and Louisiana v. Callais.
![[In]Complete Justice? The Supreme Court at 75: Critical Reflections](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71jcQ17CoAL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
