Supreme Court Review: Nc Constitutional Amendments

The North Carolina Supreme Court has heard cases regarding the state's constitutional amendments. In 2021, the North Carolina NAACP took a case to the Supreme Court to invalidate two constitutional amendments regarding photo ID voting requirements and income tax rates. The group argued that the amendments were invalid due to Republican gerrymandering, which resulted in an illegally and racially gerrymandered General Assembly that lacked popular sovereignty and did not represent the people of North Carolina. The North Carolina Supreme Court has also ruled on other constitutional matters, such as the state constitution's equal protection clause and its limitations on the Whole County Provision.

Explore related products

Declaration Of Independence, Constitution Of The United States Of America, Bill Of Rights And Constitutional Amendments

$9.2

Constitutional Amendments: Making, Breaking, and Changing Constitutions

$92.7 $130

The Constitution of the United States of America, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation

$4.5 $4.5

The U.S. Constitution for Everyone: Features All 27 Amendments (Perigee Book)

$11 $24

US Constitution: Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, & Amendments

$7.64 $7.64

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

The North Carolina Supreme Court's role in reviewing constitutional amendments

The North Carolina Supreme Court plays a significant role in reviewing and interpreting the state's constitution and any proposed or enacted constitutional amendments. The court ensures that any changes made to the constitution align with federal law, the US Constitution, and the principles of democracy.

In the case of the 2018 constitutional amendments on voter ID and income tax, the North Carolina NAACP challenged the legitimacy of the amendments due to alleged Republican gerrymandering. They argued that the amendments were placed on the ballot by a racially gerrymandered General Assembly, which lacked "popular sovereignty" and did not represent the people of North Carolina. The lower court agreed with the NAACP, voiding the two amendment proposals.

The North Carolina Supreme Court heard the case, considering the broader philosophical implications and the technical legal arguments presented by both sides. The court's decision would be groundbreaking, as no court in North Carolina or the United States had tackled a similar issue before. This case highlighted the potential conflict between state and federal constitutions and laws, with the state court's role being to interpret and uphold the state constitution while ensuring compliance with federal law and the US Constitution, which takes precedence.

The power of the General Assembly in the amendment process

The North Carolina Constitution outlines the powers of the General Assembly in the amendment process. The General Assembly has the authority to initiate the proposal of a new or revised Constitution or constitutional amendment. However, this proposal must be adopted by a three-fifths supermajority in both the state House and Senate before it can be submitted to the voters for their ratification or rejection. This process ensures that any changes to the Constitution have sufficient support from the representatives of the people.

The General Assembly plays a crucial role in the legislative process of amending the Constitution. It has the power to make rules of procedure and practice for the Superior Court and District Court Divisions, and it can delegate this authority to the Supreme Court. The General Assembly can also provide a system of appeals, ensuring that the legal process is accessible to citizens. Additionally, the General Assembly has the responsibility for defining the boundaries of governmental subdivisions, such as counties, towns, and cities, and it can create and regulate corporations within the state.

In the area of conservation and natural resources, the General Assembly has the authority to create parks and enact laws for the preservation and management of these areas. This power allows the General Assembly to protect the state's natural resources and ensure their sustainable use. The General Assembly is also responsible for the public welfare of the state, as outlined in Article XI of the North Carolina Constitution. This includes the establishment of public education, as described in Article IX, which mandates compulsory education for all able-bodied children.

While the General Assembly has significant powers in the amendment process, it is important to note that the North Carolina Constitution also provides for a separation of powers. The legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers are intended to be separate and distinct, as stated in Section 6 of the Constitution. This separation ensures a balance of power and protects the rights of the people. Additionally, the Constitution grants the people of North Carolina the ultimate power to amend the Constitution, either through a Convention of the People or by ratifying proposals submitted by the General Assembly. This underscores the democratic nature of the amendment process and ensures that any changes to the Constitution reflect the will of the citizens.

Voter ID requirements and their impact on Black voters

In North Carolina, voters are now required to show a valid photo ID at the polls. This requirement has sparked concerns about fairness for Black voters. While supporters of the law argue that it helps prevent voter fraud, critics contend that it disproportionately impacts Black voters and other voters of colour, making it more difficult for them to cast their votes.

The voter ID law in North Carolina has a history of legal challenges and has been deemed racially discriminatory by courts in the past. In 2013, a similar law resulted in lower voter turnout among Black communities in the 2016 primary election. A federal court later ruled this requirement discriminatory and in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, finding that it was intentionally designed to discriminate against minority voters.

In 2018, North Carolinians voted to amend the constitution to require voter ID. However, this amendment was challenged by the North Carolina NAACP, who argued that the Republican-led legislature had diminished the influence of Black voters through gerrymandering and, therefore, lacked the authority to propose new constitutional amendments. They took their case to the North Carolina Supreme Court, arguing that the amendments were invalid as they were proposed by a body that did not truly represent the people of the state.

The voter ID requirement has been criticised as an active deterrent to voting, particularly for Black voters. Research has found that Black voters are more likely than white voters to lack a qualifying ID. Socio-economic factors, such as transportation, education, healthcare, and occupation, also impact the ability to obtain an ID. Grassroots organisations are working to help voters obtain the necessary IDs, but there are concerns about the lack of funding and time to adapt to the new requirement.

The impact of voter ID laws on Black voters in North Carolina is significant. The law falls disproportionately on Black voters, who make up 23% of registered voters in the state but account for 34% of those without photo ID. The requirement to show photo identification at the polls creates a barrier for Black voters, potentially preventing them from having their voices heard through the democratic process.

Explore related products

U.S. Constitution: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$6.46

Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues, 1789–2015: 2 volumes

$208

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence: The Constitution of the United States of America

$9.99 $9.99

The Evolution of the U.S. Constitution: Unveiling the Origins and Impact of America's Bill of Rights and Constitutional Framework

$1.99

Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution

$22.38 $32

Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

$14.99 $29.99

Income tax amendments and public school funding

In North Carolina, the constitution can only be changed if voters approve an amendment statewide. In 2018, two constitutional amendments were passed with 55% and 57% of the vote, respectively: one imposing a photo voter ID requirement and the other lowering the state income tax cap.

The North Carolina NAACP took the case to the state Supreme Court to invalidate these amendments, arguing that the Republican-led legislature gave themselves too much power, specifically by diminishing the influence of Black voters with maps later deemed unconstitutional. The NAACP contended that the lawmakers did not truly represent the people of North Carolina and, therefore, should not have had the authority to propose new constitutional amendments.

Justice Anita Earls, a Black Democrat on the court, pointed out that the income tax cap could harm Black people in North Carolina by reducing funding for public schools. Education groups and the NC NAACP plaintiffs warned that limiting how much state income taxes can rise could have detrimental effects on the state's public schools. They argued that it would limit the state's capacity to adequately fund public education and other vital public services.

However, conservative groups, such as the Civitas Institute, disputed the notion that public education is underfunded. They argued that there are enough alternative revenue options, including the state's $1.8 billion rainy day fund, to support education even during a recession. Additionally, they suggested that cutting spending during an economic downturn is a prudent measure.

In North Carolina, public school funding primarily comes from state income tax and sales tax proceeds, with county governments providing supplemental operational funding and the majority of capital funding. Municipalities have also been authorized to appropriate funds for "supplemental funding for elementary and secondary public education" benefiting their residents. These funds are typically derived from property tax proceeds or any unrestricted revenue sources.

The legitimacy of the 2018 amendments due to gerrymandering

In 2021, the North Carolina NAACP took a case to the North Carolina Supreme Court to invalidate two Constitutional amendments regarding photo ID voting requirements and income tax rates. The group also appealed a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision. The case was brought to ensure that the foundational principles of democracy and the state's constitution were preserved and protected. The lower court ruled with the NC NAACP plaintiffs and voided the two constitutional amendment proposals, reasoning that the amendments were invalid as they were placed on the 2018 ballot by an illegally, racially gerrymandered General Assembly, which lacked "popular sovereignty" and did not represent the people of North Carolina.

The North Carolina 2018 constitutional amendments on voter ID and income taxes have been deemed illegitimate by the NAACP due to Republican gerrymandering. The challengers argued that the Republican-led legislature gave themselves too much power throughout most of the last decade, specifically by diminishing the influence of Black voters with maps later found to be unconstitutional. Justice Anita Earls, one of two Black Democrats on the court, said that the NAACP argued both amendments could harm Black people in North Carolina. The income tax cap could reduce funding for public schools, and voter ID could make it harder for Black voters to cast a ballot.

The NAACP argued that those lawmakers cannot claim to have truly represented the people of the state and should not have had the authority to propose new constitutional amendments. However, Martin Warf, an attorney for the legislature, argued that the Supreme Court should not consider the substance of the amendments but rather the process behind them, which he argued the court did not have the authority to weigh in on. Chief Justice Paul Newby, a Republican, questioned why the amendments should be struck down by the court since voters passed them during the election.

Gerrymandering has been a frequent question put to the United States court system, but the courts have generally avoided a strong ruling for fear of showing political bias towards either of the major parties. However, in the 1986 case of Davis v. Bandemer, the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering in state legislative redistricting is justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. In 2018, the Court considered claims of partisan gerrymandering but issued narrow rulings on procedural grounds specific to those cases.

Frequently asked questions