![]() ![]() They said those same Democrats erred when upholding the invalidation of a 2018 law requiring photo identification to vote when they applied the wrong legal standard. The GOP lawmakers' attorneys contend the previous 4-3 Democratic majority got it wrong in December when they struck down a state Senate map the legislature drew and upheld congressional boundaries drawn by trial judges but opposed by Republicans. “The only thing that has changed is the political composition of the Court.” “The legal issues are the same the evidence is the same and the controlling law is the same,” Associate Justice Anita Earls wrote in the dissent of the order agreeing to rehear the redistricting case. Two new Republican justices took office in early January after winning November elections for seats held by Democrats. They said it appeared it was happening simply because the court's partisan makeup had changed. The two Democratic justices lamented the orders and said they stood against more than 200 years of court history in which rehearings have been exceedingly rare. With hopes of getting new legal results, lawmakers led by House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger asked two weeks ago that the justices rehear the litigation. The extraordinary decisions, granted in orders backed by five justices with Republican voter registrations on the seven-member court, mean the issues will return to the court for oral arguments in mid-March. Lawmakers led by House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger asked to court last month to reconsider two cases involving voter ID and redistricting.Supreme Court's two Democratic justices dissented The decisions to rehear two election-related cases were supported by all five Republican justices. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |