Holmes v. Moore
Initially, the Court ruled that a new statute implementing constitutional amendment requiring photo identification to vote was formulated with an unconstitutional intent to discriminate based on race. After two new justices joined the Court, the legislative defendants asked the Court to rehear the case and the Court granted that request. Ultimately, the Court reversed its earlier opinion and ruled that the implementing statute did not violate equal protection clause.
Related Commentary
North Carolina’s Constitution of Contrasts
The state’s 55-year-old constitution offers progressive protections like a right to education while retaining elements of state-sponsored efforts to prevent Black progress in the post-Reconstruction era.
How the Most Important Judicial Races of 2024 Played Out
The North Carolina race has not yet been called, as the Republican candidate is challenging the eligibility of thousands of voters in litigation that remains pending.
How Years of Legislative Maneuvering Shaped this Year’s Judicial Elections
The outcomes in races in Ohio and North Carolina will be determined in part by legislatures that altered election rules to benefit their allies.
A Conversation About Abortion Rights and the Future of State Constitutions
A retired state supreme court justice, a reproductive rights scholar, and the director of the Brennan Center’s Judiciary Program discuss the role of state courts after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion.