Allowing political party leaders or other private citizens to have people removed from the list of registered voters would move North Carolina “away from a democratic form of government,” a judge ruled in shooting down the Republican Party’s request.

The Republican Party has failed in its attempt to remove almost a quarter of a million North Carolina voters from the list of registered voters for this year’s elections. A federal judge shot down the party’s request Thursday, the same day early voting began.

The GOP had sought to purge about 225,000 voters, based on what they say are flaws in the voter registration system.

The lawsuit was based on two legal claims. Judge Richard Myers II, the chief district court judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina and an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump, ruled against one claim and declined to rule on the other.

He said there’s no reason to believe that either judges or private citizens, including political party leaders, have any right to throw people off the voter rolls in North Carolina. State law explicitly gives that duty to elections officials — who months ago investigated allegations connected to the lawsuit and found nothing.

A ruling in favor of the GOP’s arguments, Myers concluded, could harm American democracy: It “would significantly alter the allocation of power … away from a democratic form of government,” he wrote, citing past legal precedent.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

  • _bcron
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s cool but we really need to start looking at shit like this as intent to deprive people of their constitutional rights and charge them for such

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Agreed, but you need to prove intent to do that and the republicans always try to play this as improving the voting system rather than gaming it.

      • _bcron
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        They should stand before a jury of their peers and the jury should be allowed to hear both sides and come to a determination based on what had been presented to them.

        There’s enough credibility in the claim that they’re doing this in order to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights that I think they should stand trial and allow for a conclusion.

        Court is often where intent is decided