Patterson also pointed out the measure had support from some Democrats, including a Black senator. The evidence affirmed the law was constitutional by providing more ID options and offering the ability for people to cast ballots even if they lack an ID by filling out a form.

Peter Patterson, an attorney for the GOP legislators, said the courts wrongly presumed the 2018 law was tainted as well.

But they pushed the 2018 law through anyway, said Paul Brachman, who represented the plaintiffs on Wednesday. Democrats and their allies say this week’s hearings happened solely on the partisan makeup of the court.įor example, the lawyers contend, dozens of legislators in 2018 who also voted in 2013 for voter ID likely knew about previous studies showing Black voters are more likely to lack qualifying photo IDs than white registered voters. The justices could restore the 2018 law, which has never been used in an election, or direct trial judges to scrutinize the law again using different standards.ĭuring Wednesday’s voter ID arguments, four of the court’s five Republicans defended the ability of justices to rehear the matter, or expressed skepticism about rulings from a three-judge panel that held a trial on the law or the previous edition of the Supreme Court. There is no timeline set for when the court will rule in either case. The justices held the redistricting rehearing on Tuesday. Rehearing a case is an option for the court when someone contends justices “overlooked or misapprehended” facts or laws, but it’s only happened two other times in the past 30 years, according to one justice. This latest edition of the court soon granted requests by Republican legislative leaders to rehear separate voter ID litigation and redistricting litigation decisions.

But Republicans have held a 5-2 seat advantage since January, the result of two associate justice election victories in November by GOP candidates. That ruling was penned by the 4-3 Democratic majority on the court.

Supreme court building photo