Obama-appointed judge reverses course, rules voter ID law isn't discriminatory in GOP win
An Obama-appointed federal judge who once blocked North Carolina’s voter identification law has reversed course and ruled it constitutional, delivering a major win for Republicans and election security advocates after...
By Fox News · Fox News
An Obama-appointed federal judge who once blocked North Carolina’s voter identification law has reversed course and ruled it constitutional, delivering a major win for Republicans and election security advocates after a seven-year court fight. Judge Loretta Biggs upheld the law on Thursday, finding the liberal voting rights groups that sued North Carolina’s election board failed to prove the voter ID law was discriminatory. The ruling leaves North Carolina’s voter ID law in place ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. It also comes as President Donald Trump has been advocating stricter voter ID laws nationwide, alleging what he has said is widespread fraud in elections and to prevent illegal immigrants from potentially casting ballots. The North Carolina case centered on a bill that the GOP-led Senate crafted in 2018 to govern how the state would enforce an amendment requiring voters to present a photo ID at the polls. The amendment had been approved by about 55% of North Carolina voters and the legislation dictated how the amendment would be put into practice. THUNE ACCUSES CRITICS OF 'CREATING FALSE EXPECTATIONS' AMID BACKLASH OVER STALLED SAVE AMERICA ACT "Finally. After seven years, we can put to rest any doubt that our state’s Voter I.D. law is constitutional," said Republican state Sen. Phil Berger , who intervened in the case to defend the law. Biggs emphasized in her 134-page decision that North Carolina had a "history of extensive official discrimination against African Americans" that was undisputed by parties in the case. The judge said she found evidence that the voter ID law served to disenfranchise Black and Latino voters but that precedents set by higher courts meant the evidence was not enough to invalidate the law. HOUSE REPUBLICANS PUSH JOHNSON TO GO TO WAR WITH SENATE OVER SAVE ACT "This Court … concludes that it is compelled by controlling case law to render Judgment in favor of the Defendants," Biggs said, tossing out the plaintiffs’ allegations…