⚠️ WikiLeaks are now on TELEGRAM! ⚠️

They will be exposing some big names in World's history, also some devastating information kept secretly from the public. Together we stand united.

JOIN👉 WikiLeaksOrganisation 

Politics

Supreme Court Delivers Major Blow To Democrats With Crucial Ruling on Voter ID Laws Before November’s Midterm Elections

Share

In the state of North Carolina, a long-running, corrupt leftist campaign to undermine the integrity of the electoral process has been centered on the idea that US citizens should need photo IDs to vote.

The left has been successful in disenfranchising American voters of all skin types, and ethnic backgrounds, denying North Carolinians their lawful right to choose voter ID at the voting booth.

The left in North Carolina has been well organized for a decade, with radicals Eric Holder and William Barber of the North Carolina NAACP, marching around the state with street activists disrupting business, civic life, and commerce- making demands and using lawfare against the people, to prevent the state’s voters from having their way.

NC voters have spoken numerous times and said they want to require voters to show some sort of state ID in order to get a ballot to vote.

The left has won for years in denying the voters and then quickly transforming the state into something almost unrecognizable, but now the Republicans are edging closer to getting their voices back in a double smackdown on the looney left, possibly curbing their utopian dreams for the Tar Heel state.

And it all happens right before what is shaping up to be a historical November mid-term election, with voters irate over a number of disastrous Democrat schemes and plots, and with Democrats sitting on a razor-thin edge of superiority in the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave Republican legislative leaders in North Carolina a win back in June in a fight over the state’s latest photo identification voting law.

Then in an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the three-year-plus dispute over the voter ID law and held that legislative leaders in North Carolina can intervene in the federal case to defend the law.

And now the pressure is building for the state to have to comply in some way, without the left looking like the usurpers that they really are. The voter ID issue come on the heels of notorious lawfare practitioners, Attorney Marc Elias, and executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Election Karen Brinson Bell, who destroyed the state’s voter integrity process in September of 2020, while the state was already in early voting.

Then Republican candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor Dan Forest had contacted Bill Barr about an unfolding civil rights dilemma, just as a Black Conservative Republican quit his position under Binson Bell in protest over the clear usurpation of the voting laws, by disregarding the General Assembly and changing voting laws as people were already voting.

Barr ignored the Sept. 25, 2020 letter from Forest.

Recently the North Carolina state Supreme Court voted 4-3 along party lines to hear oral arguments in October in a lawsuit challenging the state’s photo voter ID law.

The left is in danger here with two Supreme seats up in November. Republicans could retake the court’s majority if they win one of two seats at the ballots.

And the court holds all the power to make lasting change.

“In light of the great public interest in the subject matter of this case, the importance of the issues to the constitutional jurisprudence of this State, and the need to reach a final resolution on the merits at the earliest possible opportunity, … [t]his case shall be scheduled for oral argument as soon as practicable, on a date to be determined during arguments scheduled the week of 3 October 2022, or by special setting no later than 18 October 2022,” Justice Robin Hudson, a Democrat, wrote in the order.

Writing for the Court’s three Republicans, Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote: “Once more, the majority expedites the hearing of a case where no jurisprudential reason supports doing so. Given the impending November elections, expedited hearing in October on this voter ID matter will likely cause voter confusion, … especially when this Court recently entered a decision in another case involving voter ID, N.C. NAACP v. Moore.”

What is interesting to note here is that the NAACP recently lost it’s tax status in the state, according to the AP:

“North Carolina’s influential state chapter of the NAACP has lost its federal tax-exempt status for failing to file tax returns for three years, according to the federal government.

The Internal Revenue Service stripped the civil rights organization’s state chapter of its tax-exempt status May 15 under a process that automatically revokes the designation for nonprofits that fail to file federal tax returns for three consecutive years, according to a post on the IRS site. The status change was made public this month.

The state chapter has been a prominent voice in decrying the policies of the state’s Republican-controlled legislature, including challenging voter access laws in recent years. Earlier this month, the civil rights group scored a victory when the state Supreme Court ruled a lower court must consider nullifying a voter ID mandate approved by citizens in 2018.

The loss of federal tax-exempt status was first reported by The News & Observer in Raleigh. The newspaper reports that experts on charitable giving say losing the status could hinder fundraising efforts and potentially drain the organization’s resources through taxes on donations and fines.”

The NAACP in North Carolina has been a corrupt organization and at the center of all of the leftist attacks on the Republic. But State Democrats are defending their political agenda to deny the American people free and fair elections, nonetheless.

“Additionally, the trial court’s permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs remains intact,” Newby added. “Expedited consideration, therefore, will not provide plaintiffs any new relief that they do not already enjoy. Accordingly, nothing suggests that expedited hearing is necessary ‘[t]o prevent manifest injustice’ or to protect ‘the public interest.’”


Share
Back to top button