Yet another lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s maps.

[link removed]

The holiday buzz is in full swing this week, and the courts got in on the action. The Colorado Supreme Court issued a stunning decision kicking former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot in the state, and perhaps more importantly, thrusting legal challenges to the former president’s eligibility to the national stage in the coming weeks.

Developments in North Carolina were par for the course in the Tar Heel State. A newly filed lawsuit is the third challenge in the last two months to the states’ recently enacted maps. And in Texas, voters were hit with a double edged ruling, after an appeals court upheld the state’s burdensome “wet signature” requirement, but affirmed the right for private parties to sue under a provision of the Civil Rights Act.

============================================================

TRUMPDATE: Former President Disqualified, Kicked off the Primary Ballot in Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court ** ruled ([link removed])
on Wednesday that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of the presidency, a shocking and major ruling that likely forces the U.S. Supreme Court to take a stand on the highly controversial issue.

Colorado’s high court ruling rests on Section 3 of the ** 14th Amendment ([link removed])
, which prevents those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from being elected or appointed to a federal office. The court found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, writing that Trump undertook numerous actions to “prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.” Additionally, the ruling held that Section 3 applies to the office of the presidency.

Trump will be barred from the state’s presidential primary ballot, pending an appeal to the nation’s highest court.

A lower court previously ** ruled ([link removed])
that Trump did engage in an insurrection, but that Section 3 was not applicable to the presidency — the ruling was appealed by both Trump and the plaintiffs, which led to Wednesday’s decision.
** ([link removed])

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ** opinion ([link removed])
, reiterated the magnitude of its decision, stating that the justices were “mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor” and recognized that the decision has propelled the country into “uncharted territory.” No presidential candidate has ever been barred from the position under the 14th Amendment and the provision has only been used a handful of times in U.S. history.

The decision kicking Trump off the Colorado primary ballot was paused by the court until Jan. 4, 2024 — the day before the state’s deadline to certify candidates for the presidential primary ballot — in order to give Trump time to appeal to the Supreme Court, which his campaign has pledged to do “swiftly.”

If the Supreme Court decides to take up the case, it could pave the way for future states to follow in Colorado’s footsteps, or effectively stop all 14th Amendment challenges entirely. Trump faces similar challenges to his eligibility in ** 16 active lawsuits ([link removed])
across the country. Until Wednesday, all previous challenges to Trump’s eligibility had been unsuccessful.

The Supreme Court is also ** considering ([link removed])
whether or not to take up a question from Special Counsel Jack Smith that asks for clarity on whether Trump can be prosecuted for his election subversion attempts following the 2020 election.

North Carolina’s New Maps Hit With an Additional Lawsuit

North Carolina’s maps, which have been the subject of a flurry of ** lawsuits ([link removed])
and ** controversies ([link removed])
, are back in the news again this week after civil rights groups and Black voters ** filed ([link removed])
a lawsuit challenging the state’s congressional and legislative districts as ** enacted ([link removed])
this October.

The ** lawsuit ([link removed])
, filed on Tuesday, alleges that North Carolina’s House, Senate and congressional maps all intentionally discriminate and were drawn to diminish the voting power of Black North Carolinians, in violation of both the U.S. Constitution and ** Section 2 ([link removed])
of the Voting Rights Act.

The complaint alleges that the Legislature targeted Black voting power in the northeastern part of the state — home to North Carolina’s Black Belt — along with other areas, dismantling long standing Black-opportunity districts.

The plaintiffs, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Common Cause and Black voters, allege that historic Black populations were cracked across four congressional districts in violation of the Voting Rights Act and that the state’s northeastern 1st Congressional District illegally dilutes the voting power of Black North Carolinians.

Additionally, the lawsuit challenges the Senate map for cracking districts in a way that deprives Black voters of electoral power and for only featuring one Black-opportunity district that complies with the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs say the state should have two. The House map allegedly features eight districts that violate Section 2, and lacks the proper number of Black-opportunity districts — only three districts allow Black voters to elect the candidates of their choice, the proper number is six according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs are not seeking a strike down of the maps in advance of the 2024 elections, but rather before the 2026 midterm elections — timing they say was forced in part by Republican defendants who purposefully delayed redistricting.

Two other federal lawsuits are already challenging North Carolina’s new maps. Black voters ** challenged ([link removed])
North Carolina’s Senate districts under Section 2 in November, while Black and Latino voters ** challenged ([link removed])
the state’s congressional map under the U.S. Constitution earlier this month.
** ([link removed])

** A Banner Year for Democracy in Ohio ([link removed])

By Katy Shanahan

One Step Forward, One Step Back for the Lone Star State

Last Friday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ** upheld ([link removed])
Texas’ “wet signature law,” reversing a district court decision that blocked the law in response to a lawsuit filed by a nonpartisan voter registration group.

A ** wet signature requirement ([link removed])
mandates that voters registering to vote electronically or through fax also submit an original signature, in other words a non-electronic or pen-on-paper signature. The needless requirement can have a disproportionate burden on young and low-income voters, who are less likely to have a printer, especially in today’s digital age.

The ** complaint ([link removed])
, which calls the requirement “perplexing” and “antiquated” argued it has nothing to do with a Texans ability to register, and only serves to disenfranchise voters by rejecting their ballots. Vote.org, which brought the lawsuit, additionally ** alleged ([link removed])
that the barrier was needless and has nothing to do with constitutional requirements.

While the district court found that the rule violated the First and 14th Amendments and the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act, the hyper-conservative 5th Circuit ** claimed ([link removed])
that the requirement is material and legitimate and thus upheld the law.

Obama-appointed Judge Stephen Higginson dissented from the decision, pointing out that Texas county registrars have outright admitted that they do not use the wet ink signature requirement to determine a voter's qualification, and that Texas accepts electronic signatures in other areas of the law.

However, in a significant win for voters, the 5th Circuit in the same order affirmed the right for private parties to sue under the Civil Rights Act’s Materiality Provision, a right that the Republicans in the lawsuit argued should be limited solely to the U.S. attorney general.

In rebuffing conservative arguments, the court wrote that there is an “implied but established private right to sue” under the provision, that of which two other circuit courts have made clear.

Republicans have made attacking a ** private right of action ([link removed])
a focal point of their lawsuits in recent years, notably also applying the claim to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Last month, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ** issued ([link removed])
a devastating ruling finding that there is no private right of action under Section 2. As a result private parties, like voters, in the seven states covered by the 8th Circuit can no longer fight discriminatory redistricting policies in court.

OPINION: Intimidating Voters Is Nothing New In Georgia, It's Just Easier Now
** ([link removed])

The incessant clamor after the 2020 election about “** election integrity ([link removed])
” is a red herring, a deceptive trick to take our eyes off the real crime. By Carol Anderson, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of African American Studies at Emory University. ** Read more ([link removed])
➡️

What We’re Doing (And Not Doing)

We are reading yet another bombshell ** report ([link removed])
by ProPublica on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. ProPublica’s investigation found that Thomas heavily pushed a congressional Republican for a higher salary and a lift of a speaker fee ban for justices, warning some that he could resign within a year if action wasn’t taken. Though no law was ever enacted, Thomas subsequently enjoyed numerous lavish gifts from conservative donors, that of which were unparalleled in the Court’s history.

There will be no On The Docket next week as the Democracy Docket team enjoys the holiday break, but we will be posting episodes of Defending Democracy to our rapidly growing YouTube channel each Friday. Subscribe ** here ([link removed])
to make sure you don’t miss them!
** Democracy Docket Twitter ([link removed])
** Democracy Docket Website (democracydocket.com)
** Democracy Docket Instagram ([link removed])
** Democracy Docket Facebook ([link removed])
** Defending Democracy Podcast ([link removed])
We depend on the support of our readers to keep bringing you the latest on the fight for democracy. You can help ** keep our content free ([link removed])
and available for all today. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.

Copyright © 2023 Democracy Docket, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
250 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001