I realize that I have this under "Dumb Laws," however the law it self isn't dumb, it's this ruling.
So the latest monstrosity of absurdity has come to pass: Judge tosses North Carolina mandatory voter ID amendment citing gerrymandering.
Let me break this down so it somewhat is understandable. To be clear, this is nowhere near the four corners of the law.
1. Judge rules that a voter ID law is invalid.
2. The reason why the constitutional amendment (which was voted for overwhelmingly by the people of NC) is invalid is because the General Assembly is "illegally constituted."
3. The General Assembly is illegal because "[The] General Assembly does not represent the people of North Carolina and is therefore not empowered to pass legislation that would amend the state’s constitution."
To show I am not making this crap up, here is the court's ruling.
From my understanding, the Republican district drawings were based on equal population and did not consider race. To me, this is how it should be done. Put a pin in the map where every household resides, with a number on the pin to show how many people the census says live there. Then draw districts that are compact and have no "bulges" or noticeably protruding sections. Below is the US Congressional districts for NC. I have several issues with this map, notably the "intrusions" from 3 into 1, 13 into 6 and 10 into 11. District 4 seems custom made for the Democrat that currently holds that seat.
The State House and Senate districts also some some of the same characteristics as the above map. You can see them all here.
But you see, if this judges ruling is not overturned, I have to ask this question:
"If the General Assembly is illegally constituted to the point that it cannot propose
amendments to the state constitution, does it not also follow that it cannot make any laws?"
A legislature is like a pregnancy: You are either pregnant, or you are not, there is no middle ground. Ask Schrödinger. If you are illegally constituted enough that you cannot carry out that part of their duties, (propose amendments to the state constitution) then they cannot carry out ANY of their duties under the state constitution.
This is the kind of consequences that happen when judges step outside of the four corners of the law. Properly done, the lawsuit should have tried to overturn the amendment based on the process that put it into place. Did the General Assembly vote to propose the amendment in accordance with state law and the methods of the respective houses? Yes. Did the voters approve of the amendment in accordance with the laws in place at the time of the referendum? Yes. In which case, the amendment is legal and the Plaintiffs are barking up the wrong tree. The legality of the representation of the districts and their makeups are another issue entirely and must be addressed separately from the first question.