Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision on Tuesday requiring North Dakota voters to have certain types of ID and a street address to vote—likely disenfranchising thousands of voters. (Photo: Penn State/Flickr/cc)

'Welcome to the Future': SCOTUS Ruling on North Dakota's Voter ID Law Underscores Nationwide GOP Attack on Voting Rights

"This is why the Supreme Court matters...It's about the very nature of American democracy. And, oh yeah, about racism too."

Julia Conley

As the U.S. Supreme Court this week upheld a North Dakota voter ID requirement, it likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of the state's residents—particularly Democratic-leaning Native American voters—and made clear that the highest court in the land will do little to protect Americans from the Republican Party's rampant attacks on voting rights.

The court ruled in favor of the Eighth Circuit Court's decision that allowed the state to require all voters to have a residential street address and an accepted form of ID which includes that address.

The requirement, introduced in 2017 by GOP Gov. Doug Burgum, blatantly disenfranchises indigenous voters, many of whom live on reservations and use P.O. boxes instead of street addresses.

"Access to voting should not be dependent on whether one lives in a city or on a reservation," Jacqueline De León, an attorney with the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), which is representing several plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement. "The District Court in North Dakota has found this voter identification law to be discriminatory; nothing in the law has changed since that finding. North Dakota Native American voters will now have to vote under a system that unfairly burdens them more than other voters. We will continue to fight this discriminatory law."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in the ruling, but The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan pointed out that his ability to now rule on issues like voting rights as a judge on the highest court in the country, was part of what Kavanaugh's opponents feared last week as they called for the Senate to reject his nomination.

Voters who didn't meet the stipulation were permitted to vote in the primary elections earlier this year, but last month a federal district court sought to enforce the law for the general election. The Supreme Court ruled against NARF's request to further delay implementation of the law.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shared grave concerns that the rule could leave tens of thousands of the state's voters unable to vote in November:

The risk of disenfranchisement is large... Seventy thousand North Dakota residents—almost 20 percent of the turnout in a regular quadrennial election—lack a qualifying ID; and approximately 18,000 North Dakota residents also lack supplemental documentation sufficient to permit them to vote without a qualifying ID.

The rule comes amid several other voting rights battles in states including Georgia, where Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate for governor, has accused Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp of systematic voter suppression. Kemp—who is Abrams' opponent in the gubernatorial race—oversees the state office where hundreds of thousands of voter registrations have been canceled since 2017.

Ongoing legal battles over who should be afforded the right to vote will likely continue under the new Supreme Court following Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation last weekend, critics said Wednesday. Kavanaugh has ruled several times in favor of strict voter ID laws that have disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters, disproportionately affecting people of color.

On social media, the local group North Dakota Native Vote shared advice for Native American residents who fear the rule may keep them from exercising their right to vote.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

News Outlets, Press Freedom Groups to DOJ: Don't Let GOP States Criminalize Abortion Coverage

"We ask that you publicly reiterate the press freedoms granted under the First Amendment, and remind states that they cannot infringe on those rights when news outlets write about abortion."

Kenny Stancil ·


'Terrific Win for Consumers': Biden FDA Clears Way for Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids

"This is such an important move that will change lives," said the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Jake Johnson ·


Saudi Arabia's Enablers Condemned as Woman Sentenced to 34 Years for Tweets

"Saudi activists warned Western leaders that giving legitimacy to the crown prince would pave the way for more abuses, which is unfortunately what we are witnessing now."

Brett Wilkins ·


'Hell State America': Florida Appeals Court Won't Let Parentless 16-Year-Old Get an Abortion

"The status of minors in a post-Roe America: Not mature enough to make decisions over your own body, but mature enough to be forced to continue with a pregnancy."

Jessica Corbett ·


Amazon Employees Hold First-Ever Work Stoppage in Air Freight Division

"If Amazon can afford to pay its CEO $214 million last year it can afford to give their workers a $5-an-hour raise and a safe workplace," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Julia Conley ·

Common Dreams Logo