Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

important  public  perspectives  would  be  lost  without  a
mechanism allowing multiple officials to respond.  It seems 
North Carolina has some experience with just these sorts of
issues.  More than once a North Carolina attorney general 
has opposed laws enacted by the General Assembly and de-
clined to defend them fully in federal litigation.  See, e.g., 
North  Carolina  v.  North  Carolina  State  Conference  of 
NAACP,  581  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017)  (ROBERTS,  C. J.,  state-
ment respecting denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 2); App. 79; 
see also N. Devins & S. Prakash, Fifty States, Fifty Attor-
neys General, and Fifty Approaches to the Duty To Defend,
124 Yale L. J. 2100, 2152, n. 217, 2187 (2015). 

B 
The  facts  of  this  case  also  illustrate  how  divided  state 
government can lead to disagreements over the defense of 
state law in federal court.  In November 2018, the people of 
North Carolina amended the State Constitution to provide 
that “[v]oters offering to vote in person shall present photo-
graphic  identification  [(photo  ID)].”    Art.  VI,  § 2(4).    The 
people further provided that “[t]he General Assembly shall 
enact general laws governing the requirements of such pho-
tographic  identification,  which  may  include  exceptions.” 
Ibid.  Consistent with that directive, the General Assembly
eventually approved Senate Bill 824 (S. B. 824).  2017 Gen. 
Assem.,  2018  Reg.  Sess.    Under  that  law’s  terms,  those 
seeking to vote must do one of three things: present an ac-
ceptable photo ID, complete a provisional ballot and later 
produce a photo ID, or submit a form explaining why they
cannot  present  a  photo  ID.    See  N. C.  Gen.  Stat.  Ann. 
§§ 163A–1145.1(a), (c), (d), as added by § 1.2(a), 2018 N. C.
Sess.  Laws  144,  pp.  73–74.    Photo  ID  cards  are  available 
free of charge in each of the State’s 100 counties without the 
need  for  corroborating  documentation.  § 163A–869.1,  as 
added by § 1.1(a), id., at 72–73.  After the law’s passage, the 
Governor vetoed the bill, the General Assembly responded