If a law is found to be unconstitutional; can an amendment to the state constitution matter?

Question

In the general sense, let's say a state law is passed, and the courts decide that the law is unconstitutional because the United States constitution prohibits such laws. Can a state amend its own constitution to allow the law; or would that not help because it still violates the US constitution?

For a specific example, North Carolina passed a voter ID law which was struck down by the courts, finding that the law was created with the intent of targeting African Americans and suppressing their votes. I was unable to find more specific constitutional reasoning given, but it seems like this would be a 14th amendment issue; that the law was shown to deprive certain classes of citizens of their rights.

Now, in the upcoming election, North Carolina has a ballot initiative to add an amendment to the NC State Constitution to require an id to vote. However, would such an amendment even be allowed; if it could still be found to violate the US Constitution's 14th amendment?

Or, can a state's constitution override the US constitution in these matters?

Answer 1

Article VI of the US Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So no, it doesn't matter whether the state puts it in a statute or in its constitution. Everything at the state level is subordinate to the federal constitution.

Answer 2

The United States constitution has supremacy over state constitutions in areas where the two overlap. However, for many areas they do not overlap. The US constitution specifically says that if something is not explicitly authorized to the federal government, it is left to the states or to the individuals. However, voting is specifically covered by the constitution.

The US Supreme Court has upheld ID requirements in some states. Thus, if the North Carolina amendment only says, "Must show ID to vote," it may pass constitutional muster. If the amendment were to instead say, "Blacks can't vote," then it would surely not pass constitutional muster.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the previous North Carolina law nor the proposed amendment. In general, the complaint is that ID requirements have a disparate impact. If the disparate impact is addressed, then the ID requirement can move forward. Addressing the disparate impact generally involves making it easier to get ID without paying fees. This can mean either waiving fees for poor people or making ID free in general.

Because this would be an amendment to the state constitution, the Supreme Court might either say that it is unenforceable (people have to be allowed to vote without ID) or that the state must make free ID available to poor people (who are disproportionately members of minorities). It seems less likely that they would block the amendment entirely. It seems more likely that they will allow it to become part of the state constitution and then work around it.

There is nothing in the US constitution about ID requirements. Whether or not to require ID is a state decision. But the federal government may still insist that states make voting freely available to all noncriminal adults. As such, the federal government may require that ID be freely available if ID is a requirement for voting.

Answer 3

One point not addressed by other answers, is that federal law, either as a matter of statutory change, or as a matter of changing constitutional interpretation, can change over time.

For example, suppose that a state constitutional provision is unconstitutional or pre-empted by other federal laws when enacted, but left on the books. Then, federal law changes. At that point, the previously invalid and ineffective state constitutional provision would become immediately effective as state law when the federal law changed.

Many U.S. states have clearly unconstitutional or illegal constitutional provisions or statutes related to abortion that remain on the books for that purpose and may become effective if the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade as it is anticipated to do in the summer of 2022 based upon oral arguments in argued cases.