More than three years after North Carolina voters decided to require photo identification at the polls, the state’s highest court will hear a challenge to the amendment enshrining voter ID in the state constitution.

The N.C. Supreme Court has scheduled Feb. 14 oral arguments in an NAACP lawsuit seeking to invalidate two constitutional amendments adopted in 2018 on the grounds that a gerrymandered General Assembly placed them on the ballot. Since federal courts ordered 30 legislative districts redrawn, plaintiffs contend residents of those House and Senate districts weren’t properly represented.

A three-judge N.C. Court of Appeals panel rejected the novel legal theory, correctly reasoning that throwing out the amendments would imply every statute, resolution and appropriations bill passed under previous district maps should meet the same fate, opening the door to virtually endless litigation.

The appellate judges are right, and the constitutional amendments requiring voter ID and lowering the cap on state income tax rates must be upheld.

Though plenty of cogent, common-sense arguments support voter ID requirements, agreement isn’t necessary to leave the amendments in place. All that’s required is respect for the will of the people.

In the 2018 general election, voters passed judgment on six proposed amendments to the N.C. Constitution, choosing to adopt four and reject two. In addition to voter ID and the tax rate cap, state residents supported a “Marsy’s Law” amendment to enhance crime victims’ rights and approved language establishing a constitutional right to hunt and fish.

Marsy’s Law passed with more than 62% of the vote, while the tax rate cap and hunting and fishing amendments secured 57% support. A slightly smaller majority, 55.5%, favored voter ID requirements.

The NAACP and Clean Air North Carolina sued to overturn the voter ID and income tax amendments. Why only those two? If gerrymandered districts really tainted the process, it’s paradoxical to leave the Marsy’s Law and hunting and fishing amendments in place.

Constitutional amendments require a three-fifths majority of representatives and senators. Even if you agree that the General Assembly was improperly constituted because more than two dozen districts were gerrymandered, that shouldn’t matter once voters have their say.

The outcome of a statewide referendum deserves far greater weight than the process by which the referendum came about. Because the people, not the legislature, have the last word, votes to authorize an amendment ought to be little more than procedural.

Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that gerrymandering resulted in a General Assembly that “did not represent the people of North Carolina” and the supermajority votes to approve the amendments broke “the requisite chain of popular sovereignty” between the voters and their representatives.

The Court of Appeals was right to reverse the trial court’s ruling. Popular sovereignty is distilled to its purest form at the ballot box. Though our system of government includes both, direct democracy provides a truer reflection of the people’s will than representative democracy.

Voter ID opponents say requiring a driver’s license or identification card to cast a ballot disenfranchises minorities, the elderly and the poor. A majority of North Carolinians, including members of those groups, rejected that view. No ID requirement was in place when the amendment won passage.

Plaintiffs want to ignore North Carolinians’ clear preference for voter ID and low taxes because they believe fairer districts would have changed the General Assembly’s composition enough to ensure three fifths of lawmakers wouldn’t have given them the choice. Consider the message that sends.

This Supreme Court case is only tangentially about voter ID. It’s really about whether voters’ will should be subordinate to elected officials’ whims. Our answer to that question is no.

North Carolina needs more direct democracy, not less. Many states, including the Democratic stronghold of California, make it easier to place propositions and referenda on the ballot and allow recall elections by petition. Though the voter ID debate splits largely along the left-right divide, giving voters more choices isn’t inherently liberal or conservative. It’s just good government.

Politicians and stakeholders who trust you to set our state’s course will defend the outcome of a statewide referendum whether or not they agree with it. That holds true regardless of which party supports an amendment and which one opposes it.

Voter ID won its election fair and square. It’s time our courts allow lawmakers to carry out the people’s will and implement the ID requirements they voted to authorize.