Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Missouri uphold the ban on voter ID.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da/cd66cf7b2479b16d86257209005f0e7a?OpenDocument
This is good news.
I'm sitting here entangled in a severe writer's block, with the time to file my planned lawsuit against Indiana's voter ID, slipping away.
The ruling is en banc with Judge Steve Limbaugh dissenting. Limbaugh is the grandson of Rush Limbaugh, who was Missouri's oldest practicing lawyer when he died at around age 103.
In reaching these conclusions, this Court applies strict scrutiny analysis, in which any limitation on a fundamental right must serve compelling state interests and must be narrowly tailored to meet those interests. SB 1014's photo ID requirement fails to pass constitutional scrutiny because it creates a heavy burden on the fundamental right to vote and is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. Judge Price, who I interned for, did not participate, so it was 6-1.
While this Court fully agrees with Appellants that there is a compelling state interest in preventing voter fraud, the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the Photo-ID Requirement is not narrowly tailored to accomplish that purpose.
The Missouri Constitution provides a specific provision that enshrines the right to vote among certain enumerated constitutional rights of its citizens. Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 25. SB 1014's Photo-ID Requirement creates a heavy burden on the right to vote and is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest, so it falls afoul of the Missouri Constitution's equal protection clause, Mo. Const. art I., sec. 2, and of Missourians' specific constitutional protection of the right to vote. Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 25. For these reasons, the trial court judgment is affirmed. AP story (which improperly describes the voter ID scheme as a "law"; it is a stautte but not a law, because it conflicts with the Missouri and federal constitutions.
As far as I know, Justice (Breyer?) has not acted Arizona's request for a stay of the 9th circuit's stay on its voter ID scheme.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da/cd66cf7b2479b16d86257209005f0e7a?OpenDocument
This is good news.
I'm sitting here entangled in a severe writer's block, with the time to file my planned lawsuit against Indiana's voter ID, slipping away.
The ruling is en banc with Judge Steve Limbaugh dissenting. Limbaugh is the grandson of Rush Limbaugh, who was Missouri's oldest practicing lawyer when he died at around age 103.
In reaching these conclusions, this Court applies strict scrutiny analysis, in which any limitation on a fundamental right must serve compelling state interests and must be narrowly tailored to meet those interests. SB 1014's photo ID requirement fails to pass constitutional scrutiny because it creates a heavy burden on the fundamental right to vote and is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. Judge Price, who I interned for, did not participate, so it was 6-1.
While this Court fully agrees with Appellants that there is a compelling state interest in preventing voter fraud, the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the Photo-ID Requirement is not narrowly tailored to accomplish that purpose.
The Missouri Constitution provides a specific provision that enshrines the right to vote among certain enumerated constitutional rights of its citizens. Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 25. SB 1014's Photo-ID Requirement creates a heavy burden on the right to vote and is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest, so it falls afoul of the Missouri Constitution's equal protection clause, Mo. Const. art I., sec. 2, and of Missourians' specific constitutional protection of the right to vote. Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 25. For these reasons, the trial court judgment is affirmed. AP story (which improperly describes the voter ID scheme as a "law"; it is a stautte but not a law, because it conflicts with the Missouri and federal constitutions.
As far as I know, Justice (Breyer?) has not acted Arizona's request for a stay of the 9th circuit's stay on its voter ID scheme.
Comments:
Post a Comment
