Friday, December 01, 2006
Stewart v Blackwell (no relation) will be dismissed as moot instead of argued en banc, it looks like, reports Howard and Hasen.
I'm not clear whether the plaintiffs want it dismissed a moot because they got what they want, or because they were worried about being reversed, or what. Oh,ok,they got what they wanted.I expect we'll hear more soon. Hasen has some interesting thoughts about the precedential value of Bush v Gore. The panel in Stewart had quoted heavily from Hasen's article on Bush v Gore.
But it will take the Stewart case---or perhaps a case on these onerous new voter identification laws---to make it to the Supreme Court before we learn if Bush v. Gore has any precedential value outside the narrow facts of the Florida 2000 case.
The reason this interests me, is that when I asked the Dems for help in my voter ID case, their lawyer told me they don't want the case going to the (US) Supreme Court, which was before Purcell. Which would be fine; if he'll get me a lawyer to help with the case, I'll agree not to take it to the S. Ct. if I lose at the Indiana Supreme Court, which could well happen. But I never heard from him again and havent gotten any help. (The Brennan Center says they might file an amicus at a later stage of the case - currently the status is that I'm waiting on a decision in the Court of Appeals on my petition for reconsideration, since I think they were wrong to deny my interlocutory appeal on rule 14A grounds. And I'm playing phone tag with the lawyers who won the Missouri voter ID case.)
I'm still looking for help, since I'm not at all confident I can win it by myself,
and I'll cheerfully work with either team - people who do want to take the case to SCOTUS, or people who don't. The plaintiff, Joell Palmer, has won in the S CT once before, in , Indianapolis v Edmond et al - Joell was the et al, if that can be used in the singular. I'm not making any prediction that the court would take the case. I think the state constitutional claims are the strongest. But it at least is the sort of a case that would have a shot at cert, since if I lose there's a split, and if I win on some federal-only grounds (unlikely), the S.Ct. often takes cases where the state loses. Note to self: remember to preserve the equal protection argument in the briefs.
I'm not clear whether the plaintiffs want it dismissed a moot because they got what they want, or because they were worried about being reversed, or what. Oh,ok,they got what they wanted.
But it will take the Stewart case---or perhaps a case on these onerous new voter identification laws---to make it to the Supreme Court before we learn if Bush v. Gore has any precedential value outside the narrow facts of the Florida 2000 case.
The reason this interests me, is that when I asked the Dems for help in my voter ID case, their lawyer told me they don't want the case going to the (US) Supreme Court, which was before Purcell. Which would be fine; if he'll get me a lawyer to help with the case, I'll agree not to take it to the S. Ct. if I lose at the Indiana Supreme Court, which could well happen. But I never heard from him again and havent gotten any help. (The Brennan Center says they might file an amicus at a later stage of the case - currently the status is that I'm waiting on a decision in the Court of Appeals on my petition for reconsideration, since I think they were wrong to deny my interlocutory appeal on rule 14A grounds. And I'm playing phone tag with the lawyers who won the Missouri voter ID case.)
I'm still looking for help, since I'm not at all confident I can win it by myself,
and I'll cheerfully work with either team - people who do want to take the case to SCOTUS, or people who don't. The plaintiff, Joell Palmer, has won in the S CT once before, in , Indianapolis v Edmond et al - Joell was the et al, if that can be used in the singular. I'm not making any prediction that the court would take the case. I think the state constitutional claims are the strongest. But it at least is the sort of a case that would have a shot at cert, since if I lose there's a split, and if I win on some federal-only grounds (unlikely), the S.Ct. often takes cases where the state loses. Note to self: remember to preserve the equal protection argument in the briefs.
Comments:
Post a Comment
