Wednesday, October 01, 2014
By now I've read the opinion and dissent in Frank v Walker, in which a divided (5-5) 7th Circuit upheld letting Wisconsin go ahead with voter ID this fall.
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/en-banc-order_2yRG.pdf
Posner was on the losing side, and did not author the opinion, but I was interested to see what it might have to say about his possible change of heart on voter ID. The dissent properly focuses on the disruption caused by moving to voter ID this quickly. It has little to say about the merits, so it would be possible for Posner to join this dissent and still later vote to uphold the statute.
But the winning side thinks the merits are strong,and the state will prevail, and Posner doesn't agree.
So he has indeed come a long way since his erroneous dismissive opinion in Crawford.
As I've said before, the best thing to do now is for as many people as possible to refuse to show ID in the fall election, and add to the chaos, so that the case, as it continues, will be stronger.
The panel that was upheld, Easterbrook et al., might say that that is a self-inflicted harm rather than a constititutional violation.
But everyone has a right to a free election, and if some people choose not to participate in what they might see as an unwarranted search or a tax on voting or a severe burden, withe the result that the outcome of the election becomes unknowable, that harms everyone, not just those who have chosen to opt out.
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/en-banc-order_2yRG.pdf
Posner was on the losing side, and did not author the opinion, but I was interested to see what it might have to say about his possible change of heart on voter ID. The dissent properly focuses on the disruption caused by moving to voter ID this quickly. It has little to say about the merits, so it would be possible for Posner to join this dissent and still later vote to uphold the statute.
But the winning side thinks the merits are strong,and the state will prevail, and Posner doesn't agree.
So he has indeed come a long way since his erroneous dismissive opinion in Crawford.
As I've said before, the best thing to do now is for as many people as possible to refuse to show ID in the fall election, and add to the chaos, so that the case, as it continues, will be stronger.
The panel that was upheld, Easterbrook et al., might say that that is a self-inflicted harm rather than a constititutional violation.
But everyone has a right to a free election, and if some people choose not to participate in what they might see as an unwarranted search or a tax on voting or a severe burden, withe the result that the outcome of the election becomes unknowable, that harms everyone, not just those who have chosen to opt out.
Comments:
Post a Comment
