Monday, October 20, 2014
On Saturday morning the Supreme Court allowed Texas's voter ID to be used in this election.
although it has been found to be unconstitutional and also a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The most interesting aspect was a 6 page dissent by J.Ginsberg, joined by the other two women justices.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a393_08m1.pdf
"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,
To prevent that disenfranchisement, I would vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stayof the permanent injunction ordered by the District Court."
As she points out, Crawford did not raise or decide a poll tax claim, so we're on new territory, The case has the potential to be the 2nd 24th Amendment case for the Supreme Court. The last one was in 1965.
By pointing out that voter ID is a threat to public confidence in elections, she takes out one of the three prongs the Crawford court used to uphold voter ID. Another prong, that Indiana had not cleaned up its outdated voter lists, has been eroded by the passage of time.
Justice Breyer did not join the dissent, The court's short order was unsigned, so we don't know how many joined it. My analysis is that on the court now there are 4 opposed to voter ID, 3 solidly for it,and Kennedy and Roberts in the middle where it will depend on the facts of the case. This case has solid facts, as found by the district judge, including finding that the legislature acted with deliberate prejudice. So there's hope, although I cannot predict the outcome.
although it has been found to be unconstitutional and also a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The most interesting aspect was a 6 page dissent by J.Ginsberg, joined by the other two women justices.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a393_08m1.pdf
"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,
To prevent that disenfranchisement, I would vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stayof the permanent injunction ordered by the District Court."
As she points out, Crawford did not raise or decide a poll tax claim, so we're on new territory, The case has the potential to be the 2nd 24th Amendment case for the Supreme Court. The last one was in 1965.
By pointing out that voter ID is a threat to public confidence in elections, she takes out one of the three prongs the Crawford court used to uphold voter ID. Another prong, that Indiana had not cleaned up its outdated voter lists, has been eroded by the passage of time.
Justice Breyer did not join the dissent, The court's short order was unsigned, so we don't know how many joined it. My analysis is that on the court now there are 4 opposed to voter ID, 3 solidly for it,and Kennedy and Roberts in the middle where it will depend on the facts of the case. This case has solid facts, as found by the district judge, including finding that the legislature acted with deliberate prejudice. So there's hope, although I cannot predict the outcome.
Comments:
Post a Comment
