<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, April 14, 2018

http://www.journalgazette.net/opinion/20180414/indiana-leaps-into-voter-id-appeal

off to see if i can find that brief. here it is.

https://calendarmedia.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a93c5d7b-bc61-4297-b58b-d39d4dbb1e75.pdf

may edit with comments once i read it. the indiana statute has the same flaws the wisconsin supreme court said would be an unconstitutional poll tax.

lie list:

1. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), which upheld Indiana’s voter ID law and affirmed the facial validity of such laws. p 9.

2, . Lower court decisions that would allow each new plaintiff to come forward with purportedly new evidence regarding the supposed impact of a voter ID law and invite the court to re-weigh competing interests both undermine Crawford and create uncertainty for States attempting to enforce or enact voter ID laws. .p 10.

2.a.: questionable assertion: The amici States also have a compelling interest in maintaining a sensible standard for the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to right-to-vote abridgement claims.

2.b. In the process, such decisions create unnecessary legal uncertainty for all voter ID laws

2.c. Voter ID laws such as Alabama’s Photo ID Law and the Indiana law upheld in Crawford represent reasonable, nondiscriminatory exercises of Elections Clause authority that take account of the need to modernize election procedures, just as the Founders envisioned.
[perhaps this is opinion ratther than a false claim of fact or law.]


2. d The amici States have an interest in ensuring that such authority is not undermined by judicial decisions that would grant voter ID opponents repeated opportunities to facially attack election laws that have already been deemed valid.

this seems to be an argument for nullification, contrary to the supremacy clause. but i could be wrong.

3. “it is so easy to get a photo ID in Alabama, no one is prevented from voting.” Appendix, Vol. 7 (“7 App.”) at 232 (emphasis in original). The district court’s decision should be affirmed.

here the false statement is merely quoted, so that's ok, if misleading.

4. Crawford confirmed the facial validity of voter ID laws generally. p. 12.

4.a. it seems odd that these quotes from crawford lack pinpoint cites. i will need to do more research to see if accurate.

 It held, as a matter of law, that voter ID laws serve compelling state interests in deterring fraud, maintaining public confidence in the electoral system, and promoting accurate record-keeping.

5.  if this is true in Indiana, then it must be true in every other State. Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1352–54 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholding Georgia’s voter ID law); Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 2014) (upholding Wisconsin’s voter ID law). Billups controls, and Frank provides a useful template when it comes to applying Crawford to follow-on voter ID challenges in other States. p.12.

6 .  p 14
I. Crawford Declared Voter Photo ID Laws Facially Valid and Controls Here The Supreme Court affirmed the facial validity of voter photo ID laws a decade ago in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), and there is no reason to depart from that holding here.

7. . And because Alabama’s law permits voters to use more types of photo ID, provides more convenient ways to obtain acceptable ID, and makes it easier to vote without an ID than the Indiana law upheld in Crawford, Alabama’s law must perforce be valid. .p 14

7. a. And while the law might impose a “somewhat heavier burden” on a limited number of persons, the severity of that burden was mitigated by the ability of otherwise eligible voters to cast provisional ballots or, in some circumstances, to vote absentee. Id. at 199–201.

here the brief accurately cites crawford.
maybe i should ask him to watch my video of trying to get a provisional ballot,
or show him the letter from marion county saying there is no right to a provisional ballot.

7b Finally, the plurality noted the shortcomings of the record, which identified not a single individual who would be prevented from voting as a result of the voter ID law. Id. at 200–01.

again just a quote. but at least one individual participated as an amicus. Me. link to cyber-privacy brief. @ brennancenter

7 c
Finally, the plurality noted the shortcomings of the record, which identified not a single individual who would be prevented from voting as a result of the voter ID law. Id. at 200–01. “The ‘precise interests’ advanced by the State [we]re therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners’ facial challenge

true, but it destroys their earlier argument that crawford was a general ruling, rather than case specific.

8?
He acknowledged that the Constitution does not guarantee everyone a cost-free voting process and dissented only because Indiana’s law lacked features of an ideal voter ID law that could conceivably burden fewer voters. See id. at 237–40.

9.
Multiple studies analyzing data collected not long after the implementation of Indiana’s voter ID law confirm the Crawford Court’s conclusion that the law does not impose any “excessively burdensome requirements” on voters. Crawford, 553 U.S. at 202 (internal quotation omitted). To the contrary, after Indiana’s voter ID law went into effect “[o]verall, voter turnout in Indiana increased about two percentage points[.]”
bait and switch. turnout is unrelated to "excessively burdensome requirements".

10. p 17.
 Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Crawford, 553 U.S. at 192–97). This is misleading, because the legislature had amended the statute to address poll tax concerns, while in Frank v Walker the Wisconsin Supreme Court had done the same.

procedurally frank v walker was interesting, as was crawford. in crawford, the circuit court panel split 2-1, and then a motion for rehearing failed 5-5. the key vote was posner's. by the time of frank, he had changed his tune. so if we add up the number of judges who wrote that voter id is unconstitutional, it's a long list.

10 a
 is a quoted lie still a lie?
“[I]f photo ID is available to people willing to scrounge up a birth certificate and stand in line at the office that issues drivers’ licenses, then all we know from the fact that a particular person lacks a photo ID is that he was unwilling to invest the necessary time.” Id

10 b
. In fact, said the court, many of the district court’s findings “support the conclusion that for most eligible voters not having a photo ID is a matter of choice rather than a state-created obstacle.” Id. at 749

but that's the point, a person who chooses not to carry id, or display it without a warrant, should not be disenfranchised in retaliation for that choice.

10 c

here's a nice example of a statement that becomes truth once taken out of context.
“as a fact that the majority of the Supreme Court was wrong” about the benefits of voter ID, including deterring fraud, preserving voter confidence, and maintaining accurate records.

10 d a false claim accurately quoted.

In short, “[p]hoto ID laws promote confidence, or they don’t; there is no way they could promote public confidence in Indiana (as Crawford concluded) and not in Wisconsin. This means they are valid in every state . . . or they are valid in no state.” Id.

11
. In fact, there is no reason to expect that Alabama’s Photo ID law will somehow cause substantial harm to voter participation or disproportionally affect minorities, when nothing of the sort has happened in over ten years of voter ID in Indiana.

12
Accordingly, Crawford compels validation of Alabama’s Photo ID law, which is less burdensome than Georgia’s, Indiana’s, or Wisconsin’s.

12 a
The Secretary of State may issue valid voter ID cards at no cost. Ala. Code § 17-9-30(f). Voters need only provide specified information, see Ala. Code § 17-9-30(j), that can be proved by presenting Case: 18-10151 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 20 of 36 13 documents such as a birth or marriage certificate and something with the voter’s....

that's a 24th amendment /poll tax problem, unless those documents are free.

12 b
 And if even that is too difficult, the applicant may sign a voter registration form under oath, thereby confirming the voter’s identity.

if the oath carries a penalty, that could chill seech and raise an equal protection problem.

12c

Alabama also allows a voter without the required photo ID to cast a regular ballot if two election officials present at the polling place positively identify that person as eligible to vote and sign an affidavit attesting to the voter’s identity.

this is a nice feature, but it creates a potential for abuse if selectively applied by race.

14
Hence, if Indiana’s law did not impose a substantial burden on voting, Alabama’s law cannot either.

Indiana's law does impose a substantial burden on voting, it simply has not yet been proven in court.

15.
federalism and comity require a presumption of good faith

16.
And in all events, neither the history of nor the burdens imposed by the law suggest any discrimination.

now there's an impeachable claim.
naacp v alabama ex rel patterson, 1958, for example. see also the white primary cases.


any decent bio of justice thurgood marshall would have something about alabama and negro voting rights.

17 As a matter of federalism, it is proper to accord the Alabama Photo ID law a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith and without a discriminatory purpose.

18 What is more, the presumptions of validity and legislative good faith should be at their weightiest when the law at issue governs elections—over which states have traditionally had full authority.

see yick wo v hokins, buckley v valeo, mcintyre, exacting scrutiny.

19
With regard to the presumption afforded legislators, courts presume that the people’s elected representatives act in good faith and in the best interest of their constituents, and the burden is on the party alleging bad faith to prove up its claim.

a tie goes to the speaker, not the state - wrtl v fec ii.

this is a softer version of nullification. it argues feeral couts should play peek a boo and pretend not to notice actual realities, and be blinded by presumtions. caroline products counsels otherwise.

20
Arlington Heights outlined other factors that may bear on intentional discrimination, but they do not help Plaintiffs here. For example, “[t]he historical background of the decision

21
For example, “the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns[,]” id. at 45, has no bearing on whether a particular electoral regulation itself prevents minorities from voting.

21 a
Wisconsin’s voter ID law posed no problems because “in Wisconsin everyone has the same opportunity to get a qualifying photo ID.” Id. at.... so it's merely a quote, but still false. see frank v walker.
21 b
 Latinos’ ability or inability to obtain or possess identification for voting purposes . . . resulted in Latinos having less opportunity to participate in the political process . ok.








































































Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?