Friday, October 12, 2018
https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/item/345587/index.do
what does the arkansas voter identificaton decision today mean for indiana, if anything?
the state supreme court in arkansas has upheld that state's voter ID rules, 5-2. i'm about to comb the decision to see if it says anything useful that might undercut indiana's scheme. ark. has failsafes built into the system which indiana lacks.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101486
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article219848935.html?platform=hootsuite
Unlike the measure struck down in 2014, the law approved last year allows voters to cast provisional ballots without a photo ID if they sign a sworn statement confirming their identities.
that's a key difference.
the power of one voter.
https://apnews.com/145bf0eeab9e463d9b7436c34aaf268f
Barry Haas as plaintiff and Jeff Priebe
http://www.arpanel.org/boardstaff/
took me awhile just to fin it.
https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/item/345587/index.do
1. it was an interlocutory appeal of a prelim inj, so the case is not final.
2. On appeal, this court reviews the grant of a preliminary injunction under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Potter, supra; Baptist Health v. Murphy, 365 Ark. 115, 226 S.W.3d 800 (2006). However, this court reviews a circuit court’s interpretation of a constitutional provision de novo. Gatzke v. Weiss, 375 Ark. 207, 210, 289 S.W.3d 455, 458 (2008).
3 Because appellee has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages, this action is not subject to the asserted sovereign-immunity defense.
4. As another threshold matter, appellant Martin argues that appellee lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. Martin contends that because appellee has a valid driver’s license but testified that he will refuse to show it at the polls or sign the voter-verification affirmation, he has not demonstrated that he suffered any actual injury, but instead relies on “wholly manufactured standing.”
what does the arkansas voter identificaton decision today mean for indiana, if anything?
the state supreme court in arkansas has upheld that state's voter ID rules, 5-2. i'm about to comb the decision to see if it says anything useful that might undercut indiana's scheme. ark. has failsafes built into the system which indiana lacks.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101486
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article219848935.html?platform=hootsuite
Unlike the measure struck down in 2014, the law approved last year allows voters to cast provisional ballots without a photo ID if they sign a sworn statement confirming their identities.
that's a key difference.
Deputy Secretary of State A.J. Kelly told the justices the lower court “has usurped the power of the Legislature to amend the Constitution” by blocking the law.
“A single man has a driver’s license and refuses to show it to vote, and he alone has put a constitutional amendment in jeopardy,” Kelly said.
the power of one voter.
https://apnews.com/145bf0eeab9e463d9b7436c34aaf268f
Barry Haas as plaintiff and Jeff Priebe
http://www.arpanel.org/boardstaff/
took me awhile just to fin it.
https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/item/345587/index.do
1. it was an interlocutory appeal of a prelim inj, so the case is not final.
2. On appeal, this court reviews the grant of a preliminary injunction under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Potter, supra; Baptist Health v. Murphy, 365 Ark. 115, 226 S.W.3d 800 (2006). However, this court reviews a circuit court’s interpretation of a constitutional provision de novo. Gatzke v. Weiss, 375 Ark. 207, 210, 289 S.W.3d 455, 458 (2008).
3 Because appellee has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages, this action is not subject to the asserted sovereign-immunity defense.
4. As another threshold matter, appellant Martin argues that appellee lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. Martin contends that because appellee has a valid driver’s license but testified that he will refuse to show it at the polls or sign the voter-verification affirmation, he has not demonstrated that he suffered any actual injury, but instead relies on “wholly manufactured standing.”
The general rule is that one must have suffered injury or belong to a class that is prejudiced in order to have standing to challenge the validity of a law. Ghegan & Ghegan, Inc. v. Weiss, 338 Ark. 9, 14–15, 991 S.W.2d 536, 539 (1999). The issue of appellee’s standing is settled by this court’s opinion in Martin v. Kohls, supra. In Martin, this court held that the plaintiff-appellees had standing based on the fact that they were registered voters subject to the proof-of-identity requirement in Act 595. Thus, they were among the class of persons affected by Act 595. Here, appellee is a person affected by Act 633. He will be required to show compliant identification or sign the voter-verification affidavit, and the evidence presented at the hearing established that he is within the class of persons affected by the statute; therefore, he has standing to challenge the Act’s constitutionality.
5. statute was germane an consistent with purpose of anti-poll-tax amenment 51 of ark const. [e note: germane yes, consistent no, but it's a jugment call, a subjectve stanar, so they get to ecie.]
6. '2 of 7: The end never justifies the means. I dissent'.
6. '2 of 7: The end never justifies the means. I dissent'.
Comments:
Post a Comment
