"Joy and pleasure are as real as pain and sorrow and one must learn what they have to teach. . . ." -- Sean Russell, from Gatherer of Clouds

"If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." -- Helyn D. Goldenberg

"I love you and I'm not afraid." -- Evanescence, "My Last Breath"

“If I hear ‘not allowed’ much oftener,” said Sam, “I’m going to get angry.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien, from Lord of the Rings

Friday, January 11, 2008

Voting

It seems likely that the Supreme Court is against it. From NYT via Crooks and Liars:

The justices’ questioning indicated that a majority did not accept the challengers’ basic argument — that voter-impersonation fraud is not a problem, so requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The tenor of the argument suggested, however, that rather than simply decide the case in favor of the state, a majority of five justices would go further and rule that the challenge to the statute, the strictest voter-identification law in the country, was improperly brought in the first place. Such a ruling could make it much more difficult to challenge any new state election regulations before they go into effect.


There you have it: when you've lost the Court, you've lost the country. This is some of the real damage that the radical right has done. And it's going to take decades to fix it.

Here's an interesting post on the mechanics of SCOTUS decision-making by Sandy Levinson at Balkinization. Read the comments as well -- very interesting discussion. And here are comments by Scott Lemieux that point out some fo the implications of the Court's likely decision:

Rather, indigent voters would have to wait until they've been disenfranchised (although the state can burden their rights in order to address a non-existent problem) before filing a lengthy and expensive lawsuit after the results of the election have already been entrenched. This doesn't make any sense unless you just don't care about poor voters being disenfranchised, so you can see why it's so appealing to the Court's conservatives. Trying to do away with facial challenges irrespective of how illogical the result would be is likely to be a major weapon of the Roberts Court -- this could also be used to gut constitutional protections of reproductive freedom, for example.

The Court as presently constituted is not friendly to ordinary citizens. That's been amply proven already. It seems obvious to me that the Court will decide on ideological (i.e., party) lines. After all, that's why Roberts and Alito are there.

No comments: