January 9, 2008
THE LEFT'S LOSS OF FACE:
Justices Question Validity of Voter I.D. Case (LINDA GREENHOUSE, 1/09/08, NY Times)
The tenor of the argument suggested, however, that rather than simply decide the case in favor of the state, a majority of five justices will 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.The Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the 2005 law before it took effect, seeking a declaration that it was unconstitutional “on its face” and could not be enforced against anyone, not even the majority of Indiana voters who could easily produce the required photo I.D.
This sort of approach, known as a “facial challenge,” is the standard way of attacking election regulations, from the poll taxes that the Supreme Court struck down in the 1960’s to more recent redistricting and ballot-access cases.
But the Roberts court has displayed deep skepticism toward such challenges, most notably in the abortion area, on the ground that they require courts to step outside a limited role of resolving concrete disputes brought by parties with actual injuries.
Posted by Orrin Judd at January 9, 2008 9:19 PM
The challenge was especially improperly brought because the Dems should know where the court's allegiance lies after Bush v. Gore.
Posted by: ferdinand at January 9, 2008 10:28 PMIf the unidentified can vote without being questioned, then why is the Left so suspicious of Diebold? Surely votes by untraceable keystrokes are just as valid.
Posted by: ratbert at January 9, 2008 11:10 PMPerhaps they're "suspicious" because it's harder to perpetrate voter fraud.
Posted by: erp at January 10, 2008 9:50 AMOne of the petitioners in the case is identified in this newspaper report:
WASHINGTON – On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.
Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both (states.
Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Frank “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.” She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she¹s never voted in Florida.
Geez!