All the briefs in opposition to Indiana’s law requiring voters at the polls to show government photo-ID have now been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. See this link (courtesy of the Brennan Center for Justice) to read these briefs. The case is actually two combined cases, Crawford v Marion County Election Board, and Indiana Democratic Party v Rokita. There are 23 briefs. This is almost surely a record number of amicus curiae briefs in any U.S. Supreme Court election law case, at least in the past 20 years. It will be interesting to see how many organizations file amici briefs on the side of Indiana’s law.
The briefs in defense of the Indiana law are due next month. Then, there will be a set of rebuttal briefs. The oral argument will probably be in late winter or early spring 2008.
For the clueless — unaware of 900 plus years of Anglo-American law —
A law [legislative] is FACIALLY constitutional or UN-constitutional.
The law may be ENFORCED [executive, judicial] in a constitutional or UN-constitutional manner.
i.e. 2 x 2 = 4 possibilities — 1 is LEGAL, 3 are ILLEGAL.
MOST, if not all, constitutional laws have UNEQUAL effects — obviously since everybody is NOT the same — age, sex, mental, physical, income, wealth, etc.
For some MORON reasons the Supremes got into the WRONG track in election law cases many decades ago — by treating election law cases differently than any other type of constitutional law cases — possibly due to the political fact that having elections is one of the very few things that governments in the U.S.A. MUST do — to avoid having TYRANT regimes in the U.S.A.