On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Indiana government picture photo-ID case for voters who want to vote at the polls. Here is an eye-witness description of the argument by Professor Ned Foley. UPDATE: Here is the transcript.
It seems somewhat likely that the eventual opinion will say that this case should be brought as an “as-allied” case in the future, on behalf of a particular voter who has been injured. The current case argues that the Indiana law is unconstitutional on its face. The analogy would be to the fairly recent decisions on the McCain-Feingold law and its provisions on TV and radio advertising. First the court upheld the law on its face, but then in a later case, struck down part of that law.
NO injured party = NO *standing* = NO case
Too difficult for the many MORONS doing election law cases to understand.
Demo Rep is in error. Since this law affects everyone going into the voting booth, this law may (depending on how it’s ultimately decided) violate all of their civil rights, whether they choose to comply with it voluntarily or not. After all, just because a person voluntarily complies with a law that illegally restricts his/her civil rights, it doesn’t make the law legal. Therefore, getting a “victim” will just be a formality. In order to improve the chances of winning their case though, they’ll probably pick an economically disadvantaged person who doesn’t drive, and therefore doesn’t have a picture driver’s license, and doesn’t have, for some reason or another, any other type of picture ID. Then they can show a hardship, both physically and financially, in order for that person to cast his/her vote.
My own feeling on this is that I don’t necessarily mind a law that makes a voter prove who he says he is. But if it IS a financial hardship for someone to get a picture ID, then the government who passed the law should provide one at no charge.
Formalities matter BIG time under U.S. Const Art. III, Sec. 2.
NO *formal* injured party = NO *standing* = NO case.
Wrong again Demo Rep. If the law is found to be unconstitutional, then everyone who walked into the polls had their civil rights violated, and were therefore injured. This means that they all have standing. The “formality” I mention is to just picking a specific one to represent the case.
I’m used to your picking out sections of the Constitution that have no relation to the argument and you claiming that it proves your right. In this instance, Article III Section 2 only deals with jurisdiction matters. Try the 24 Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits the poll tax, which the forced purchasing of an ID could very well be construed as one.