On October 19, the 9th circuit held oral arguments in Coronado v Brewer, 08-17567. The main issue is whether the 24th Amendment requires Arizona to let ex-felons register to vote, even if that ex-felon owes restitution or fines. The 24th amendment says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
The three judges on the panel were Alex Kozinski, Sandra Ikuta, and Sandra Day O’Connor, who is of course retired from the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices who retire from the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes participate in panels of U.S. Courts of Appeals in their home states. The hearing was held in Tempe, Arizona, on the campus of the State University. The hearing seemed to go well for the attorneys who are representing the individuals who desire to register to vote. This is an ACLU case.
Since when in the English language is any restitution or fine the same as a poll tax or other tax ???
This is the New Age of MORONS — doing nonstop frivolous cases.
When will the Supremes hammer some MORONS as an example — as if the FL govt morons in Bush v. Gore in 2000 were not hammered enough ???
Pingback: Sandra Day O’Connor Participates in 9th circuit Oral Argument in Voting Rights Case — Tempe in Motion
http://www.albionmonitor.com/9702a/fusionparty.html
[Editor’s note: According to a December 5 New York Times story on the Supreme Court hearing, the Court was clearly troubled at the prospect of declaring unconstitutional the election laws of 40 states. “We’re talking about a major effect,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was quoted in the Times, in a comment echoed moments later by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who said, “If we were to rule for you, it would result in quite sweeping changes in a great many states.”
The Times reported that Justice Souter said he was having trouble accepting the state’s modern-day justifications for the prohibition. The ban was adopted as part of a “very widespread effort simply to maintain the hegemony of the two parties,” Justice Souter said. “They weren’t worried about voter confusion. They didn’t want new parties.”
A legal overview of the case is available on the Internet. The New Party has a web page with links to articles about fusion, and the Center for a New Democracy also has a fusion resource page.]