The EFF reports
Today the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously to overturn a recent Ninth Circuit decision barring the enforcement of an Arizona voter ID law. Enacted in 2004 by citizen initiative, the law required proof of citizenship for new voter registrations and photo identification at the polls. Both the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) and Secretary of State Sam Reed have recommended this law as a model for Washington to follow, and today's decision underscores the legality of such requirements.The high court's decision is here Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 20, 2006 03:40 PM | Email ThisThe Court chided the Ninth Circuit for acting without having all the proper facts, and for interfering right before a major election.
However, it will have one adverse result. You can expect the plaintiffs to do their darndest to "manufacture" cases where voters without ID are turned away from the poll in the upcoming election.
Reading between the lines, Justice Stevens' concurrence is basically a direct suggestion/invitation to the plaintiffs to do this.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on October 20, 2006 04:11 PMWhat percentage of there rulings are overturned?
Those seeking judicial sanity find it tough going when a circuit court deserves better than even money that they will ultimately be found wrong.
The fact that it was unanimous serves to underscore the great divide between the 9th and the adults in charge.
Posted by: scott158 on October 20, 2006 04:44 PMExcellent. Now we can start working on getting voter ID laws in place here in WA. Only fraudsters, criminals and progressives are afraid of basic ID requirements that are an integral part of security for almost every aspect of life in the 21st century world.
Grandma ain't got an ID? Boo hoo. Well then she better get down to the DMV like everyone else.
Requires an individual who does not present such an ID to be permitted to cast a provisional ballot in such an election. Requires such individual, however, to present the required ID within 48 hours after casting the provisional ballot, or the appropriate state or local election official may not determine the individual's eligibility to vote.
Requires individuals who vote other than in person in a federal election (for example, by mail) to submit a copy of such a photo ID with a ballot, or the appropriate official may not accept the ballot. Exempts from this requirement the absentee ballot of any eligible overseas military voter absent from the United States by reason of active duty or service.
I hope this also strengthens the argument in favor of the break up of the current 9th circuit court!
Posted by: Deborah on October 20, 2006 06:12 PMThey immediately appealed the denial of the injunction to the Ninth Circuit, which scheduled a hearing for after the 11/7 election. A two-judge panel, however, issued the requested injunction, before the District Court issued its ruling. This was the big no-no. The appellate court is supposed to hear appeals of a lower court decision and base their review of the decision on the logic used by the lower court. This the Ninth Circuit did not do.
After the Ninth Circuit issued the injunction, the District Court issued its ruling. The rational behind the District Court's decision found "the balance of the harms and the public interest counseled in favor of denying the injunction." The Ninth Circuit then denied an appeal for reconsideration of their injunction.
Both times the Ninth Circuit issued its decision, first to issue the injunction (before the District Court's opinion was issued), and in the denial of a rehearing of the decision to issue the injunction, the Ninth Circuit did not give the reason or logic behind their decision. It is the role of the appellate court to review the lower court's decision for error. This the Ninth Circuit did not do.
As the SCOTUS decision said, "[i]t was still necessary, as a procedural matter, for the Court of Appeals to give deference to the discretion of the District Court. We find no indication that it did so, and we conclude this was error.
So the Ninth Circuit's decision was reversed on what may be called a "technicality." It's no surprise that this is a 9-0 decision. It's purely procedural and does not address the merits of the case.
We'll have to wait for the Ninth Circuit to issue a decision based upon its reading of the District Court decision. No matter which way the Ninth Circuit eventually decides, you can be assured that decision will be appealed to SCOTUS.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 20, 2006 06:26 PMNever discount the small print or casual jargon in any legal decision, that's where all the pitfalls and loopholes live.
Posted by: MSRedneck on October 20, 2006 06:59 PMOf course, the ninth circuit court of schlameels will probably resurrect this thing. However, it will be appealed and upheld !
Posted by: KS on October 20, 2006 07:28 PMThat battle will be fought soon. I will not be at all surprised to see the illegal vote enablers win again at the 9th circuit.
Let us just hope that the Supreme Court will have the right balance when it finally gets this case for final disposition.
Posted by: deadwood on October 20, 2006 08:06 PMThe good news is that voter ID will be required at the AZ polls this November's election. The bad news is that we don't know how SCOTUS will eventually rule. With the current progressive trend of the court to seek guidance from foreign laws and rulings, it's not clear.
What I expect is that the forces of evil will "document" multiple instances of "voter disenfranchisment" to help prove their case.
This issue is a great example of why conservatives, Republicans, and rational Libertarians should vote and encourage defenders of liberty to vote this election. We must have a Republican majority in the House and Senate for the next two years.
The most important issue is judicial appointments. Do we want a Democratic Senate to block the appointment of judges and justices that will uphold the US Constitution, or will we accept a Senate that will demand liberal and "progressive" judges who subvert the legislative process?
Please, vote, and encourage your friends and family to vote.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 20, 2006 09:31 PMNamely not requiring ID at the polls, which the left knows might limit less than serious, or whimsical voters inspired by GOTV efforts. And absent ID it also opens the window for moonbat fraudulent ballots like that of Dustin O'Coilan.
Eternal vigilance.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 20, 2006 09:34 PMsee this story on the voter ID Debate in New Mexico
http://cha.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=1162
Posted by: TrueSoldier on October 20, 2006 09:44 PMnow--if we can only get those driver's licenses repealed for illegal aliens...as well as other freebies to illegals, we'd be making some REAL progress!
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 22, 2006 09:32 AM