pageok
pageok
pageok
Whole Lotta Grantin' Going On:
Today the Supreme Court announced the results of the "long conference," the Justices' September conference in which they vote on the cert petitions that piled up over the summer. The Court granted 17 cases altogether, which you can find over at ScotusBlog. I was particularly interested to see the Court grant cert in Virginia v. Moore, a Fourth Amendment case that is a follow up to Atwater v. Lago Vista.

  UPDATE: The 'big' grants seem to be the cases on the constitutionality of voter ID laws and of execution protocols; see Lyle Denniston's summary here.
GV_:
Orin, you read my mind as I just finished reading the petition for cert. in Virigina v. Moore. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that case (and I suspect others would as well).
9.25.2007 1:21pm
cw (mail):
The voter ID case is more important. This is where all the struggle by republicans to get their judges on the court pays off.
9.25.2007 2:06pm
Bryan DB:
The address for Lyle Denniston's summary is here.
9.25.2007 2:07pm
WHOI Jacket:
Yep, so we can disenfranchise us some little brown ones, CW.

I notice no DC gun ban case? Talking about punting the football.
9.25.2007 2:26pm
cw (mail):
What is it about if it's not about making it harder for poor people to vote? There is no credible evidence of voter fraud using fake id. Poor people (who are often brownish) are much less likely to have government issued photo id, and because of thier situation it is more difficult for them to get one (transportation, money, etc..). You can be as sarcastic as you want but if there is no fraud to prevent, the only thing these laws can do is reduce the votes of poor people.
9.25.2007 2:43pm
NickM (mail) (www):
cw - there is plenty of evidence of voter fraud using NO ID. When dead men cast votes at the polls (Miami, Chicago, etc. are known for this), do you think that whoever showed up to vote that ballot had a government-issued ID identifying him as the deceased?

When an ACORN worker turns in hundreds of phony registrations (or do you think that every one who did so was caught?), aren't you worried that somebody who knows those fakes are on the rolls might walk into polling stations and vote using some of those registrations.

Nick
9.25.2007 2:56pm
Libertarian1 (mail):
CW

For years big city Democratic machines and large populated Democratic counties have routinely and actively promoted voting by the dead, block registrations of ineligibles and outright stealing. Examine the state of Washington after the last gubernatorial election. The fervent opposition has little to do with brown faces and everything to do with prevention of outright theft. In 2004 the City of Philadelphia had more votes than they had registered voters. Think they all had IDs.

If you think playing the race card will stop our attempt to clean up elections, you are in error. As I said on this site previously in my personal liberal incarnation I stole votes for Mayor Daley and the machine. It is routinely done and will continue to be until they are forced to clean up their act. The true shame is you know better and pretend this is racial.
9.25.2007 3:13pm
rarango (mail):
cw: What country are you living in? Washington state governor's election in 2004; New Orleans, ACORN...are you also suggesting that none of these "brownish" people drive? or buy liquor? or get governmental benefits? What Libertarian1 said about making this a racial issue.
9.25.2007 4:41pm
cw (mail):
Anyone want to post a list of indictments/convictions on ANY kind of voter fraud? You can go back aways. You'll find it is a very, very short list.
9.25.2007 6:24pm
H. Tuttle:
>>Anyone want to post a list of indictments/convictions on ANY kind of voter fraud? You can go back aways. You'll find it is a very, very short list.<<

Which proves nothing. To, ahem, mangle a quote, absence of indictments/convictions isn't evidence of absence of voter fraud. Ever hear of prosecutorial discretion? Any prosecutor who decided to dig into this in a substantial way would be tarred and feathered by CW's buds in the media and is more likely a reason that so few indictments/convictions of this sort exist.
9.25.2007 6:51pm
Terrivus:
The Ct almost certainly took the voter ID case because the lower cts have been facing many challenges under similar laws, and while most have come out in one direction (upholding the laws), not all have, so there is at least a slight split. More importantly, with the 2008 elections approaching, the Court likely wanted to resolve the matter or at least set some standards for all of the election-related TROs and preliminary injunctions that lower courts are sure to face in the next 12 months.

That said, I would be very surprised if the Ct overturned the law. What will be interesting, however, is whether the Justices who are so quick to uphold campaign-finance restrictions in the name of "good government" and fair elections are similarly going to side with laws that, at least on their face, are intended to deter voter fraud.
9.25.2007 7:13pm
cw (mail):
No indictmnets or convictions, huh. That's got to be a pretty serrious problem.

Conservatives attack campaign financing limits as violating the 1st amendment. They say you can't curtail such a basic right just because their are a few abuses. But isn't the right to vote an even more primary right. Isn't the most important right in a democracy? So how can you support impinging on this right in the name of preventing fraud that no one can even prove happens?

It's just pure partisanship. It's all about the struggle for power.
9.25.2007 11:23pm
cw (mail):
Libertarian 1.

No I don't know this is routinely done and nothing I have read supports this claim. In fact everything I have read suggest the opposite. If there is widespread voter fraud there would be widespread indictments and conviciton, especially under a republican DOJ. But there are very very few. THis is from an article in In These Times.


In 2002 the Justice Department established the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to ferret out fraudulent voters. On Oct. 4, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, with great fanfare, proclaimed, "We've made enforcement of election fraud and corrupting offenses a top priority." Yet according to an April 12 New York Times article, only 120 people have been charged with the crime over the past five years, leading to 86 convictions. Furthermore, the Times noted, federal attorneys say that most of the transgressions have been mistakes by immigrants and felons who simply misunderstood eligibility requirements.
9.25.2007 11:40pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
But isn't the right to vote an even more primary right. Isn't the most important right in a democracy?
No. Voting is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. In any case...
So how can you support impinging on this right in the name of preventing fraud that no one can even prove happens?
It doesn't "impinge" on the right. Everyone can obtain ID.
9.26.2007 2:48am
Bryan DB:
rarango, you noted "Washington state governor's election in 2004"
A trial initiated in response to that election found widespread evidence of...nothing.
When the state Republican party shot itself in the foot by challenging all sorts of "suspicious" voters, they (and the elections board) found widespread evidence of...nothing. Mostly, the state Republican party just embarrassed itself by submitting allegations of voter fraud that were, themselves, fraudulent. Well done.
9.26.2007 12:29pm
cw (mail):
"No. Voting is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. In any case..."

Means determine the end. The way we vote determines the quality of our government. The ability to cast a vote is the primary right in a democracy.

"It doesn't "impinge" on the right. Everyone can obtain ID."

It's harder for some people than others. Impinge as in "impact." These laws impact the ease of certain populations abilility to vote. Plus it's unnecessary. It's just Republican tactics. Part of the plan for a permanent republican majority.
9.26.2007 1:24pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
"It doesn't "impinge" on the right. Everyone can obtain ID."

It's harder for some people than others. Impinge as in "impact." These laws impact the ease of certain populations abilility to vote.
It's also "harder for some people" to get to the polls than it is for others. That doesn't make it unconstitutional to have polling places rather than allowing everyone to vote by mail.
9.26.2007 7:33pm
cw (mail):
It's all about the nature and extent of the burden. It's a fairly significant burden to take off work, take the bus to the DMV, wait in line an hour, pay $10, take the bus back to work.

Especially when there is no evidence of any kind of significant voter fraud. It a solution for a problem that doesn't even exist. A soloution with all cost no benefit. Wait, I guess the republican party benefits.
9.26.2007 10:46pm