Poll: 74% support voter ID laws

Yeah, and blacks used to be 3/5th of a person... Fortunately, the Voting Rights Act of 1964, the 14th Amendment, Brown vs. Board of Education, Title-IX laws, etc., have improved things. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Let me know when you have something relevant to post.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Judge in PA made no ruling on the merits of the law or lawsuit. Instead he held that in balancing the harms, that it would be easier to stop the law if the state Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional than it would be restart the law if the Supreme court finds it constitutional. So in balancing the harms, he allowed it to stand and kicked the can to the appellate courts.

The judge also found in his ruling that it was troubling about the remarks made by the republican senate leader about their motivation for the law.

Really Dog, you should read the ruling yourself rather than relying on the talking points reverberating around the echo chamber. There are several instances in the ruling where Judge Simpson notes that the petitioners are unlikely to succeed based on the merits of their arguments.

He noted in his decision that on its face the law applies equally to all qualified electors and does not expressly disenfranchise or burden any qualified electors or group of electors.

He also reaffirmed earlier rulings which said that the State didn't have to prove the existence of actual voter fraud before taking prophylactic actions to prevent its occurrence.

He affirmed the earlier decisions which said that a flexible standard and not strict scrutiny were the proper standards to apply to the law. He affirmed earlier court rulings which said that indirect expenses (time, travel and the cost of procuring the necessary documents) did not constitute a poll tax.

And finally, while he found the remarks of one state legislator disturbing, as a matter of fact he could not, from that one statement, infer the same sentiment onto all of the legislators. Additionally, as a matter of law the Supreme Court has said that "if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of the individual legislators."

The challenge to the law is unlikely to succeed on the merits of the arguments upon which the injunction was being sought. That was the opinion expressed by Judge Simpson in denying the injunction.

The judge did not rule on the merits of the case only whether the plaintiffs met the high burden imposed in seeking a preliminary injunction against the law. There are six factors that go into that determination with a high burden on the petitioners to prove each factor in their favor. Among those is the burden of harm, whether the harm in issuing the injunction outweighs the harm in not. He clearly found that the harm in issuing the injunction outweighed the harm in not, meaning that it would be easier to stop the law after the case was heard or appeal taken than it would be to restart the law at a later date. The remaining factors were hinged on his understanding of the level of scrutiny imposed on the law and it's effects. He did not apply the level of strict scrutiny that the Supreme Court ordered in the controlling opinion, but applied a lesser level of scrutiny suggested by Scalia in the non controlling concurring opinion. He recognized this as a problem and even stated in his opinion that if he was wrong, then he would most likely issue a preliminary injunction. The remainder of the opinion primarily dealt with the "facial challenge" vs "applied challenge" issue. He felt as though the plaintiffs had argued for an "applied challenge" while the testimony was for a "facial challenge". He invited the plaintiffs to retry their case with the proper arguments.

Something the Dog Said wrote: He did not apply the level of strict scrutiny that the Supreme Court ordered in the controlling opinion, but applied a lesser level of scrutiny suggested by Scalia in the non controlling concurring opinion.

From Judge Simpson's decision:

Significantly, the Court also noted that in Burdick, it rejected an argument that strict scrutiny applies to all laws imposing a burden on the right to vote, instead choosing to apply the "flexible standard" set forth in Anderson. Crawford, 553 US at 190 n.8.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: He did not apply the level of strict scrutiny that the Supreme Court ordered in the controlling opinion, but applied a lesser level of scrutiny suggested by Scalia in the non controlling concurring opinion.

From Judge Simpson's decision:

Significantly, the Court also noted that in Burdick, it rejected an argument that strict scrutiny applies to all laws imposing a burden on the right to vote, instead choosing to apply the "flexible standard" set forth in Anderson. Crawford, 553 US at 190 n.8.

From Judge Simpson's decision:

Nevertheless, the appropriate level of scrutiny raises a substantial legal issue. Indeed, if strict scrutiny is to be employed, I might reach a different determination on this prerequisite for preliminary injunction.

The Supreme Court in Crawford set a "flexible" standard on the level of scrutiny on a case by case basis on decisions regarding voting rights. The PA judge is saying that he is not sure that he got it right in this case, and if he should have used strict scrutiny instead of rational scrutiny, he may have ruled differently. This is one of the key issues that will go up on appeal, was the level of scrutiny that he applied correct.

Given that he has applied the same level of scrutiny to this case that the Supreme Court applied in Crawford, which for all intents and purposes is an identical law to the one enacted in Pennsylvania, is there really any question as to whether or not the correct level of scrutiny was used?

Different cases, different plaintiffs, different defendants, different evidence, different circumstances. Read the ruling in Crawford where Justice Stevens opined that hard decisions depend upon the particulars of the circumstance. The Crawford case did not issue a ruling that all photo ids were constitutional, only that in that particular case, based on the facial challenge and the evidence before the court, it was. If the plaintiffs had waited to provide applied cases, that is instances where plaintiffs were actually shown under hardship because of the law, then the decision may be different.

Judge Simpson included in his decision a litany of the "possible" damages presented by the plaintiffs in their "as applied" arguments and said that there were individual remedies that could be applied to each of them, which is why his opinion clearly states that they are unlikely to prevail with their lawsuit given the Supreme Court ruling in Crawford.

After reading that in 2008 Democratic turnout rose more in Indiana, with its ID law in force, than in any other state and Georgia, which also had a new voter ID law in place that year for the first time, also had a huge jump in turnout, almost all of it from Democratic voters, I'm beginning to wonder what all the fuss is about.

That 11% figure for people without photo ID sounds a little high. Are they including illegal immigrants and people under 12?