Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Background and fallout from the Supreme Court's Voter ID ruling

The WSJ's John Fund, who has been writing about voter fraud regularly since at least the 2000 Presidential election, analyzes both the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in Crawford v. Marion Cty Election Bd. and the potential impact on the nation.

First, he notes that the Indiana law that the Supreme Court upheld is "the toughest" in the country. Second, he notes that Justice Breyer, in dissent, approvingly discussed the somewhat laxer photo ID law of Georgia and Florida -- thus, there are potentially seven votes for the constitutionality of those laws. Third, Fund mentioned that even Souter's dissent (which Justice Ginsburg joined) did not call for reviewing the law under the "strict scrutiny" test -- that means the Court does not treat voter ID laws like racial preferences or speech restrictions that are allowed only where the state shows a compelling interest in the enactment and no less restrictive means to reach its legislative objective (i.e., the "compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means" analysis).

More interesting is the background of Justice Stevens: he's a Chicagoan who knows all too well about government corruption and voter fraud because he comes from the city that is synonymous with the concept, served as special counsel to a commission dedicated to rooting out corruption in government and has ruled against the Chicago machine as a member of the high court.

Equally interesting is Fund's description of Barack Obama's activities on behalf of ACORN, a far-left interest group that has a history of enabling, engaging, encouraging and assisting voter fraud. Obama represented ACORN's challenge to Illinois' refusal to implement the Motor Voter law.

Read the whole piece.

UPDATE: Other editorials and news articles on the decision have been compiled by appellate lawyer Howard Bashman, who runs the How Appealing blog that focuses on appellate court decisions throughout the country, here.

The WaPo's editorial thinks the Indiana law is like taking a sledgehammer to a fly. The LA Times cries about needing more voter involvement, not less -- as if participation in the voting process by people who don't care is a positive thing -- and that the Court has rolled back the interest of society in fuller participation. Of course, one problem is that people who ordinarily don't care to vote get rounded up by community organizers and driven to the polls to cast a ballot as the organizers suggest -- this is what happened in Milwaukee in 2000 and 2004, and what happened in New Orleans in the 2002 Louisiana gubernatorial election. The Monk worked as a journalist for nearly four years in college (and more than one of his colleagues became journalists in major newspapers) -- the LA Times' editorial is typical newsroom piffle.

No comments: