Election Law @ Moritz: SCOTUS has overturned injunction barring AZ ID law

[eomer]

Supreme Court Vacates Ninth Circuit ID Order
Oct 20 (3:55 PM) BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Ninth Circuit's injunction barring enforcement of Arizona's voter ID law for this year's general election. Treating the State's application for a stay as a petition for certiorari, the Court granted the petition and vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The Court's opinion will be posted when available.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw

By overturning the injunction, the SCOTUS is ruling that the ID law can be enforced in the upcoming election.

UPDATE: Here is the Supreme Court opinion.

Based on the following excerpt from the ruling, its significance is limited to the effect it will have on the current election in Arizona. The legal dispute over the ID law will continue but until it is resolved the law will be enforced due to this SCOTUS ruling.

We underscore that we express no opinion here on the
correct disposition, after full briefing and argument, of the
appeals from the District Court’s September 11 order or on
the ultimate resolution of these cases. As we have noted,
the facts in these cases are hotly contested, and “[n]o
bright line separates permissible election-related regulation
from unconstitutional infringements.” Timmons v.
Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 359 (1997).
Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate
time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall
of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction
suspending the voter identification rules.

Here's a WAPO article about the earlier injunction by the Ninth Circuit:

PHOENIX (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked an Arizona state law requiring voters to present identification at polling stations and proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an emergency motion by opponents of the law for an injunction to prevent the law's voter identification requirements from taking effect for the November 7 elections.

-snip-

Opponents of the Arizona law said it discriminated against minorities and the poor, who might not have funds to obtain the necessary proof of identification.

The Arizona Attorney General's Office said it would seek an immediate review of the ruling and would take it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary in coming days.

-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100502044.html

[Lerkfish]

1. my limited understanding was that states rights held sway in elections

was I wrong?

[Demoiselle]

2. Right, except for Florida in 2000, of course. (eom)

[hvn_nbr_2]

3. States' rights apply when and only when Republicans want them to.

States' rights apply:
When discriminating based on race
To election law when the state wants to discriminate against the poor


States' right don't apply:
To election law when states want to count the votes accurately (Florida 2000)
To medical marijuana

You, I'm sure, can vastly extend these lists. I don't have enough time to do them justice right now.

[Qutzupalotl]

4. Neither does the Supreme Court. n/t

[MonteSano]

5. the disenfranchisement just never seems to stop

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. Case the USSC cited is ominous, a 6-3 verdict with Souter, Stevens

and Ginsburg in the minority against Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Breyer. See the ACLU summary at http://www.acluprocon.org/SupCtCases/705Timmons.html .

The Timmons case is framed as a state's interest in "ballot security" versus possible "discrimination", and the state "won".

It is especially ominous that the Court did not mention the recent State (MO and GA) decisions on "Voter ID" that framed the issue as illegal poll taxes and weighed costs in terms of disfranchisement against alleged "ballot security" benefits.

On the plus side, at least Rehnquist won't be involved in the forthcoming Arizona decision. He was a real hands-on expert on the use of "ballot security" as a pretext for disfranchising hundreds of thousands of minority voters.

[rumpel]

7. ...what a mess...

:(

[texpatriot2004]

8. Indeed! nm