Round-Up
UPDATE: Slate has posted this discussion of Purcell v. Gonzalez; it’s by Rick Hasen of the Election Law Blog.
Orin Kerr of George Washington University Law responds to Rick’s column this way: “Interesting essay. I suspect the difference is that the current Court is likely to uphold voter ID laws one way or the other, regardless of the empirical question. I would guess they see it as the flip side of campaign finance reform: If the Court is going to defer to the legislature’s guess that campaign finance reform makes elections less corrupt, they can’t then decline to defer to the legislature’s guess that voter ID laws make elections less corrupt. That’s my guess, anyway.” -Orin
The Equal Vote Blog, in a post here, has more analysis of Friday’s decision in the Arizona voter i.d. case [via this post at Election Law Blog].
The AP carried this story about the Supreme Court’s denial of an application for stay in a death penalty case in Ohio [via this post at Sentencing Law & Policy].
Above the Law is conducting a poll asking who your favorite Supreme Court Justice is; you can vote here. Ann Althouse comments on the ballot here.
The execution was carried out at 10:26 today, 16 years after the verdict and at least 10 years later than it should have been. Six years should be plenty of time for a thorough review of a case with no serious question of identity of the perpetrator.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — October 24, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Hasen and others are reading far more into the Supreme Court’s Purcell decision than is warranted. The Court went out of its way to make clear that it was not passing on the merits of challenges to voter ID laws. Instead, it was simply once again reminding the 9th Circuit that the appeals court needs to follow normal procedural rules.
In particular, if you are going to jump in right before a general election to enjoin election rules that have been in place for nearly two years, you ought to give some indication that you have considered the issue carefully and have some very strong reasons for upsetting established procedures in this manner. Instead, the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction pending appeal without explanation, indeed even without waiting to consider a response from the various local election boards that are defendants in the suit. Hasen and others have sought to lessen the Ninth Circuit’s offense by arguing that it was no worse than the district court, which (after conducting a lengthy evidentiary hearing) denied a preliminary injunction in a cursory order (more detailed findings were not issued until several weeks later). But they fail to note that the district judge had previously explained herself last June in a comprehensive order denying a motion for a temporary restraining order. It was inexcusable for the Ninth Circuit to issue what was essentially an ex parte injunction without even attempting to explain why the denial of a preliminary injunction was such an extraordinary abuse of discretion as to warrant an injunction pending appeal.
The Supreme Court was fully justified in correcting the Ninth Circuit’s actions. It went on briefly to note the validity of the concerns raised by both sides in the underlying litigation — that we should not inappropriately “disenfranchise” any voter, either by placing unwarranted obstacles in the way of those seeking to vote, or by devaluing the votes of those who make it to the polls by failing to screen out ineligible individuals. I find it difficult to fathom how the Court can be criticized for those observations, particularly given the Court’s repeated statements that it was not expressing any views on the validity of voter ID requirements.
Comment by Richard Samp — October 24, 2006 @ 5:36 pm