Today at the Supreme Court | 1.9.08
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in the consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25), asking whether Indiana’s law requiring voters to show ID at polling places violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Paul Smith of Washington, D.C., will argue for the petitioner, and Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher and U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will argue for the respondent.
At 11 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (06-1037), asking whether the use of age as a factor in a retirement plan violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Robert Klausner of Plantation, Fla., will argue for the petitioner, and Malcolm Stewart of the Solicitor General’s office will argue for the respondent.
We will provide links to transcripts of the oral arguments as soon as they are available.
I believe that Mr. Smith’s argument in his rebuttal was the most poignant. He makes a great suggestion that all those that do not have IDs can sign a provisional ballot and that signature can be tested in the same manner that the absentee ballots are tested. I would add that these people should be approached and given a photo ID, after the election is complete. This process should not be difficult or expensive if there are only 10,000 people (according to the respondents) that would be affected by the law, a number Mr. Fisher thought to be an “infinitesimal portion.”
Granted I do not believe it is the Courts place to say, we can think of a better law and then implement it. But I do believe that when a law is enacted that does present an unnecessary burden (in pursuing a constitutional right) on citizens, especially one that is slanted toward a particular group (the indigent) of citizens, the court should repel the law. In a country where so few of its citizens vote we should be making it as easy as possible and encouraging people to vote, not make them complete a series of tasks before voting.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the argument could be made that this would fall under “other tax” in the 24th Amendment, though no one brought that up. Possibly it was brought up before reaching the Supreme Court.
Comment by Sam Koplewicz — January 14, 2008 @ 11:03 am