http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/today-at-the-supreme-court-1908/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/today-at-the-supreme-court-1908/comment-page-1/#comment-14200 Sam Koplewicz Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:03:44 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/today-at-the-supreme-court-1908/#comment-14200 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. 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.

]]>