Tuesday, May 6, 2008

This might help...

Last week the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter-ID law.
"The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting,'" Scalia said.
I'm not sure that the Court would consider another case, but the challenge in this particular instance was abstract, challenging the law's intent, with no plaintiff who had in fact been harmed by the law.

Well - now we've got some honestly injured plaintiffs:
Indiana Nuns Lacking ID Denied At Poll By Fellow Sister
(AP) About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."
Now we have real live people injured by the law. Would the Court be willing to reconsider?

Personal opinion: Challengers ought have waited till real plaintiffs, truly injured, were at hand. Now the Court can cite its own precedent in refusing to re-hear the case!


No comments:

Post a Comment